The part which Nathan took against David shows bow effective, as well as bold, was the check exerted by the prophets; indeed, most of the prophetic history is the history of the noblest opposition ever made to the vices alike of royalty, priesthood, and people.
If needful, the prophet hesitated not to demand an audience of the king, nor was he dazzled or deterred by royal power and pomp (i Kings xx: 22, 38; 2 Kings i As, however, the monarch held the sword, the instrument of death was some times made to prevail over every restraining in fluence (t Sam. xxii:17).
(8) Transfer of the Crown to David. After the transfer of the crown from Saul to David, the royal power was annexed to the house of the lat ter, passing from father to son, with preference to the eldest born, though he might be a minor. Jehoash was seven years old when he began to reign (2 Kings xi:21).
This rule was not, however, rigidly observed, for instances are not' wanting in which nomination of a younger son gave him a preferable title to the crown (/ Kings i:17; 2 Chron. xi:21). The people, too, and even foreign powers, at a later period, interrupted the regular transmission of royal authority (2 Kings xxi:24; xxiii:24, 3o; xxiv :17).
The ceremony of anointing, which was observed at least in the case of Saul, David, and Solomon (t Sam. ix :t4 ; x:t ; xv:t ; xvi:t2; 2 Sam. ii :4 ; v:3 ; Kings i:34, 39, 4o), and in which the prophet or high-priest who performed the rite acted as the representative of the theocracy and the expounder of the will of heaven, must have given to the spiritual power very considerable influence. And both in this particular and in the very nature of the observance directs the mind to Egypt, where the same custom prevailed, and where the power of the priestly caste was im mense (Wilkinson's Ancient Egyptians, v, 279). Indeed, the ceremony seems to have been essential to constitute a legitimate monarch (2 Kings xi: 12; xxiii:3o) ; and thus the authorities of the Jewish church held in their hands, and had sub ject to their will, a most important power, which they could use either for their own purposes or the common good. We have seen in the case of Saul that personal and even external qualities had their influence in procuring ready obedience to a sovereign; and further evidence to the same ef fect may be found in Ps. xlv:3; Ezek. xxviii:i2.
Such qualities would naturally excite the enthusi asm of the people, who appear to have manifested their approval by acclamations (t Sam. x:24; Kings :25 ; 2 Kings ix :t3 ; xi :13 ; 2 Chr011. XXIII : I I ; see also Joseph. De Bell. Jud. i, 33, 9). Jubi lant music formed a part of the popular rejoicings (I Kings i:4o) ; thank-offerings were made (1 Kings i:25) ; the new sovereign rode in solemn procession on the royal mule of his predecessor (1 Kings i:38), and took possession of the royal harem—an act which seems to have been scarcely less essential than other observances which ap pear to us to wear a higher character (t Kings ii:t3, 22; 2 SaM. XVI :22).
A numerous harem, indeed, was among the most highly estimated of the royal luxuries (2 Sant. v:13; r Kings xi:1; xx :3). It was under the supervision and control of eunuchs,and passed from one monarch to another as a part of the crown property (2 Sam. xii :8). The law (Deut. xvii:17), foreseeing evils such as that by which Solomon, in his later years, was turned away from his fidelity to God, had strictly forbidden many wives. But Eastern passions and usages were too strong for a mere written prohibition, and a corrupted religion became a pander to royal lust, interpreting the Divine command as sanc tioning eighteen as the minimum of wives and concubines.
(9) Royal Revenues. In the original distri bution of the land no share, of course, was re served for a merely possible monarch; yet the kings were not without several sources of in come. In the earlier periods of the monarchy the simple manners which prevailed would render copious revenues unnecessary ; and a throne which was the result of a spontaneous demand on the part of the people, would easily find support in freewill offerings especially in a part of the world where the great are never approached without a present. There seems also reason to conclude that the amount of the contributions made by the people for the sustenance of the monarch depended, in a measure, on the degree of popular ity which, in any particular case, he enjoyed, or the degree of service which he obviously ren dered to the st'ate (I Sant. x:27; XVi :20; 2 Sam.