Commands. Josue was only the organ of God, (Calmet) whose orders he announces to the sacred ministers; (ver. 8.; Menochius) though as a civil magistrate, he was bound to hear and to obey them in matters of religion. (Calmet)

When he ordered circumcision to be administered, when he blessed the multitude, and ratified the covenant between God and the people, (Chap. v., and xxiv., &c.) he did nothing but what a virtuous governor ought to do; yet he did not these things by virtue of his civil jurisdiction, or in opposition to the spiritual authority of Eleazar. Moses had been the supreme head, being both priest and king. But only part of his glory was communicated to Josue, while Eleazar was directed to consult the Lord for him, (Numbers xxvii. 21.; Theodoret, q. 48. in Numbers) Josue was to govern at his word, so that he was bound to consider the high priest as his superior. What he therefore did, was in subordination and conformity to the will of Eleazar and of God, and not designed to shew that the priestly authority belonged to himself, as English Protestants would hence infer. The best of princes, both in the Old and New Testament, have always looked upon it as a part of their duty to promote the true religion. (Worthington)

Isaias (xlix) foretold that kings and queens would esteem it their glory to guard and to advance the prosperity of the Church. (Haydock)

Hence they may enact laws for this purpose. (St. Augustine, contra Crescon. iii. 51.) Constantine ratified the judgment passed already by the bishops in the cause of Cecilian, though he confessed at the same time that the determination did not belong to his tribunal; (Worthington) and he greatly disapproved of the conduct of the Donatists, who appealed to him, as the heathens might have done to an emperor, who was at the same time one of their high priests. (Haydock)

O rabida furoris audacia, said he, sicut in causis gentilium fieri solet, appellationem interposuerunt. (1. Optat. c. Parm. i.; St. Augustine, ep. 166.) Other emperors and kings have acquired great fame, on account of their labours and zeal in defence of the Church. Thus the kings of Spain and of France have obtained the titles of Catholic and Most Christian, and our Henry VIII was honoured by Pope Leo X with the title of Defender of the Faith, in 1521, (Worthington) on account of the book which he presented to that pontiff, while he was yet an obedient son of the Catholic Church, and undertook to defend her faith on the sacraments, against the objections of Luther. Is this the faith which the kings of England defend at present? Whatever the princes might do in the old law in spiritual matters, no inference can be drawn for the same right being now exercised by civil magistrates, how supreme soever in their own sphere. Those princes, Josue, &c. might be considered not only in the light of civil governors, but also in that of prophets, who had a great share in the administration of affairs under the Jewish theocracy. If God chose to make known his will by the mouth of a king, or by that of a shepherd, his mandates were to be put in execution with equal exactitude. But now the distinctive limits of the ecclesiastical and of the civil power are more clearly ascertained. Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and to God the things that are God's. (Matthew xxii. 21.) The kingdom of Christ is not of this world; neither did he appoint kings to be the pastors of his Church. (Haydock)