KING
84
KYMG
xvii, 52), and generally waged successful war against the surrounding nations (1 Sam. xiv, 47). See Saul. His successor, David, entered on a series ofbrUliant con- quests over the Philistines, Moabites, Syrians, Edomites, and Ammonites ; and the Israelites, no longer confined within the naiTOW bounds of Palestine, had an empire extending from tlie Iliver Euphrates to Gaza, and from the entering in of Hamath to the river of Egypt (1 Kings iv, 21). In the meanwliilc complaints ceased of the corruption of justice; and Solomon not only consol- idated and maintained in peace the empire of his father David, but left an enduring reputation for his wisdom as a judge. Under this expression, however, we must regard him, not merely as pronouncing decisions, pri- marily or in the last resort, in civil and criminal cases, liut likewise as liolding public levees and transacting public business " at the gate," when he would receive petitions, hear complaints, and give summary decisions on various points, wliich in a modern European kingdom ■would come under the cognizance of numerous distinct public departments. See David ; Solojiox.
3. Functions and Prerogatives. — Emanating as the royal power did from the demand of the people and the permission of a prophet, it was not likely to be unlimit- ed in its extent or arbitrary in its exercise. The gov- ernment of God, indeed, remained, being rather conceal- ed and complicated than disoAvned, nuich less super- seded. The king ruled not in his own right nor in virtue of the choice of the people, but by concession from on higli, and partly as the servant and partly as the representative of the theocracy. How inseciu-e, indeed, was the tenure of the kingly power, how restricted it was in its authority, appears clear from the comparative facility with which the crown was transferred from Saul to David ; and the part whicli the prophet Samuel took ill effecting that transference points out the quarter where lay the power wliich limited, if it did not pri- marily, at least, control the royal authority. It must, however, be added that, if religion narrowed this au- thority, it also invested it witli a sacredness which could emanate from no other source. Liable as the Israelitish kings were to interference on the part of priest and prophet, they were, by the same di\'iiie power, shielded from the unholy hands of the profane vulgar, and it was at once imjjiety and rebellion to do injury to " the Lord's anointed" (Psa. ii, G, 7 sq.). Instances are not wanting to corroborate and extend these general ob- serA-ations. "WTien Saul was in extremity before the Philistines (1 Sam. xxviii), he resorted to the usual methods of obtaining counsel : " Saul inquired of the Lord; the Lord answered him not, neither hy dreams, nor by Urim, nor by tlie prophets." So David, when in need of advice in war (1 Sam. xxx, 7), resorted to Abiathar the priest, who, by means of the ephod, in- quired of the Lord, and thereupon urged the king to take a certain course, which proved successful (see also 2 Sam. ii, 1). Sometimes, indeed, as appears from 1 Sam. xxviii. it was a propliet who acted the part of prune minister, or chief counsellor, to the king, and who, as bearing that sacred character, must have possessed vcrj' weighty influence in the roj'al divan (1 Kings xxii, 7 sq.). We must not, however, expect to find any def- inite and ]icrmancnt distribution of power, any legal determination of the royal jircrogatives as discrimina- ted from the divine authority; circumstances, as they ]ironn)ted certain deeds, restricted or enlarged the sphere of the monarch's action. Tims, in 1 Sam. xi, 4 sq., we find Saul, in an emergency, assuming, without consulta- tion or deliberation, the itower of demanding something like a levy en masse, and of proclaiming instant war. M'ith the king lay the administration of justice in the last resort (2 Sam. xv, 2 ; I Kings iii, Ki sq.). He also jioss?ssed the power of life and dfalh (2 Sam.vxiv). To jtroviile for and superintend the public worsliip was at once his duty and his highest honor (1 Kings viii ; 2 Kings xii, 4; xviii, 4; xxiii, 1). One reason Avhy the people requested a king was that they might have a
recognised leader in war (1 Sam. viii, 20). The INIosaic law offered a jiowerful liindrance to royal despotism (1 Sam. X, 2.")). The peuiilc also, by means of their eklers, formed an express compact, by which they stipulated for their rights (I Kings xii, 4), and were from time to time appealed to, generally in cases of " great pith and moment" (1 Chron. xxix, 1; 2 Kings xi, 17; Joseplius, War, ii, 1, 2). Nor did the people fail to interpose their win, where they thought it necessar}-, in opposition to that of the monarch (1 Sam. xiv, 45). The part which Nathan took against David sho^vs how effective, as well as bold, was the check exerted by the prophets ; indeed, most of the prophetic history is the history of the no- blest opposition ever made to the vices alike of royalty, priesthood, and pcojile. If ncedfid, the prophet hesitated not to demand an audience with the king, nor was he daz- zled or deterred by royal po\ver and pomp (1 Kings xx, 22, 38 ; 2 Kings i, 15). As, however, the monarch held the sword, the instrument of death was sometimes made to prevail over every restraining influence (1 Sam. xxii, 17). See Prophet.