Lastly,we read that David made Hashabiah and his brethren,Hebronites,officers of Israel among them westward,"in all business of the Lord,and in the service of the king."Likewise,that he made other Hebronites "rulers over the Reubenites,the Gadites,and the half tribe of Manasseh"(these were the rest of Israel that dwelt beyond Jordan)"for every matter pertaining to God,and affairs of the king."Is not this full power,both temporal and spiritual,as they call it that would divide it?To conclude:from the first institution of God's kingdom,to the Captivity,the supremacy of religion was in the same hand with that of the civil sovereignty;and the priest's office,after the election of Saul,was not magisterial,but ministerial.
Notwithstanding the government both in policy and religion were joined,first in the high priests,and afterwards in the kings,so far forth as concerned the right;yet it appeareth by the same holy history that the people understood it not;but there being amongst them a great part,and probably the greatest part,that no longer than they saw great miracles,or,which is equivalent to a miracle,great abilities,or great felicity in the enterprises of their governors,gave sufficient credit either to the fame of Moses or to the colloquies between God and the priests,they took occasion,as oft as their governors displeased them,by blaming sometimes the policy,sometimes the religion,to change the government or revolt from their obedience at their pleasure;and from thence proceeded from time to time the civil troubles,divisions,and calamities of the nation.
As for example,after the death of Eleazar and Joshua,the next generation,which had not seen the wonders of God,but were left to their own weak reason,not knowing themselves obliged by the covenant of a sacerdotal kingdom,regarded no more the commandment of the priest,nor any law of Moses,but did every man that which was right in his own eyes;and obeyed in civil affairs such men as from time to time they thought able to deliver them from the neighbour nations that oppressed them;and consulted not with God,as they ought to do,but with such men,or women,as they guessed to be prophets by their predictions of things to come;and though they had an idol in their chapel,yet if they had a Levite for their chaplain,they made account they worshipped the God of Israel.
And afterwards when they demanded a king,after the manner of the nations,yet it was not with a design to depart from the worship of God their King;but despairing of the justice of the sons of Samuel,they would have a king to judge them in civil actions;but not that they would allow their king to change the religion which they thought was recommended to them by Moses.So that they always kept in store a pretext,either of justice or religion,to discharge themselves of their obedience whensoever they had hope to prevail.
Samuel was displeased with the people,for that they desired a king (for God was their King already,and Samuel had but an authority under Him);yet did Samuel,when Saul observed not his counsel in destroying Agag as God had commanded,anoint another king,namely,David,to take the succession from his heirs.Rehoboam was no idolater;but when the people thought him an oppressor,that civil pretence carried from him ten tribes to Jeroboam an idolater.And generally through the whole history of the kings,as well of Judah as of Israel,there were prophets that always controlled the kings for transgressing the religion,and sometimes also for errors of state;as Jehoshaphat was reproved by the prophet Jehu for aiding the King of Israel against the Syrians;and Hezekiah,by Isaiah,for showing his treasures to the ambassadors of Babylon.By all which it appeareth that though the power both of state and religion were in the kings,yet none of them were uncontrolled in the use of it but such as were gracious for their own natural abilities or felicities.So that from the practice of those times,there can no argument be drawn that the right of supremacy in religion was not in the kings,unless we place it in the prophets,and conclude that because Hezekiah,praying to the Lord before the cherubim,was not answered from thence,nor then,but afterwards by the prophet Isaiah,therefore Isaiah was supreme head of the Church;or because Josiah consulted Huldah the prophetess,concerning the Book of the Law,that therefore neither he,nor the high priest,but Huldah the prophetess had the supreme authority in matter of religion,which I think is not the opinion of any doctor.
During the Captivity the Jews had no Commonwealth at all;and after their return,though they renewed their covenant with God,yet there was no promise made of obedience,neither to Esdras nor to any other:and presently after they became subjects to the to the Greeks,from whose customs and demonology,and from the doctrine of the Cabalists,their religion became much corrupted:in such sort as nothing can be gathered from their confusion,both in state and religion,concerning the supremacy in either.And therefore so far forth as concerneth the Old Testament,we may conclude that whosoever had the sovereignty of the Commonwealth amongst the Jews,the same had also the supreme authority in matter of God's external worship,and represented God's person;that is,the person of God the Father;though He were not called by the name of Father till such time as He sent into the world His Son Jesus Christ to redeem mankind from their sins,and bring them into his everlasting kingdom to be saved for evermore.Of which we are to speak in the chapter following.