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 neither enact a new law nor repeal an old one, the government continued to be a theocracy, as well under their permanent administration, as we have seen that it was 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 by the law.

The inauguration of the kings was performed with various ceremonies and with great pomp. The principal of these was anointing with holy oil (Psal. lxxxix. 20.), which was sometimes privately performed by a prophet (1 Sam. x. 1. xvi. 1—13. 1 Kings xix. 16. 2 Kings ix. 1-6.), 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 (1 Kings i. 39.), at first in some public place (1 Kings i. 32-34.), and afterwards in the temple, the monarch elect being surrounded by his guards. (2 Kings xi. 11, 12. 2 Chron. xxiii.) It is probable also that he was at the same time girded with a sword. (Psalm xlv. 3.) After the king was anointed he was proclaimed by the sound of the trumpet. In this manner was Solomon proclaimed (1 Kings i. 34, 39.), and (it should seem) also the rebel Absalom. (2 Sam. xv. 10.) When Jehovah proclaimed his law, and himself to be the King of Israel, the sound of the trumpet preceded with great vehemence. (Exod. xix. 16.) The knowledge of this circumstance will explain the many passages in the Psalms, in which God is said to have gone up with a shout; the Lord, with the sound of a trumpet; and the Israelites are called upon, with trumpets to make a joyful noise before the Lord the King. (See Psal. xlvii. 5. xcviii. 6. &c.) From this ceremony of anointing, kings are in the Scriptures frequently termed the anointed of the Lord and of the God of Jacob. (1 Sam. xxiv. 6. 10. xxvi. 9. 11. 16. 23. 2 Sam. xxiii. 1. Psal. ii. 2. lxxxix. 38. Habak. iii. 13.) A diadem or crown was also placed upon the sovereign's head and a sceptre put into his hand (Ezek. xxi. 26. Psal. xlv. 6. 2 Kings xi. 12.), 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. (2 Sam. v. 3. 1 Chron. xi. 3. 2 Kings xi. 12. 2 Chron. xxiii. 11. compare Deut. xvii. 18.) The nobles in their turn promised obedience, and appear to have confirmed this pledge with a kiss, either of the knees or feet. (Psal. ii. 12.) Loud acclamations accompanied with music then followed, after which the king entered the city. (1 Kings i. 39, 40. 2 Kings xi. 12. 19. 2 Chron. xxiii. 11.) To this practice there are numerous allusions both in the Old Testament (Psal. xlvii. 2—9. xcvii. 1. xcix. 1.,

&c.), as well as in the New (Matt. xxi. 9, 10. Mark xi. 9, 10. Luke xix. 35-38.); in which last-cited passages the Jews, by welcoming our Saviour in the same manner as their kings were formerly inaugurated, manifestly acknowledged him to be the Messiah whom they expected. Lastly, after entering the city, the kings seated themselves upon the throne, and received the congratulations of their subjects. (1 Kings i. 35, 47, 48. xi. 19, 20.) On the inauguration of Saul, however, when there was neither sceptre, diadem, nor throne, these ceremonies were not observed. After the establishment of royalty among the Jews, it appears to have been a maxim in their law, that the king's person was inviolable, even though he might be tyrannical and unjust (1 Sam. xxiv. 5-8); a maxim which is necessary not only to the security of the king, but also to the welfare of the subject. On this principle, the Amalekite, who told David the improbable and untrue story of his having put the mortally wounded Saul to death, that he might not fall into the hands of the Philistines, was, merely on this his own statement, ordered by David to be instantly despatched, because he had laid his hand on the Lord's Anointed. (2 Sam. i. 14.)

The chief distinctions of majesty mentioned in Scripture, were the Royal Apparel, the crown, the throne, and the sceptre. The Royal Apparel, was splendid (Matt. vi. 29.), and the retinue of the sovereigns was both numerous and magnificent. (1 Kings iv. 1-24.) 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 xxii. 30.) It is most probable, after the example of other oriental sovereigns, that their garments were made of purple and fine white linen (Esth. viii. 15.): in after times, it appears from Luke xvi. 19. that the rich and great were clad in purple and fine linen: and this circumstance may account for Pilate's soldiers clothing Christ with purple (Mark xv. 17.), and for Herod the tetrarch, with his men of war, arraying him in a gorgeous, most probably a white robe (Luke xxiii. 11.), thereby in derision clothing him as a king. Further, their Crowns or diadems glittered with gold, silver, and precious stones. (2 Sam. xii. 30. Zech. vi. 11.) Their arms were decorated with bracelets (2 Sam. i. 10.) as those of the Persian sovereigns are to this day; and their thrones were equally magnificent. The Throne of Solomon is particularly described in 1 Kings x. 18-20. Similar to this was the throne on which the sovereign of Persia was seated to receive his late Majesty's ambassador, Sir Gore Ouseley, Bart. It was ascended by steps, on which were painted dragons (that of Solomon was decorated with carved lions; and was also overlaid with fine gold). The Royal Sceptre seems to have been various at different times. That of Saul was a javelin or spear (1 Sam. xviii. 10. xxii. 6.), as Justin informs us was antiently the practice among the early Greek sovereigns.3 Sometimes the sceptre

1 Morier's Second Journey, p. 173. 2 Ibid. p. 174. 3 Hist. lib. xliii. c. 3.

was a walking-stick, cut from the branches of trees, decorated with gold or studded with golden nails. Such sceptres were carried by judges, and by such a sceptre Homer introduces Achilles as swearing, and to a sceptre of this description the prophet Ezekiel unquestionably alludes. (xix. 11.)

In time of peace, as well as of war, it was customary to have watchmen set on high places, wherever the king was, in order to prevent him from being surprised. Thus David, at Jerusalem, was informed by the watchman of the approach of the messengers, who brought him tidings of Absalom's defeat. (2 Sam. xviii. 24-27.) And Jehoram king of Israel, who had an army lying before RamothGilead, kept a watchman on the tower of Jezreel where he was, who spied the company of Jehu as he came, and accordingly announced it to the king. (2 Kings ix. 17. 20.)

It is well known that the tables of the modern oriental sovereigns are characterised by luxurious profusion; and vast numbers are fed from the royal kitchen. This fact serves to account for the apparently immense quantity of provisions stated in 1 Kings iv. 22, 23. 28. to have been consumed by the household of Solomon, whose vessels were for the most part of massive gold (1 Kings x. 21.), and which were furnished throughout the year from the twelve provinces into which he divided his dominions. A similar custom obtains in Persia to this day. Splendid banquets were given by the kings (Dan. v. 1. Matt. xxii. 1. Mark vi. 21.); but it does not appear that women were admitted to them, except in Persia, when the queen was present until the men grew warm with wine. (Dan. v. 2, 3. 23. Esther i. 11. v. 4. 8. vii. 1.3)

4

Numerous are the allusions in the sacred writings to the courts of princes, and to the regal state which they antiently enjoyed. The eastern monarchs were ever distinguished for studiously keeping up the majesty of royalty, and thus inspiring their subjects with the most reverential awe. They were difficult of access, very rarely showing themselves to their people, and lived in the depths of their vast palaces, surrounded with every possible luxury, and gratifying every desire as it arose. In these kingdoms of slaves it was accounted the summit of human grandeur and felicity to be admitted into that splendid circle which surrounded the person of their sovereign; whence the expression of seeing God (Matt. v. 8.) is to be explained of the enjoyment of the highest possible happiness, namely, his favour and protection, especially in the life to come. And as only a select few in the oriental courts were permitted to behold the face of the monarch, it is in reference to this custom that the angel Gabriel replied to Zechariah (who hesitated to believe his annunciation of the Baptist's birth), that he was Gabriel that stood in the

1 Iliad, lib. i. v. 234–239.

2 Morier's Second Journey, p. 274.

3 This is confirmed by Herodotus, lib. v. c. 18. 4 Among the Persians it was death to enter the royal presence without being called for, Esther iv. 11. Herodotus (book i. c. 99.) states Deioces the Mede to have been the first who instituted this ordinance.

presence of God; thus intimating that he stood in a state of high favour and trust with Jehovah. (Luke i. 19.) To dwell, or to stand in the presence of a sovereign is an oriental idiom, importing the most eminent and dignified station at court.

This allusive phraseology beautifully illustrates another very striking passage of Scripture. When the disciples, from their very low conceptions of the nature of Christ's kingdom, were contending among themselves who should be the greatest, our Saviour, in order to dispel these animosities, took a child; and, placing him before them, in the most solemn manner assured them that, unless they were converted, and purified their minds from all ambition and worldly thoughts, they should not enter the kingdom of heaven, should not be deemed proper subjects of the spiritual kingdom of the Messiah. But, continued Jesus Christ, whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven; and, after urging various cautions against harshly treating sincere and humble Christians, he added, Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you that in heaven their angels do always BEHOLD THE FACE OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN. (Matt. xviii. 1-10.); referring to the custom of oriental courts, where the great men, those who are highest in office and favour, are most frequently in the prince's palace and presence. (Esth. i. 14. 1 Kings x. 8. xii. 6. 2 Kings xxv. 19.) On another occasion, after our Lord had promised the apostles that they should sit on twelve thrones to judge the tribes of Israel, still mistaking the spiritual nature of his kingdom, the mother of James and John came to Jesus with her sons, and requested that he would grant that they might sit, the one on his right hand, and the other on his left hand, in his kingdom. (Matt. xx. 20-23.) This alludes to the custom which in those times obtained in the courts of princes; where two of the noblest and most dignified personages were respectively seated, one on each side, next the sovereign himself, thus enjoying the most eminent places of dignity. Compare 1 Kings ii. 19. Psal. xlv. 9. and Heb. i. 3.) In reply to the request of Salome, our Saviour stated that seats of distinguished eminence in his kingdom were not to be given through favour or partiality, but to those only whom God should see properly prepared for them.

The eastern monarchs were never approached but with presents of some kind or other, according to the ability of the individual, who accompanied them with expressions of the profoundest reverence, prostrating themselves to the ground; and the same practice continues

1 Among the antient Persians, to sit next the person of the king, was the highest possible honour. See 1 Esdras iii. 7. iv. 42. Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xi. c. iii. §2. 2 It was (says Elian) the law of Persia, that, whenever their king went abroad, the people should, according to their abilities and occupations, present him, as he passed along, with some gift,- -as an ox, a sheep, a quantity of corn, or wine, or with some fruit. It happened one day, when Artaxerxes was taking the air, that he was met by one Sinætes. The man being at a great distance from home, was in the greatest distress, having nothing to offer, and observing others crowding with their presents. At length he ran to the river Cyrus, and taking up some water in both his hands, he approached the monarch, and thus accosted him:-"O

to this day. Thus Jacob instructed his sons to carry a present to Joseph, when they went to buy food of him as governor of Egypt. (Gen. xliii. 11. 26.) In like manner the magi, who came from the East to adore Jesus Christ, as king of the Jews, brought him presents of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. (Matt. ii. 11.) Allusions to this practice occur in Gen. xxxii. 13. 1 Kings x. 2. 10. 25. 2 Kings v. 5.; see also 1 Sam. ix. 7. and 2 Kings viii. 8. The prostrations were made, with every demonstration of reverence, to the ground. Thus David stooped with his face to the earth, and bowed himself before Saul. (1 Sam. xxiv. 8.) The mode of doing reverence to the sovereign, among the antient 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. Thus the widow of Tekoah, after prostrating herself before David, addressed him with My lord is wise according to the wisdom of an angel of God,3 (2 Sam. xiv. 4. 20.); and the Chaldæan magi accosted Nebuchadnezzar with,-O king, live for ever. (Dan. ii. 4.4) The all but idolatrous homage thus rendered to their monarchs, was exacted by their chief courtiers and favourites of all who approached them: and such was their pride, that the refusal of this homage never failed to involve the refractory individual in ruin. Thus Örsines, a descendant of Cyrus, who had refused to worship the eunuch Bagoas (who had enslaved Alexander by his abominable obsequiousness), fell a victim to the revengeful minion's wounded pride.5 In like manner, Mordecai's refusal to prostrate himself before Haman (Esth. iii. 2.) would have proved fatal not only to himself but also to the Jewish nation, had not the malignant design of the crafty but mortified Agagite been providentially frustrated. (Esth. iii. 3-6. v. 13.)

Eunuchs were introduced into the courts of princes, and also into the families of great men at a very early period; and black eunuchs appear to have been preferred, (as they still are in the East,) at least we find one in the court of Zedekiah. (Jer. xxxviii. 7.)

Those who rendered personal services to the sovereign had their king! reign for ever! I now pay my respects in the best manner I am able. I present to thee some of the waters of the river Cyrus: should your majesty ever pass by, or near my house, I hope to vie with the best of these in my donatives." The monarch was highly pleased with the man, commanded his present to be received into a golden vial, and afterwards handsomely rewarded him. Ælian. Var. Hist. lib. i. c. 31, 32.

1 Quintus Curtius, lib. vi. c. 6. tom. ii. p. 23. (edit. Bipont): lib. viii. c. 5. (p. 118.)

2 Morier's Second Journey, p. 172.: where an engraving is given illustrative of the oriental prostrations,

3 This is very similar to the hyperbolical language, which is addressed by the Hindoos to an European, when they are desirous of obtaining something from him. "Saheb, say they, can do every thing. No one can prevent the execution of Saheb's commands. Saheb is God." (Ward's View of the History, &c. of the Hindoos, vol. ii. p. 323.

4 A similar salutation is to this day given 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!" Ibid. p. 333.

Quintus Curtius, lib. x. c. 1. vol. ii. pp. 199–201. (edit. Bipont.)