That great man, however, well knew what were the elements with which he had to deal in framing institutions for the rescued Israelites. Slaves they had been, and the spirit of slavery was not yet wholly eradicated from their souls. They had, too, witnessed in Egypt the more than ordinary pomp and splendour which environ a throne, dazzling the eyes and captivating the heart of the uncul tured. Not improbably the prosperity and abun dance which they had seen in Egypt, and in which they had been, in a measure, allowed to partake, might have been ascribed by them to the regal form of the Egyptian government. Moses may well, therefore, have apprehended a not very re mote departure from the fundamental type of his institutions. Accordingly he makes a special pro vision for this contingency (Deut. xvii. 4), and labours, by anticipation, to guard against the abuses of royal power. Should a king be demanded by the people, tben he was to be a native Israelite ; he \vas not to be drawn away by the love of show, especially by a desire for that regal display in which horses have always borne so large a part, to send down to Egypt, still less to cause the people to return to that land ; he was to avoid the corrupting influence of a large harem, so common among Eastern monarchs ; he was to abstain from amass ing silver and gold ; Ile was to have a copy of the law made expressly for his own study—a study vvhich he was never to intermit till the end of his days ; so that his heart might not be lifted up above his brethren, that he might not be turned aside from the living God, but observing the divine statutes, and thus acknowledging himself to be no more than the vicegerent of heaven, Ile might enjoy happiness, and transmit his authority to his descend ants.
This passage has, indeed, been pronounced to stand apart from any connection in the Pentateuch, and to betray a much later hand than that of Moses. If our view is correct, it has a very ob vious connection, and proceeds from the Hebrew legislator himself. Nor can it, we think, be denied that the reason is by no means an unlikely nor in sufficient one, by which we have supposed Moses to have been prompted in promulgating the provi sional and contingent arrangements which are found in the passage under consideration. Most emphati cally is the act of taking a king ascribed by Moses to the people themselves, whom he represents as being influenced by considerations not dissimilar to those which we have assigned : When thou,' etc. and shalt say, Twill set a king over me, like as alt.' the nations that are about me.' Winer, however, from whom (Real-wol terb.) we have taken this objec tion, argues in opposition to Staudlin (Bertholdt's Theal. 7011771., iii. 259, 36r, sq.), that if Moses had anticipated a demand for a king, he would have made provision for such a demand at an ear lier period—a remark which rests on no evidence of verisimilitude whatever, the opposite of the sup posed course being just as probable. Besides, it may be affirmed, without the possibility of receiving any contradiction but that of mere assertion, that he made the provision as soon as he foresaw the probable need. I,ess solid, if possible, is Winer's other argument, namely, that in the passage (i Sam. viii.) in which are recorded the people's demand of a king, and the prophet Samuel's reply, no trace is found of a reference to the alleged Mosaic law on the point. A reference in form Winer could scarcely expect ; a reference in substance we see very clearly. We have not room to go into particu lars, but recommend the reader carefully to com pare the two passages.
The Jewish polity, then, was a sort of sacer dotal republic— we say sacerdotal, because of the great influence which, fiorn the first, the priestly order enjoyed, having no human head, but being under the special supervision, protection, and guid ance of the Almighty. The nature of the conse quences, however, of that divine influence avowedly depended on the degree of obedience and the ge neral faithfulness of the nation. The good, there fore, of such a superintendence in its immediate results was not necessary, but contingent. The removal of Moses and of Joshua by death soon left the people to the natural results of their own con dition and character. Anarchy ensued. Noble minds indeed, and stout hearts, appeared in those who were termed Judges ; but the state of the country was not so satisfactory as to prevent an unenlightened people, having low and gross affec tions, from preferring the glare of a crown and the apparent protection of a sceptre, to the invi sible, and therefore mostly unrecognised, arm of Omnipotence. A king, accordingly, is requested. The misconduct of Samuel's sons, who had been made judges, was the immediate occasion of the demand being put forth. The request came with authmity, for it emanated front all the elders of Israel, who, after holding a formal conference, proceeded to Samuel, in order to make him ac quainted with their wish. Samuel was displeased ; but having sought in prayer to learn the divine will, he is instructed to yield to the demand on a ground which we should not assuredly have found stated, had the hook in which it appears been tampered with or fabricated for any courtly purposes or any personal ends, whether by Samuel himself, or by David, or any of his successors— ' for they have not rejected thee (Samuel), but thcy have rejected me, that I should not reign over them' (ver. 7, see also ver. S). Samuel is,
moreover, directed to protest solemnly unto them, and show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.' Faithfully does the prophet depict the evils which a monarchy would inflict on the people. In vain : they said, Nay, but we will have a king over us.' Accordingly, Saul the son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, was by divine direction selected, and privately anointed by Samuel to be captain over God's inheritance :' thus he was to hold only a delegated and subordi nate authority. Under the guidance of Samuel, Saul is subsequently chosen by lot from among the assembled tribes ; and though his personal appearance had no influence in the choice, yet when he was plainly pointed out to be the indi vidual designed for the sceptre, Samuel called attention to those qualities which in less civilized nations have a preponderating influence, and are never without effect, at least, in supporting the divinity which doth hedge a king :" See ye him whom the Lord bath chosen, that there is none like him among all the people,' for he was higher than any of the people from his shoulders and upward ; and all the people shouted, God save the king.' Emanating as the royal power did from the de mand of the people and the permission of a prophet, it was not likely to be unlimited in its extent or arbitrary in its exercise. The govern ment of God, indeed, remained, being rather con cealed and complicated than disowned, much less superseded. The king ruled not in his own right, nor in virtue of the choice of the people, but by concession from on high, and partly as the servant and partly as the representative of the theocracy. How insecure, 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 which the prophet Samuel took in effecting that transference points out the quarter where lay the power which limited, if it did not primarily, at least, control the royal authority. It must, however, be added, that if religion narrowed this authority, it also invested it with a sacredness which could emanate from no other source. Liable as the Israelite kings were to interference on the part of priest and prophet, they were, by the same divine power, shielded from the unholy hands of the profane vulgar ; and it was at once impiety and rebellion to do injury to the Lord's anointed' (Ps. ii. 6, 7, sq.) Instances are not wanting to corroborate and ex tend these general observations. When Saul was in an extremity before the Philistines (I Sam. xxviii,), Ile resorted to the usual methods of obtain ing counsel : Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.' So David, when in need of advice in war (I Sam. xxx. 7), resorted to Abiathar the priest, who, by means of the ephod, inquired of the Lord, and thereupon urged the king to take a certain course, which proved suc cessful (see also 2 Sam. ii. I). Sometimes, indeed, as appears from Sam. xxviii., it was a prophet who acted the part of prime minister, or chief counsellor, to the king, and who, as bearing that sacred character, must have possessed very weighty influence in the royal divan (r Kings xxii. 7, sy.) We must not, however, expect to find any definite and permanent distribution of power, any legal determination of the royal prerogatives as discri minated from the divine authority; circumstances, as they prompted certain deeds, restricted or en larged the sphere of the monarch's action. Thus, in I Sam. xi. 4, sq., we find Saul, in an emergency, assuming, without consultation or deliberation, the power of demanding something like a levy en masse, and of proclaiming instant war. With the king lay the administration of justice in the last resort (2 Sant. xv. 2 ; I Kings iii. 16, sq.) Ile also possessed the power of life and death (2 Sam. xiv.) To provide for and superintend the public worship was at once his duty and his highest honour 0 Kings viii. ; 2 Kings xii. 7 ; xviii. 4 ; xxiii. i). One reason why the people requested a king was, that they might have a recognised leader in war (r Sam. viii. 2o). The Mosaic law offered a powerful hindrance to royal despotism (I Sam. x. 25). The people also, by means of their elders, formed an express compact, by which they stipu lated for their rights (r Kings xii. 4), and were from time to time appealed to, generally in cases of 'great pith and moment ' (I Chron. xxix. ; 2 Kings xi. 17 ; Joseph. De Bell. 2zid. 2). Nor did the people fail to interpose their will, where they thought it necessary, in opposition to that of the monarch (I Sam. xiv. 45). The part which Nathan took against David shews how effec tive, 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 de terred by royal power and pomp (r Kings xx. 22, 38 ; 2 Kings i. 15). As, however, the monarch held the sword, the instrument of death was some times made to prevail over every restraining influ ence (I Sam. xxii. 17).