whatever; and further, he was required to rule on principles of equity and immutable justice.  He could not repel the divine voice, whether it spake to his consciousness or was revealed to him by divinely commissioned prophets, without the certainty of divine chastisement.  Thus was his power limited, even by invisible forces superior to his own; for Jehovah had not withdrawn his special jurisdiction over the chosen people for whom he was preparing a splendid destiny,—­that is, through them, the redemption of the world.

Whether the people of Israel did not believe the predictions of the prophet, or wished to have a kingly government in spite of its evils, in order to become more powerful as a nation, we do not know.  All that we know is that they persisted in their demand, and that God granted their request.  With all the memories and traditions of their slavery in the land of Egypt, and the grinding despotism incident to an absolute monarchy of which their ancestors bore witness, they preferred despotism with its evils to the independence they had enjoyed under the Judges; for nationality, to which the Jewish people were casting longing eyes, demands law and order as the first condition of society.  In obedience to this same principle the grinding monarchy of Louis XIV. seemed preferable to the turbulence and anarchy of the Middle Ages, since unarmed and obscure citizens felt safe in their humble avocations.  In like manner, after the license of the French Revolution the people said, “Give us a king once more!” and seated Napoleon on the throne of the Bourbons,—­a ruler who took one man out of every five adults to recruit his armies and consolidate his power, which he called the glory of France.  Thus kings have reigned by the will of the people,—­or, as they call it, by the grace of God,—­from Saul and David to our own times, except in those few countries where liberty is preferred to material power and military laurels.

The peculiar situation of the Israelites in a narrow strip of territory which was the highway between Syria and Egypt, likely to be overrun by Aramaeans, Assyrians, Babylonians, and Egyptians, to say nothing of the hostile nations which surrounded them, such as Moabites and Philistines, necessarily made them a warlike people (like the inhabitants of the Swiss Cantons five or six hundred years ago), and they were hence led to put a high estimate on military qualities, especially on the general who led them to battle.  They accordingly desired a greater centralized power than the Judges wielded, which could be exercised only by a king, intrenched in a strong capital.  Their desire for a king was natural, and almost excusable if they were willing to pay the inevitable price.  They simply wished to surrender liberty for protection and political safety.  They did not repudiate the fundamental doctrine of their religion; they simply wanted a change of government,—­a more efficient administration.

The selection of a king did not rest with the people, however, but with the great prophet who had ruled them with so much wisdom and ability, and who was regarded as the interpreter of the will of God.