death of Moses and Joshua, was without power; yet was it not without right. Now that the _interpretation of God’s word_ did belong to the same high-priest, is manifest by this; that God, after the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant was consecrated, spake no more in Mount Sinai, but in the tabernacle of the covenant, from the propitiatory which was between the _cherubims_, whither it was not lawful for any to approach except the high-priest. If therefore regard be had to the _right_ of the kingdom, the supreme civil power and the authority of interpreting God’s word were joined in the high-priest. If we consider the _fact_, they were united in the prophets who judged Israel. For as _judges_, they had the civil authority; as _prophets_, they interpreted God’s word. And thus every way hitherto these two powers continued inseparable. [Sidenote: They were united in the kings, until the captivity.] 16. Kings being once constituted, it is no doubt but the _civil authority_ belonged to them. For the kingdom of God by the way of priesthood (God consenting to the request of the Israelites) was ended; which Hierom also marks, speaking of the books of Samuel. Samuel, says he, Eli being dead and Saul slain, declares the old law abolished. Furthermore, the oaths of the new priesthood and new sovereignty in Zadok and David, do testify that the right, whereby the _kings_ did rule, was founded in the very concession of the people. The priest could rightly do whatsoever every man could rightly do himself; for the Israelites granted him _a right_ to _judge_ of all things, and to _wage war_ for all men; in which two are contained all right whatsoever can be conceived from man to man. _Our king_ say they (1 Sam. viii. 20) _shall judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles_. _Judicature_ therefore belonged to the kings. But to _judge_ is nothing else, than by _interpreting_ to apply the _laws_ to the _facts_. To them therefore belonged the interpretation _of laws_ too. And because there was no other written word of God acknowledged beside the _law of_ Moses, until the captivity; the authority _of interpreting God’s word_ did also belong to the kings. Nay, forasmuch as the word of God must be taken for a law, if there had been another written word beside the Mosaical law, seeing the interpretation of laws belonged to the kings, the interpretation of it must also have belonged to them. When the book of Deuteronomy, in which the whole Mosaical _law_ was contained, being a long time lost was found again; _the priests_ indeed asked counsel of God concerning that book, but not by their own authority, but by the commandment of Josiah; and not immediately neither, but by the means of Holda the prophetess. Whence it appears that the authority of admitting books for the word of God, belonged not to the priest. Neither yet follows it, that that authority belonged to the prophetess; because others did judge of the