himself of his own accord. When an oath was exacted, whether by a judge or another, the person who exacted it put the oath in form; and the person to whom it was put, responded by saying, Amen, Amen, so let it be: or gave his response in other expressions of like import, such as u was, Thou hast said it. (Num. v. 19-22. 1 Kings xxii. 16. Deut. xxvii. 15-26.) Sometimes the exacter of the oath merely used the following, adjuration, viz. I adjure you by the living God to answer, whether this thing be so or not. And the person sworn accordingly made answer to the point inquired of. (Num. v. 22. Matt. xxvi. 64.) It should be remarked here, that although the formulary of assent on the part of the respondent to an oath was frequently AMEN, AMEN, yet this formulary did not always imply an oath, but, in some instances, was merely a protestation. As the oath was an appeal to God (Lev. xix. 12. Deut. vi. 13.), the taking of a false oath was deemed a heinous crime; and perjury, accordingly, was forbidden in those words, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, that is, shalt not call God to witness in pretended confirmation of a falsehood. (Exod. xx. 6.)

It was also common to swear by those whose life and prosperity were dear to the party making oath. Thus, Joseph swore by the life of the king (Gen. xlii. 15.); and this practice prevailed subsequently among the Hebrews. (1 Sam. xxv. 26. 2 Sam. xi. 11. xiv. 19. comp. Psal. lxiii. 11.) A person sometimes swore by himself, and sometimes by the life of the person before whom he spoke, as in 1 Sam. í. 26.

2 Kings ii. 2. Judg. vi. 13. 15. 1 Kings iii. 17. 26.; a practice which obtains in Syria to this day. In some instances, persons adjured others by the beasts of the field (Sol. Song ii. 7.), a sort of adjuration which still makes its appearance in the writings of the Arabian poets.2

In the time of Christ, the Jews were in the habit of swearing by the altar, by Jerusalem, by heaven, by the earth, by themselves, by their heads, by the gold of the temple, by sacrifices, &c. Because the name of God was not mentioned in these oaths, they considered them as imposing but small, if any obligation; and we, accordingly, find, that our Saviour takes occasion to inveigh, in decided terms, against such arts of deception. (Matt. v. 33-37. xxiii. 16-22.) It is against oaths of this kind, and these alone (not against an oath uttered in sincerity), that he expresses his displeasure, and prohibits them. This is clear, since he himself consented to take upon him the solemnity of an oath (Matt. xxvi. 64.); and since Paul himself, in more than one instance, utters an adjuration. Compare Rom. ix. 1. 2 Cor. i. 23.

In the primitive periods of their history, the Hebrews religiously observed an oath (Josh. ix. 14, 15.); but we find, that, in later times, they were often accused by the prophets of perjury. After the captivity, the Jews became again celebrated for the scrupulous observance of what they had sworn to, but corruption soon increased among them: they revived the old forms, the words without the meaning; and acquired among all nations the reputation of perjurers.



I. Of Strangers.-II. Of the Aged, Blind, and Deaf-III. Of the Poor.

ALL wise legislators have deemed it an important branch | the Hebrews, appear to have been placed in favourable cirof political economy, to direct their attention towards aliens and to the poor: and the humanity and wisdom of the Mosaic regulations in this respect will be found not unworthy of a divinely inspired legislator.

I. STRANGERS are frequently mentioned in the laws of Moses, who specifies two different descriptions of them, viz. 1. (TOSCHⱭBIM), or those who had no home, whether they were Israelites or foreigners; and 2. (GERIM), or those who were strangers generally, and who possessed no landed property, though they might have purchased houses. Towards both of these classes the Hebrew legislator enforced the duties of kindness and humanity, by reminding the Israelites that they had once been strangers in Egypt. (Lev. xix. 33, 34. Deut. x. 19. xxiii. 7. xxiv. 18.) Hence he ordained the same rights and privileges for the Israelites, as for strangers. (Lev. xxiv. 19-22. Num. ix. 14. xv. 5.) Strangers might be naturalized, or permitted to enter into the congregation of the LORD, by submitting to circumcision, and renouncing idolatry. (Deut. xxiii. 1-9.) The Edomites and Egyptians were capable of becoming citizens of Israel after the third generation. Doeg the Edomite (1 Sam. xxi. 8. Psal. lii.) was thus naturalized; and, on the conquest of Idumæa by the Jews, about 129 years before the birth of Christ, the Jews and Idumæans became one people. It appears, also, that other nations were not entirely excluded from being incorporated with the people of Israel: for Uriah the Hittite, who was of Canaanitish descent, is represented as being a fully naturalized Israelite. But the "Ammonites and Moabites, in consequence of the hostile disposition which they had manifested to the Israelites in the wilderness, were absolutely excluded from the right of citizenship."5

"In the earlier periods of the Hebrew state, persons who were natives of another country, but who had come, either from choice or necessity, to take up their residence among

[blocks in formation]

cumstances. At a later period, viz. in the reigns of David and Solomon, they were compelled to labour on the religious edifices, which were erected by those princes; as we may learn from such passages as these:-And Solomon numbered all the strangers that were in the land of Israel, after the num bering wherewith David his father had numbered them; and they were found a hundred and fifty thousand and three thousand and six hundred, and he set threescore and ten thousand of them to be bearers of burdens, and fourscore thousand to be hewers in the mountain. (2 Chron. ii. 1. 17, 18. compared with 1 Chron. xxii. 2.) The exaction of such laborious services from foreigners was probably limited to those who had been taken prisoners in war; and who, according to the rights of war as they were understood at that period, could be justly employed in any offices, however low and however laborious, which the conqueror thought proper to impose. In the time of Christ, the degenerate Jews did not find it convenient to render to the strangers from a foreign country those deeds of kindness and humanity, which were not only their due, but which were demanded in their behalf by the laws of Moses. They were in the habit of understanding by the word neighbour, their friends merely, and accordingly restricted the exercise of their benevolence by the same narrow limits that bounded in this case their interpretation; contrary as both were to the spirit of those passages, which have been adduced in the preceding paragraph."

II. In a monarchy or aristocracy, birth and office alone give rank, but in a democracy, where all are on an equal footing, the right discharge of official duties, or the arrival of OLD AGE, are the only sources of rank. Hence the Mosaic statute in Lev. xix. 32. (before the hoary head thou shalt stand up, and shalt reverence the aged), will be found suited to the republican circumstances of the Israelites, as well as conformable to the nature and wishes of the human heart: for no man has any desire to sink in honour, or to be of less old age cannot be a matter that will ever affect a young man consequence than he was before; and to allow precedence to very sensibly. Nor does Moses confine his attention to the aged. He extends the protection of a special statute to the DEAF and the BLIND, in Lev. xix. 14., which prohibits re • Jahn's Archæologia Biblica, by Upham, p. 197.

viling the one or putting a stumbling-block in the way of the other. In Deut. xxvii. 18. a curse is denounced against him who misleads the blind.

were consumed on the altar: the remainder, after deducting the priest's portion, was appropriated to the sacrifice feasts, to which the Israelites were bound to invite the stranger, the widow, and the orphan. "When any part of these tenths remained, which they had not been able to bring to the altar or to consume as offerings, they were obliged every three years to make a conscientious estimate of the amount, and, without presenting it as an offering to God, employ it in benevolent entertainments in their native cities." (Deut. xii. 5-12. 17-19. xiv. 22—29. xvi. 10, 11. xxvi. 12, 13.)1

III. With regard to those whom misfortune or other circumstances had reduced to poverty, various humane regulations were made for though Moses had, by his statutes relative to the division of the land, studied to prevent any Israelites from being born poor, yet he nowhere indulges the hope that there would actually be no poor. On the contrary he expressly says (Deut. xv. 11.), THE POOR shall never cease out of thy lund; and he enjoins the Hebrews to open wide their hands to their brethren, to the poor and to the needy in But though Moses has made such abundant provision for their land. He exhorts the opulent to assist a decayed Isra- the poor, yet it does not appear that he has said any thing elite with a loan, and not to refuse even though the sabbati- respecting beggars. The earliest mention of beggars occurs cal year drew nigh (Deut. xv. 7-10.); and no pledge was in Psal. cix. 10. In the New Testament, however, we read to be detained for the loan of money that served for the pre- of beggars, blind, distressed, and maimed, who lay at the servation of his life or health (Deut. xxiv. 12, 13.), or was doors of the rich, by the way sides, and also before the gate necessary to enable him to procure bread for himself and of the temple. (Mark x. 46. Luke xvi. 20, 21. Acts iii. 2.)2 family, as the upper and nether mill-stones. During harvest, But "we have no reason to suppose, that there existed in the owner of a field was prohibited from reaping the corn the time of Christ that class of persons called vagrant begthat grew in its corners, or the after-growth: and the scat-gars, who present their supplications for alms from door to tered ears, or sheaves carelessly left on the ground, equally door, and who are found at the present day in the East, belonged to the poor. After a man had once shaken or although less frequently than in the countries of Europe. beaten his olive trees, he was not permitted to gather the That the custom of seeking alms by sounding a trumpet or olives that still hung on them: so that the fruit, which did horn, which prevails among a class of Mohammedan monasnot ripen until after the season of gathering, belonged to the tics, Kalendar or Karendal, prevailed also in the time of poor. (Lev. xix. 9, 10. Deut. xxiv. 19, 20, 21. Ruth ii. 2- Christ, may be inferred from Matt. vi. 2.; where the verb 19.) Further, whatever grew during the sabbatical year, in axons, which possesses the shade of signification, that the fields, gardens, or vineyards, the poor might take at plea- would be attached to a corresponding word in the Hiphil sure, having an equal right to it with the owners of the land. form of the Hebrew verbs, is to be rendered transitively, as Another important privilege enjoyed by the poor was, what is the case with many other verbs in the New Testament. were called second tenths and second firstlings. "Besides the There is one thing characteristic of those orientals, who are tenth received by the Levites, the Israelites were obliged to reduced to the disagreeable necessity of following the vocaset apart another tenth of their field and garden produce; and tion of mendicants, which is worthy of being mentioned; in like manner, of their cattle, a second set of offerings, for they do not appeal to the pity or to the alms-giving spirit, the purpose of presenting as thank offerings at the high fes- but to the justice of their benefactors. (Job xxii. 7. xxxi. tivals." Of these thank offerings only certain fat pieces 16. Prov. iii. 27, 28.)"






I. The earliest Wars, predatory Excursions.—II. Character of the Wars of the Israelites.-Their Levies how raised.— Mosaic Statutes concerning the Israelitish Soldiers.—III. Divisions, and Officers of the Jewish Armies ;—which were sometimes conducted by the Kings in Person-Military Chariots.-IV. Encampments.-V. Military Schools and Training.— VI. Defensive Arms.-VII. Offensive Arms.-VIII. Fortifications.—IX. Mode of declaring War.—X. Military Tactics.Order of Battle.-Treatment of the Slain, of captured Cities, and of Captives.-XI. Triumphant Reception of the Conquerors.-XII. Distribution of the Spoil.-Military Honours conferred on eminent Warriors.—A military Order established by David.-XIII. Trophies.

I. THERE were not wanting in the earliest ages of the world men who, abusing the power and strength which they possessed to the purposes of ambition, usurped upon their weaker neighbours. Such was the origin of the kingdom founded by the plunderer Nimrod (Gen. x. 8-10.), whose name signifies a rebel; and it was most probably given him, from his rejection of the laws both of God and man, and supporting by force a tyranny over others. As mankind continued to increase, quarrels and contests would naturally arise, and, spreading from individuals to families, tribes and nations, produced wars. Of the military affairs of those times we have very imperfect notices in the Scriptures. These wars, however, appear to have been nothing more than predatory incursions, like those of the modern Wahabees and Bedouin Arabs, so often described by oriental travellers. The patriarch Abraham, on learning that his kinsman Lot had been taken captive by Chedorlaomer and his confederate emirs or petty kings, mustered his trained servants, three hundred and eighteen in number; and coming against the enemy by night, he divided his forces, and totally

1 Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. ii. pp. 254-259. Jahn's Archæologia, by Upham, p. 198.

2 Ibic p. 249.

discomfited them. (Gen. xiv. 14-16.) The other patriarchs also armed their servants and dependants, when a conflict was expected. (Gen. xxxii. 7-12. xxxiii. 1.)4

II. Although the Jews are now the very reverse of being a military people (in which circumstance we may recognise the accomplishment of prophecy), yet anciently they were eminently distinguished for their prowess. But the notices concerning their discipline which are presented to us in the Sacred Writings, are few and brief.

The wars in which the Israelites were engaged, were-of two kinds, either such as were expressly enjoined by divine

This section is chiefly translated from Calmet's Dissertation sur la Milice des anciens Hebreux, inserted in the third volume of his Commentaire Littérale sur la Bible, and also in vol. i. pp. 205-240. of his Dissertajudgment of the celebrated tactician, the Chevalier Folard, discusses the tions qui peuvent servir de Prolegomènes de l'Ecriture; which, in the military affairs of the Hebrews with so much accuracy and knowledge, as to leave scarcely any room for additions. (Dissertation on the Military Tactics of the Hebrews, in vol. iii. p. 535. of the folio English translation of Calmet's Dictionary.) The Dissertation of the Chevalier Folard has also been consulted; together with Alber's Inst. Herm. Vet. Test. tom. i. pp. 239-247.; Schulzii Archæologia Hebraica, pp. 132-146.; Jahn, Archæ ologia Biblica, §§ 266-296.; Ackermann, Archæologia Biblica, $$ 260-288.; Home's Hist. of the Jews, vol. ii. pp. 303-316.; Bruning, Antiq. Hebr. pp. 74-91.; Carpzovii Antiquitates Gentis Hebrææ, pp. 665-671. See Lev. xxvi. 36. Deut. xxviii. 65, 66.

command, or such as were voluntary and entered upon by the prince for revenging some national affronts, and for the honour of his sovereignty. Of the first sort were those undertaken against the seven nations of Canaan, whom God had devoted to destruction, viz. the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites (strictly so called), the Perizzites, the Hivites, the Jebusites, and the Girgashites. These the Israelites were commanded to extirpate, and to settle themselves in their place. (Deut. vii. 1, 2. and xx. 16, 17.) There were indeed other nations who inhabited this country in the days of Abraham, as may be seen in Gen. xv. 19, 20. But these had either become extinct since that time, or being but a small people were incorporated with the rest. To these seven nations no terms of peace could be offered; for, being guilty of gross idolatries and other detestable vices of all kinds, God thought them unfit to live any longer upon the face of the earth. These wars, thus undertaken by the command of God, were called the wars of the Lord, of which a particular record seems to have been kept, as mentioned in Num. xxi. 14.

In the voluntary wars of the Israelites, which were undertaken upon some national account, such as most of those were in the times of the Judges, when the Moabites, Philistines, and other neighbouring nations invaded their country, and such as that of David against the Ammonites, whose king had violated the law of nations by insulting his ambassadors, there were certain rules established by God, which were to regulate their conduct, both in the undertaking and carrying on of these wars. As, first, they were to proclaim peace to them, which, if they accepted, these people were to become tributaries to them; but if they refused, all the males, upon besieging the city, were allowed to be slain, if the Israelites thought fit; but the women and little ones were to be spared, and the cattle with the other goods of the city were to belong, as spoil, to the Israelites. (Deut. xx. 1015.) Secondly, in besieging a city they were not to commit unnecessary waste and depredations; for though they were allowed to cut down barren trees of all sorts, to serve the purposes of their approaches, yet they were obliged to spare the fruit trees, as being necessary to support the lives of the inhabitants in future times, when the little rancour, which was the occasion of their present hostilities, should be removed and done away. (Deut. xx. 19, 20.)

The Israelites, in the beginning of their republic, appear to have been a timorous and cowardly people; their spirits were broken by their bondage in Egypt; and this base temper soon appeared upon the approach of Pharaoh and his army, before the Israelites passed through the Red Sea, which made them murmur so much against Moses. (Exod. xiv. 10, 11, 12.) But in no instance was their cowardice more evident, than when they heard the report of the spies concerning the inhabitants of the land, which threw them into a fit of despair, and made them resolve to return into Egypt, notwithstanding all the miracles wrought for them by God. (Num. xiv. 1-6.) It was on this account that David, who was well acquainted with their disposition, says, that they got not the land in possession by their own sword, neither did their own arm save them, but thy right hand and thine arm, and the light of thy countenance, because thou hadst a favour unto them. (Psal. xliv. 3.)

After their departure from Egypt, the whole of the men, from twenty years and upwards, until the age of fifty (when they might demand their discharge if they chose), were liable to military service, the priests and Levites not excepted. (Num. i. 3. 22. 2 Sam. xxiii. 20. 1 Kings ii. 35.) Like the militia in some countries, and the hardy mountaineers of Lebanon at this day,' they were always ready to assemble at the shortest notice. If the occasion were extremely urgent, affecting their existence as a people, all were summoned to war; but ordinarily, when there was no necessity for convoking the whole of their forces, a selection was made. Thus Joshua chose twelve thousand men, in order to attack the Amalekites (Exod. xvii. 9, 10.): in the war with the Midianites, one thousand men were selected out of each tribe (Num. xxxi. 4, 5.), and in the rash assault upon the city of Ai, three thousand men were employed. (Josh. vii. 3, 4.) The book of Judges furnishes numerous instances of this

A recent learned traveller in the Holy Land, describing the present state of Mount Lebanon, says, that, "of the peasants, great numbers carry arms. In fact, every young man may in some sense be called a soldier, and would in case of need muster as such: the gun which serves him for field-sport and sustenance is ready for the call of war; and his discipline consists in the bracing, hardy habits of a mountaineer." Rev. W. Jowett's Christian Researches in Syria, p. 74. (London, 1825. 8vo.)

mode of selection. Hence we read in the Scriptures of choosing the men, not of levying them. In like manner, under the Roman republic, all the citizens of the military age (seventeen to forty-six years) were obliged to serve a certain number of campaigns, when they were commanded. On the day appointed, the consuls held a levy (delectum habebant), by the assistance of the military or legionary tribunes; when it was determined by lot in what manner the tribes should be called. The consuls ordered such as they pleased to be cited out of each tribe, and every one was obliged to answer to his name under a severe penalty. On certain occasions, some of the most refractory were put to death. To the above described mode of selecting troops, our Saviour alluded, when he said that many are called, but few chosen (Matt. xx. 16.): the great mass of the people being convened, choice was made of those who were the most fit for service.

This mode of selecting soldiers accounts for the formation of those vast armies, in a very short space of time, of which we read in the Old Testament. The men of Jabesh Gilead, who, in the beginning of Saul's reign, were besieged by the Ammonites, had only seven days' respite given them to send messengers to the coasts of Israel, after which, if no relief came to them, they were to deliver up the city and have their eyes put out, which was the best condition, it seems, they could procure. (1 Sam. xi. 1, 2, 3.) As soon as Saul was informed of it, he, by à symbolical representation of cutting a yoke of oxen in pieces, and sending them all over Israel, signified what should be done to the oxen of such as did not appear upon this summons. In consequence of this summons, we find that an army of three hundred and thirty thousand men was formed, who relieved the place within the seven days allowed them. In like manner, when the children of Israel had heard of the crime that was committed by the inhabitants of Gibeah against the Levite's concubine, it is said, that they resolved not to return to their houses till they had fully avenged this insult (Judg. xx. 8.), and accordingly, upon the tribe of Benjamin's refusing to deliver up these men, an army was soon gathered together of four hundred thousand men of war. (verse 17.) Nor was the providing of their armies with necessaries any impediment to these sudden levies; for in the beginning of the Jewish republic, their armies consisting altogether of infantry, every one served at their own expense, and ordinarily carried their own arms and provisions along with them. And thus we find that Jesse sent a supply of provisions by David to his other three sons that were in Saul's camp (1 Sam. xvii. 13. 17.), which gave David an opportunity of engaging Goliath; and this was the chief reason why their wars in those days were ordinarily but of a short continuance, it being hardly possible that a large body could subsist long upon such provisions as every one carried along with him. After the time of Solomon, their armies became vastly numerous: we read that Abijah king of Judah had an army of four hundred thousand men, with which he fought Jeroboam king of Israel, who had double that number (2Chron. xiii. 3.), and it is said there were five hundred thousand killed of Jeroboam's army. (ver. 17.) Asa king of Judah had an army of nearly six hundred thousand men, when he was attacked by Zerah the Ethiopian with a host of a million of men. (2 Chron. xiv. 8, 9.) Jehoshaphat king of Judah had eleven hundred and sixty thousand men, without reckoning the garrisons in his fortified places. (2 Chron. xvii. 14-19.)

Various regulations were made by Moses concerning the Israelitish soldiers, which are characterized by equal wisdom and humanity. Not to repeat what has already been noticed above, we may remark that the following classes of persons were wholly exempted from military service (Deut. xx. 5-8. xxiv. 5.); viz.

1. He, who had built a new house, and had not dedicated it, was to return home, lest he should die in battle, and another man dedicate it. From the title of Psal. xxx.-A Psalm or Song at the dedication of the house of David,-it was evidently a custom in Israel to dedicate a new house to Jehovah, with prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, in order that he might obtain the divine blessing.

2. Those who had planted a vine or olive yard, and who had not yet eaten of its produce.

3. Every man who had betrothed a wife and had not taken her home. It is well known, that among the Jews a considerable time sometimes elapsed between the espousal or betrothing of the parties and the celebration of a marriage. When the bridegroom had made proper preparations, the 2 Dr. Adam's Roman Antiquities, pp. 362, 363. fifth edit.

bride was conducted to his house, and the nuptials were | officers were appointed by the Snoterim, genealogists or officonsummated.

4. Every newly married man, during the first year after his marriage. The humanity of these exemptions will be the more evident, when it is recollected that, anciently, it was deemed an excessive hardship for a person to be obliged to go to battle (in which there was a probability of his being slain) who had left a new house unfinished, a newly purchased heritage half tilled, or a wife with whom he had just contracted marriage. Homer represents the case of Protesilaus as singularly afflicting, who was obliged to go to the Trojan war, leaving his wife in the deepest distress, and his house unfinished.'

cers (as they are termed in our version), who probably chose the heads of families; but after the monarchy took place, they received their commissions either from the king in the same manner as at present, as appears from 2 Sam. xviii. 1. and 2 Chron. xxv. 5.; or from the commander-in-chief (2 Sam. xviii. 11.): and it should seem that a captain's commission was denoted by giving a military girdle or sash. (2 Sam. xviii. 11.)

The first and principal Head of the armies of Israel was the Almighty himself, who is so frequently termed in Scripture the Lord of Hosts. The whole nation marched forth under the superintending guidance of their God. Subordinate 5. The last exemption was in favour of the fearful and to Him, and as his lieutenant-general, was the principal officer, faint hearted; an exemption of such a disgraceful nature, or leader of the whole army, who, in the Scriptures, is termed that one would think it never would have been claimed. the CAPTAIN OF THE LORD'S HOST, and who appears to have Such, however, was the case in Gideon's expedition against been of the same rank with him who is now called the comthe Midianites. Ten thousand only remained out of thirty-mander-in-chief of an army. Such were Joshua and the two thousand, of which number his army originally consisted; Judges under the primitive constitution of their government twenty-two thousand having complied with his proclamation, as settled by God himself: such was Abner under Saul (2 Sam. that whosoever was fearful and afraid might return and depart ii. 8.), Joab under David (2 Sam. xx. 23.), and Amasa under early from Mount Gilead. (Judg. vii. 3.)2 Absalom, when he was raising a rebellion against his father. (2 Sam. xvii. 25.) The command and authority of this captain of the host appear to have been very great, sometimes indeed, nearly equal to that of the sovereign. David seems to have been afraid of Joab his commander-in-chief; otherwise he would never have suffered him to live after the sanguinary assassinations which he had perpetrated. It is evident that the captain of the host enjoyed great influence in the time of Elisha: for we read, that the prophet having been hospitably entertained by an opulent woman at Shunem, and being desirous of making her some acknowledgment for her kindness, ordered his servant Gehazi to inquire what she would wish to have done for her. Wouldst thou be spoken for to the king, or to the CAPTAIN OF THE HOST? (2 Kings iv. 13.)

Before the regal government was established, the Israelitish army was entirely disbanded at the conclusion of a war. The earliest instance recorded of any military force being kept in time of peace, is in the reign of Saul, who retained two thousand for his body guard, and one thousand for his son Jonathan's guard. (1 Sam. xiii. 1, 2.) David had a distinct guard, called Cherethites and Pelethites, concerning the origin of whose name various contradictory opinions have been offered. Josephus, however, expressly says, that they were his guards, and the Chaldee paraphrast terms them archers and slingers. Besides these he had twelve bodies of twenty-four thousand men each, who were on duty for one month, forming an aggregate of two hundred and eighty-eight thousand men. (1 Chron. xxvii. 1-15.) Subsequently, when the art of war was improved, a regular force seems to have been kept up both in peace and war; for, exclusive of the vast army which Jehoshaphat had in the field, we read that he had troops throughout all the fenced cities, which doubtless were garrisoned in time of peace as well as during war. III. The OFFICERS who were placed at the head of the Hebrew forces appear not to have differed materially from those whom we find in ancient and modern armies..

The Division of the army into three bands or companies, mentioned in Gen. xiv. 14, 15. Job i. 17. Judg. vii. 16. 20. 1 Sam. xi. 11. and 2 Sam. xviii. 2., was probably no other than the division into the centre, left, and right wing, which obtains in the modern art of war. The Hebrews, when they departed from Egypt, marched in military order, on (AL TSEBOTAM) by their armies or hosts (Exod. xii. 51.), and (ve-chaмUSHIM), which word in our English Bibles (Exod. xiii. 18.) is rendered harnessed, and in the margin, by five in a rank. It is probable, from these expressions, that they followed each other in ranks fifty deep, and that at the head of each rank or file of fifty was the captain of fifty. (1 Sam. viii. 12. 2 Kings i. 9-14.) The other divisions consisted of tens, hundreds, thousands, &c.; and the officers that commanded them are styled captains of thousands, captains of hundreds, captains of fifties, and captains of tens; of these mention is made in 1 Chron. xii. 14. 20. xiii. 1. xxviii. 1. and 2 Kings i. 9. 11. 13. These, probably, were of the same rank with those whom Moses constituted in the wilderness, rulers of thousands, &c. (Exod. xviii. 25.), and who at first acted in a double capacity, being at the same time civil magistrates and military officers. The captains of thousands seem to have been much the same as colonels of regiments with us; and the captains of hundreds might probably answer to those who in our army have the command of troops and companies; the captains of fifties and tens to our subalterns, sergeants, and corporals. During the Mosaic commonwealth, in conformity to the law in Deut. xx. 9., all these

1 Iliad, lib. ii. 700-702.

2 Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. iii. pp. 34-37.

On this subject the reader may consult the Dissertations of Ikenius, De Crethi et Plethi (Lug. Bat. 1749), and of Lakemacher, Observationes Philologica, part ii. pp. 11-44., and also Michaelis's Commentaries on the Law of Moses, § 232.

It is from this circumstance "that the Divine. Being calls himself the LORD OF HOSTS, or armies; because the Israelites were brought out of Egypt under his direction, marshalled and ordered by himself, guided by his wisdom, supported by his providence, and protected by his might. This is the true and simple reason, why God is so frequently styled in Scripture the Lord of Hosts: for the LORD did bring the children of Israel out of Egypt by their armies." Dr. A. Clarke's Commentary, on Exod. xii. 51.

After the establishment of the monarchy, the kings went to war in person, and at first fought on foot, like the meanest of their soldiers. Thus David fought, until the danger to which he exposed himself became so great, that his people would no longer allow him to lead them on to battle. (2 Sam. xxi. 17.) It does not appear that there were any horse in the Israelitish army before the time of Solomon. In the time of David there were none; for the rebel Absalom was mounted on a mule in the battle in which he lost his life. (2 Sam. xviii. 9.) Solomon, who had married the daughter of the king of Egypt, procured horses from that country at a great expense (1 Kings x. 28, 29.); and afterwards had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. (2 Chron. ix. 25.) From Zech. xiv. 20. it should seem, that bells formed a part of the caparison of war-horses. Subsequent kings of Judah and Israel went into the battle in chariots, arrayed in their royal vestments, or sometimes in disguise. They generally had a spare chariot to attend them: thus we read that king Josiah, after he was mortally wounded, was taken out of his war-chariot, and put into another, in which he was carried to Jerusalem. (2 Chron. xxxv. 23, 24. 1 Kings xxii. 34.) Both kings and generals had armourbearers, who were chosen from the bravest of the soldiery, and not only bore the arms of their masters, but were also employed to give his commands to the subordinate captains, and were present at his side in the hour of peril. (i Sam. xiv. 6. xvii. 7.)

Military chariots were much in use among the Egyptians, Canaanites, and other oriental nations. Two sorts are mentioned in the Scriptures; one in which princes and generals rode, the other to break the enemy's battalions by rushing in among them, armed with iron scythes, which caused terrible havoc. The most ancient war-chariots, of which we read, are those of Pharaoh, which were destroyed in the Red Sea (Exod. xiv. 7.): his infantry, cavalry, and war-chariots were so arranged as to form separate divisions of his army. (Exod. xiv. 6, 7.) The Canaanites, whom Joshua engaged at the waters of Merom, had cavalry and a multitude of chariots. (Josh. xi. 4.) Sisera, the general of Jabin, king of Hazor had nine hundred chariots of iron in his army. (Judg. iv. 3.) The tribe of Judah could not obtain possession of part of the lands allotted to them, because the inhabitants of the country were strong in chariots of iron. (Judg. i. 19.) The Philistines, in their war with Saul, had thirty thousand chariots, and six thousand horsemen. (1 Sam. xiii. 5.) David, having taken a thousand war-chariots from Hadadezer, king of Damascus, ham-strung the horses, and burnt nine hundred cha

They were also used among the ancient Britons.

A shield-bearer was an office among the Jews as well as he Philistines, for David when he first went to court was made king Saul's armour-bearer (1 Sam. xvi. 21.), and Jonathan had a young man who bore his armour before him. (1 Sam. xiv. 1.) Besides this tsinnah, or great massy shield, Goliath was furnished with a less one (I Sam. xvii. 6. and 45.), which is not expressed by one of the fore-mentioned words, but is called cidon, which we render a target in one place and a shield in another, and was of a different nature from the common shields. He seems not only to have held it in his hand when he had occasion to use it, but could also at other times conveniently hang it about his neck and turn it behind, on which account it is added, that it was between his shoulders. The loss of the shield in fight was excessively resented by the Jewish warriors, as well as lamented by them, for it was a signal ingredient of the public mourning, that the shield of the mighty was vilely cast away. (2 Sam. i. 21.) David, a man of arms, who composed the beautiful elegy on the death of Saul related in 2 Sam. i. 19-27., was sensible how disgraceful a thing it was for soldiers to quit their shields in the field, yet this was the deplorable case of the Jewish soldiers in that unhappy engagement with the Philistines (1 Sam. xxxi. 7.), they fled away and left their shields behind them; this vile and dishonourable casting away of that principal armour is deservedly the subject of the royal poet's lamentation.

But these honourable sentiments were not confined to the Jews. We find them prevailing among most other ancient nations, who considered it infamous to cast away or lose their shield. With the Greeks it was a capital crime, and punished with death. The Lacedemonian women, it is well known, in order to excite the courage of their sons, used to deliver to them their fathers' shields, with this short address: "This shield thy father always preserved; do thou preserve it also, or perish." Alluding to these sentiments, Saint Paul, when exhorting the Hebrew Christians to steadfastness in the faith of the Gospel, urges them not to cast away their confidence, their confession of faith, which hath great recompense of reward, no less than the approbation of God, the peace which passeth all understanding here, and the glories of heaven, as their eternal portion. (Heb. x. 35.)

and those with which they annoyed the enemy at a distance.
Of the former description were the sword and the battle-axe.
1. The SWORD is the most ancient weapon of offence men-
tioned in the Bible. With it Jacob's sons treacherously as-
sassinated the Shechemites. (Gen. xxxiv. 25.) It was worn
on the thigh (Psal. xlv. 3. Exod. xxxii. 27.), and it should
seem on the left thigh; though it is particularly mentioned
that Ehud, a Benjamite, put a dagger or short sword under
his garments on his right thigh. (Judg. iii. 16.) The palan-
quin, or travelling couch of Solomon (Song iii. 7, 8. where
our version terms it a bed), was surrounded by threescore
valiant Israelitish soldiers, every one of whom had his sword
girt upon his thigh. There appear to have been two kinds
of swords in use, a larger one with one edge, which is called
in Hebrew the mouth of the sword (Josh. vi. 21.); and a
shorter one with two edges, like that of Ehud. The modern
Arabs, it is well known, wear a sabre on one side, and a
cangiar or dagger in their girdles.
2. Of the BATTLE-AXE we have no description in the
Sacred Volume: it seems to have been a most powerful
weapon in the hands of cavalry, from the allusion made to
it by Jeremiah:-Thou art my battle-axe and weapons of war;
for with thee will I break in pieces the nations, and with thee
will I destroy kingdoms: and with thee will I break in pieces
the horse and his rider, and with thee will I break in pieces the
chariot and his rider. (Jer. li. 20, 21.)

The other offensive weapons for annoying the enemy at a distance, were the spear or javelin, the sling, and the bow and arrow.

3. The SPEAR or JAVELIN (as the words (ROMACH), and (CHANITH), are variously rendered in Num. xxv. 7. 1 Sam. xiii. 19. and Jer. xlvi. 4.) was of different kinds, according to its length or make. Some of them might be thrown or darted (1 Sam. xviii. 11.); and it appears from 2 Sam. ii 23. that some of them were pointed at both ends. When armies were encamped, the spear of the general or commander-in-chief was stuck into the ground at his head.2 4. SLINGS are enumerated among the military stores collected by Uzziah. (2 Chron. xxvi. 14.) In the use of the sling, David eminently excelled, and slew Goliath with a stone from one. The Benjamites were celebrated in battle because they had attained to a great skill and accuracy in handling this weapon; they could sling stones to a hair's breadth, and not miss (Judg. xx. 16.); and where it is said that they were left-handed, it should rather be rendered ambidexters, for we are told, they could use both the right-hand and the left (1 Chron. xii. 2.); that is, they did not constantly use their right hand as others did, when they shot co-arrows or slung stones, but they were so expert in their military exercises, that they could perform them with their left hand as well as with their right.

It may be further observed, that they used to scour and polish their arms, as may be inferred from the prophet's expressions of furbishing the spears and making bright the arrows (Jer. xlvi. 4. and li. 11.), and it should seem that such shields as were covered with leather were oiled in order to keep them clean, and prevent them from becoming too dry. To this custom there is an allusion in 2 Sam. i. 21. and Isa. xxi. 5. When the shields were not in use, they were vered with a case, in order to preserve them from being rusty and soiled; hence we read of uncovering the shield, which signifies preparing for war, and having that weapon especially in readiness. (Isa. xxii. 6.)

4. Another defensive provision in war was the MILITARY GIRDLE, OF BELT, which answered a twofold purpose, viz. first, in order to wear the sword, which hung at the soldier's girdle or belt (1 Sam. xvii. 39); secondly, it was necessary to gird their clothes and armour together, and thus David girded his sword upon his armour. To gird and to arm are synonymous words in Scripture; for those who are said to be able to put on armour are, according to the Hebrew and the Septuagint, girt with a girdle, and hence comes the expression of girding to the battle. (1 Kings xx. 11. Isa. viii. 9. 2 Sam. xxii. 40.) The military girdle was the chief ornament of a soldier, and was highly prized among all ancient nations: it was also a rich present from one chieftain to another. Thus, Jonathan gave his girdle to David, as the highest pledge of his esteem and perpetual friendship. (1 Sam. xviii. 4.)1

5. Boors or GREAVES were part of the ancient defensive harness, because it was the custom to cast certain qura, impediments (so called because they entangle their feet, afterwards known by the name of gall-traps, which since, in heraldry, are corruptly called call-trops), in the way before the enemy: the military boot or shoe was, therefore, necessary to guard the legs and feet from the iron stakes placed in the way to gall and wound them; and thus we are enabled to account for Goliath's greaves of brass which were upon his legs.

VII. The OFFENSIVE ARMS were of two sorts, viz. such as were employed when they came to a close engagement;

1 In like manner, Ajax gave his girdle to Hector, as a token of the highest respect. (Iliad, vii. 305.) Dr A. Clarke, on 2 Sam. xviii. 11.

5. Bows and ARROWS are of great antiquity: indeed, no weapon is mentioned so early. Thus Isaac said to Esau, Take thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow (Gen. xxvii. 3.); though it is true, these are not spoken of as used in war, but in hunting, and so they are supposed and implied before this; where it is said of Ishmael, that he became an archer, and used bows and arrows in shooting of wild beasts. (Gen. xxi. 20.) This afterwards became so useful a weapon, that care was taken to train up the Hebrew youth to it betimes. When David had in a solemn manner lamented the death of king Saul, he gave orders for teaching the young men the use of the bow (2 Sam. i. 18.), that they might be as expert as the Philistines, by whose bows and arrows Saul and his army were slain. These were part of the military ammunition (for in those times bows were used instead of guns, and arrows supplied the place of powder and ball). From Job xx. 24. and from Psal. xviii. 34. it may be collected, that the military bow was made of steel, and, consequently, was very stiff and hard to bend, on which account they used their foot in bending their bows; and therefore when the prophets speak of treading the bow, and of bows trodden, they are to be understood of bows bent, as our translators rightly render it (Jer. 1. 14. Isa. v. 28. xxi. 15.); where the Hebrew word which is used in these places signifies to tread upon. This weapon was thought so necessary in war, that it is called the bow of war, or the battle-bow. (Zech. ix. 10. x. 4.)

VIII. Many of the cities of Palestine, being erected on eminences, were fortified by nature; but most frequently they were surrounded with a lofty wall, either single or double (Deut. xxviii. 52. 2 Chron. xxxiii. 14. Isa. xxii. 11.); or which were erected towers or bulwarks. (2 Chron. xiv. 7

See p. 87. supra, for examples of this custom.

« ElőzőTovább »