elected by the magistrates for the express reason that God had promised him the throne. Saul was not established in his kingdom till after he had delivered the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead from the Ammonites; and the rulers tendered the sceptre to David, because he, in the time of Saul, had defeated the enemies of Israel.

KINE. See CATTLE.

KING,melech. Though Samuel "peaceably and religiously judged Israel," it appears that in his old age the tribes in Southern Palestine and beyond the Jordan, were particularly earnest for a change in the constitution of the land, because they feared that, after the death of Samuel, there would be no supreme magistrate, and thus the nation being again disunited they would be left to their fate. The degeneracy of the sons of Samuel who had been appointed subordinate judges or deputies, increased their apprehensions. They therefore strenuously insisted in their demand: "Nay, but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations." (1Sam. 8. 19.) They had reason to hope that a king, who possessed supreme authority, would unite the powers of the whole nation, and protect each tribe with the collected strength of all; that under him the affairs of government would be more properly administered, and necessary aid more readily afforded. They imagined they might be justified in this request, because Moses himself takes it for granted, that the nation would eventually have a king, and the same thing had been promised to their great progenitor Abraham. (Gen. 17. 16; Deut. 28. 36.) Samuel laid their prayer before the Lord, and then, in obedience to the Divine direction, anointed Saul, the son of Kish, as their monarch. (1Sam. 10. 1.)

"By this alteration of the constitution," Professor Jahn observes, "the theocracy was indeed thrown somewhat into the shade, since it could be no longer so clearly manifest that God was the king of the Hebrews. Still, however, as the principles of the theocracy were interwoven with the fundamental and unchangeable law of the state, their influence did not entirely cease, but the elected king was to act as the viceroy and vassal of Jehovah. On this account, Moses had already established the following regulations. (Deut. 17. 14-20.)`

“(1.) That the Hebrews, whenever they adopted the monarchical form of government, should raise those only to the throne who were designated by Jehovah himself. The will of Jehovah was to be made known by a prophet, or by means of the sacred lot, Urim and Thummim; and the viceroy-elect was to prove himself an instrument of God by protecting the commonwealth against its foes. The succession of the royal house depended on the appointment of God, and was indicated by prophets. Saul, David, and Jeroboam, received the promise of the throne from prophets, and by them was announced the succession of the family of David, and of the different families in the kingdom of Israel. These Divine interpositions were well calculated to remind the kings of Him on whom they were dependant, and to whose choice they were indebted for the throne.

"(2.) Moses had likewise ordained that the king should be a native Israelite; thus foreigners were excluded from the throne, even though they should be proposed by false prophets; for, being heathens, they might transgress the fundamental law of the state by the introduction of idolatry. This regulation had reference merely to free elections, and was by no means to be understood as it was explained by Judas Galileus (Acts 5. 37) and the Zealots, during the last war with the Romans, that the Hebrews were not to submit to those foreign powers under whose dominion they were brought by an all-directing Providence. On the contrary, Moses himself had predicted such events, and Jeremiah and Ezekiel earnestly exhorted their countrymen to surrender themselves quietly to the Chaldæans."

With regard to the external qualifications which the Jews appear to have required of their kings, comeliness of person and tallness of stature seem to have been the principal requisites. Thus, although Saul was constituted king of Israel by the special appointment of God,. yet it appears to have been no inconsiderable circumstance in the eyes of the people, that he was a choice young man and goodly, and that there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he: from the shoulders and upwards he was higher than any of the people. (1Sam. 9. 2.) And therefore Samuel said to the people, when he presented Saul to them: See ye him whom the Lord hath chosen that there is none like him among all the people. (1Sam. 10. 24.) Hence, also, David is said to have been "ruddy withal, of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to." (1Sam. 16. 12.)

As cavalry could be of little use in the mountainous regions of Palestine, and as the king of the Hebrews was never to become a conqueror of foreign lands, or a universal monarch, he was forbidden to maintain large bodies of cavalry, or to attempt the conquest of Egypt in order to obtain horses.

The king was likewise prohibited from multiplying wives to himself, that his heart turn not away from the law and worship of the God of Israel, by his being seduced into idolatry in consequence of foreign alliances. How grossly this law was violated by Solomon and other monarchs, the history of the Jews and Israelites abundantly proves.

In order that he might not be ignorant of true religion, and of the laws of the Israelites, the king was enjoined to write out, for his own use, a correct copy of the Divine Law; which injunction was intended to rivet this law more firmly in his memory, and to keep him in constant subjection to its authority. For the same purpose, he was required to read in this copy "all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law, and these statutes to do them."

Thus the power of the Israelitish kings was circumscribed by a code of fundamental and equal laws, provided by infinite wisdom and rectitude. It appears that the Israelitish kings were by no means possessed of unlimited power, but were restricted by a solemn stipulation; although they on some occasions evinced a disposition towards despotism (1Sam. 11. 5-7; 22. 17,18.) They had, however, the right of making war

and peace, as well as the power of life and death; and could on particular occasions put criminals to death without the formalities of justice, (2Sam. 1. 5-15; 4. 9-12;) but in general they administered justice; sometimes in a summary way by themselves, where the case appeared clear, as David did occasionally, (2Sam. 12. 1-5; 14. 4-11; 1Kings 2. 5-9,) or by judges duly constituted to hear and determine causes in the king's name. (1Chron. 23. 4; 26. 29-32.)

Although the kings enjoyed the privilege of granting pardons to offenders at their pleasure, without consulting any person; and in ecclesiastical affairs exercised great power, sometimes deposing or condemning to death even the high-priest himself, (1Sam. 22. 17,18; 1Kings 2. 26,27,) and at other times, reforming gross abuses in religion, of which we have examples in the zealous conduct of Hezekiah and Josiah; yet this power was enjoyed by them not as absolute sovereigns in their own right; they were merely the viceroys of Jehovah, who was the sole legislator of Israel; and, therefore, as the kings could, on no occasion, either enact a new law, or alter or repeal an old one, the government continued to be a theocracy, as well under their permanent administration as under the occasional administration of the Judges. The only difference that can be discovered between the two species of government, is, that the conduct of the judges was generally directed by Urim, and that of the kings, either by the inspiration of God vouchsafed to themselves, or by prophets raised up from time to time to reclaim them when deviating from their duty, as laid down in the law. The monarch was also charged, that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren; in other words, to govern his subjects with mildness and beneficence, not as slaves, but as brothers. So David styled his subjects his brethren. (1Chron. 28. 2.)

The inauguration of the Jewish kings was performed with great pomp and with various ceremonies. The principal of these was anointing with holy oil, (Psalm 89. 20,) which was sometimes privately performed by a prophet, (1Sam. 10. 1; 16. 1-13,) and was a symbolical prediction that the person so anointed would ascend the throne; but after the monarchy was established, this unction was performed by a priest, (1Kings 1. 39;) at first in some public place, (1Kings 1. 32-34,) and afterwards in the Temple, the monarch elect being surrounded by his guards. (2Kings 11. 11,12; 2Chron. 23.) It is probable, also, that he was at the same time girded with a sword. (Psalm 45. 3.) After the king was anointed he was proclaimed by the sound of a trumpet. In this manner was Solomon proclaimed. (1 Kings 1. 34,39.) From this ceremony of anointing, kings are, in the Scriptures, frequently termed the anointed of the Lord, and of the God of Jacob. (1Sam. 24. 6,10; 26. 9,11,16,23; 2Sam. 23. 1.) A diadem or crown was also placed upon the sovereign's head, and a sceptre put into his hand, (2Kings 11. 12; Psalm 45. 6; Ezek. 21. 26;) after which he entered into a solemn covenant with his subjects that he would govern according to its conditions and to the law of Moses. (2Sam. 5. 3; 1Chron. 11. 3.) The nobles in their turn promised obedience, and appear to have confirmed this pledge with a kiss, either of the knees or feet. (Psalm 2. 12.) Loud acclamations accompanied with music then followed, after which the king entered the city. (1 Kings 1. 39,40; 2Kings 11. 12,19.) To this practice there are numerous allusions both in the Old Testament, (Psalm 47. 1-9; 97. 1,) as well as in the New, (Matt. 21. 9,10; Mark 11. 9,10; Luke 19. 35-38;) in which last cited passage, the Jews, by welcoming Our Saviour in the same manner as their kings were formerly inau

gurated, manifestly acknowledged Him to be the Messiah whom they expected. After entering the city, the kings seated themselves upon the throne, and received the congratulations of their subjects. (1 Kings 1. 35,47,48; 2Kings 11. 19,20.)

The robe which was worn by kings as suited to their elevated rank, was costly and gorgeous; and the retinue which attended them was both large in point of numbers and splendid in appearance. (1Kings 4. 1-24.) The materials of which the robe was made was fine white linen or cotton, and that the apparel of the Jewish monarchs was different from that of all other persons, is evident from Ahab's changing his apparel before he engaged in battle, and from Jehoshaphat's retaining his. (1 Kings 22. 30.) Among the appropriate ornaments of the king's person, there was none so rich and valuable anciently, and there is none so costly and splendid at the present day in Asia, as the royal diadem; which is irradiated with pearls and gems. They had also a chain for the neck and bracelets for the arms. In Persia, a diadem was worn not only by the king himself, but, with a little variation in its shape, by his relations and others to whom special favours had been conceded. (Esth. 8. 15.) See CROWN.

The throne, ND kesi, was a seat with a back and arms, and of a height to render a footstool necessary. (Gen. 41. 40.) On the monuments of Egypt, this form of throne is frequently represented accompanied by the footstool. The throne of Solomon is particularly described in 1Kings 10. 18-20. This throne was placed on a flooring, elevated six steps, on each of which steps, and on either side, was the figure of a lion, making twelve of them in the whole. Similar to this was the throne on which the sovereign of Persia was seated to receive Sir Gore Ouseley, the English ambassador. It was ascended by steps, on which were painted dragons, (that of Solomon was decorated with carved lions,) and was overlaid with fine gold.

The royal sceptre appears to have varied at different times. That of Saul was a javelin or spear, (1Sam. 18. 10; 22. 6,) but generally the sceptre, a shebet, was a wooden rod or staff, not much shorter in point of length than the ordinary height of the human form, and was surmounted with an ornamental ball on the upper extremity, as may still be seen in the sculptures of Persepolis. This sceptre was either overlaid with gold, or, according to ancient authorities, was ornamented with golden studs and rings. To such sceptres, the prophet Ezekiel seems to allude. (19. 11.) The sceptre in the hands of the kings and gods of Egypt, is generally surmounted by the head of the hoopoe, and in some cases the lotus flower. If we endeavour to seek for the origin of this ensign of royal authority, we shall find the first suggestion of it, either in the pastoral staff that was borne by shepherds, or in those staves which at the earliest period were carried by persons of high rank, merely for show and ornament. (Gen. 38. 18; Numb. 17. 7; Psalm 23. 4.)

The table of the Hebrew kings and everything connected with it exhibited the same luxurious profusion as characterizes modern Oriental sovereigns, and numbers were fed from the royal kitchen. This fact may serve to account for the apparently immense quantity of provisions, stated in 1Kings 4. 22,23,28, to have been consumed by the household of Solomon, whose vessels were for the most part of massive gold. (1 Kings 10. 21.) The provisions were supplied throughout the year from the twelve provinces into which he divided his dominions, as is the custom, according to Mr. Morier, in Persia to this day.

A numerous household is to the present day an indis

pensable piece of regal state in the East. Thus, not less than two thousand persons are said by Mr. Jowett to be employed about the palace of the emir of the Druses. "We saw many professions and trades going on in it; soldiers, horse-breakers, carpenters, blacksmiths, scribes, cooks, tobacconists, &c. There was in the air of this mingled assemblage, something which forcibly brought to my recollection the description of an Eastern royal household, as given by Samuel. (1Sam. 8. 11-17.)"

There are frequent allusions in the Sacred Writings to the courts of princes, and to the regal state which they anciently enjoyed. See COURTS.

The mode of doing reverence to the sovereign among the ancient Persians, was little short of absolute idolatry; and similar prostrations are made by their descendants in the present day. On these occasions, it was usual to address them with some compliment, or with wishes for their long life, and such was the case among the Jews. Thus the widow of Tekoah, after prostating herself before David addressed him with, "My lord is wise according to the wisdom of an angel of God," (2Sam. 14. 20;) and the Chaldæan magi accosted Nebuchadnezzar with, "O king, live for ever." (Dan. 2. 4.) A similar salutation, according to Roberts, is given at this day in India. When a poor man goes into the presence of a king to solicit a favour, he says, “O father, thou art the support of the destitute. Mayest thou live to old age!"

The homage rendered to these monarchs was equally exacted by their chief courtiers and favourites of all who approached them; thus Mordecai's refusal to prostrate himself before Haman, (Esth. 3. 2,) would have proved fatal not only to himself but also to the Jewish nation, had not the malignant design of this wicked man been providentially frustrated. (Esth. 3. 3-6; 5. 13.)

The

When Oriental monarchs perform long journeys, they are surrounded with a great and splendid retinue, and formerly sent harbingers before them to prepare all things for their passage, and pioneers to open the passes, level the ways, and remove all impediments. ancient sovereigns of Hindostan used to send persons to precede them on their journeys, and command the inhabitants to clear the roads: a very necessary step in a country where there are scarcely any public roads; and when a modern Hindoo of rank has to pass through a town or village, a messenger is despatched to tell the people to prepare the way, and to await his orders. To this practice the prophet Isaiah manifestly alludes. (ch. 40. 3, compared with Malachi 3. 1; Matt. 3. 3, and Mark 1. 3.)

The Hebrew kings when they travelled either rode on asses and mules, (2Sam. 13. 29; 17. 23,) or rode in chariots, being preceded by soldiers, who formed their body guard. (1 Kings 1. 5.) See GUARD.

The sources of revenue to the Hebrew kings were, no doubt, nearly the same with those in other Oriental countries; from what can be gathered from the Sacred Writings, it appears that they were derived from the following sources:

(1.) Presents which were given voluntarily. (1Sam. 10. 27; 16. 20.) Michaëlis, however, is of opinion that they were confined to Saul only, as no trace of them is to be found after his time.

723

arable lands, vineyards, olive and sycamore grounds, which had originally been uninclosed and uncultivated, or were the property of state criminals: these demesnes were cultivated by bondsmen, and, perhaps, also by the people of conquered countries; and it appears from 1Samuel 8. 14; 22. 7, and Ezekiel 46. 17, that the kings assigned part of their domains to their servants in lieu of salary.

(4.) The tenth part of all the produce of the fields and vineyards, the collection and management of which seem to have been confided to the officers mentioned in 1Kings 4. 7, and 1Chronicles 27. 25. It is probable, from 1Kings 10. 14, that the Israelites likewise paid a tax in money. These imposts Solomon appears to have increased; and Rehoboam's refusal to lessen them is stated by the sacred historian as the cause of the rebellion of the ten tribes against him. (1Kings 12. 14,18.) (5.) Another source of revenue was the spoils of conquered nations, the most valuable portion of which became the king's. It was in this way, that David collected the most of his treasures. The nations that were subdued in war likewise paid tribute, which was given partly in money, and partly in agricultural produce. (1Kings 4. 21; Psalm 72. 10.)

(6.) The tribute imposed upon merchants who passed through the Hebrew territories, and who in the time of Solomon carried on a very extensive and lucrative trade, (1 Kings 10. 22,) particularly in Egyptian horses, and the fine linen of Egypt.

Those who sustained the station of servants and officers to the king, were entirely dependent on his will, and, on the other hand, for example, as governors of provinces, they exercised a similar arbitrary power over those who were immediately subject to themselves. Hence it is, that the prophets frequently complain of their oppressions and violence.

The royal officers of every grade were denominated the servants of the king, and, like the Orientals of the present day, they took a pride in being thus denominated.

66

"Those who had the management of the collection of the revenues," says Professor Jahn, or were entrusted indeed in any way, were not customarily called to an account. In case they were called upon to render an account of their proceedings, they showed themselves prompt at the arts of deception; but the consequence of an attempt at misrepresenting, or defrauding, was almost certain ruin. (Luke 16. 2.)"

King, in symbolical language, signifies the possessor of supreme power, whether lodged in one or more persons. (Prov. 8. 15,16.) The term is applied especially to God, as sovereign over all. (Psalm 10. 16; 29. 10.) It is also applied to the Messiah, (Psalm 2. 6;) and in Job 18. 14 it is applied to Death, who is there called the "king of terrors." In Job 41. 34, leviathan, or the crocodile, is thus designated: "he is a king over all the children of pride." In Revelations 15. 3, God is called the "king of saints;" and, (ch. 1. 6,) “king" is applied to all true Christians who are consecrated to God as kings and priests.

The