Afterwards, when the Mosaic law was established, and the people were settled in the land of Canaan, the people feasted, in their peace offerings, on a part of the sacrifice, in token of their reconciliation with God (Deut. xii. 6, 7.): and thus, in the sacrament of the Lord's supper, we renew our covenant with God, and (in the beautiful language of the communion office of the Anglican church) "we offer and present ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice" unto Him, being at His table feasted with the bread and wine, the representation of the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood; who by himself once offered upon the cross has made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and atonement for the sin of the whole world.

Sometimes the parties to the covenant were sprinkled with the blood of the victim. Thus Moses, after sprinkling part of the blood on the altar, to show that Jehovah was a party to the covenant, sprinkled part of it on the Israelites, and said unto them, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you. (Exod. xxiv. 6. 8.) To this transaction St. Paul alludes in his Epistle to the Hebrews (ix. 20.), and explains its evangelical meaning.

The Scythians are said to have first poured wine into an earthen vessel, and then the contracting parties, cutting their arms with a knife, let some of the blood run into the wine, with which they stained their armour. After which they themselves, together with the other persons present, drank of the mixture, uttering the direst maledictions on the party who should violate the treaty.1

Another mode of ratifying covenants was by the superior contracting party presenting to the other some article of his own dress or arms. Thus, Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to the sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. (1 Sam. xviii. 4.) The highest honour, which a king of Persia can bestow upon a subject, is to cause himself to be disapparelled, and to give his robe to the favoured individual.2

In Num. xviii. 19. mention is made of a covenant of salt. The expression appears to be borrowed from the practice of ratifying their federal engagements by salt; which, as it not only imparted a relish to different kinds of viands, but also preserved them from putrefaction and decay, became the emblem of incorruptibility and permanence. It is well known, from the concurrent testimony of voyagers and travellers, that the Asiatics deem the eating together as a bond of perpetual friendship: and as salt is now (as it anciently was) a common article in all their repasts, it may be in reference to this circumstance that a perpetual covenant is termed a covenant of salt; because the contracting parties ate together of the sacrifice offered on the occasion, and the whole transaction was considered as a league of endless friendship. In order to assure those persons to whom the divine promises were made, of their certainty and stability, the Almighty not only willed that they should have the force of a covenant; but also vouchsafed to accommodate himself (if we may be permitted to use such an expression) to the received customs. Thus, he constituted the rainbow a sign of his covenant with mankind that the earth should be no more destroyed by a deluge (Gen. ix. 12-17.); and in a vision appeared to Abraham to pass between the divided pieces of the sacrifice, which the patriarch had offered. (Gen. xv. 12-17.) Jehovah further instituted the rite of eircumcision, as a token of the covenant between himself and Abraham (Gen. xvii. 9—14.); and sometimes sware by himself (Gen. xxii. 16. Luke i. 73.), that is, pledged his eternal power and godhead for the fulfilment of his promise, there being no one superior to himself to whom he could make appeal, or by whom he could be bound. Saint Paul beautifully illustrates this transaction in his Epistle to the Hebrews. (vi. 13—18.) Lastly, the whole of the Mosaic constitution was a mutual covenant between Jehovah and the Israelites; the tables of which being preserved in an ark, the latter was thence termed the ark of the covenant, and as (we have just seen) the blood of the victims slain in ratification of that covenant, was termed the blood of the covenant. (Exod. xxiv. 8. Zech. ix. 11.) Referring to this, our Saviour, when instituting the Lord's supper, after giving the 1 Herodotus, lib. iv. c. 70. vol. i. p. 273. Oxon. 1809. Doughtæi Analecta, 1. p. 69. Harmer's Observations, vol. ii. p. 94. Burder's Or. Cust. vol. i. p. Some pleasing facts from modern history, illustrative of the covenant of salt, are collected by the industrious editor of Calmet, Fragments, No. 130. VOL. II. L

206.

cup, said, This is (signifies or represents) my blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins. (Matt. xxvi. 28.) By this very remarkable expression, Jesus Christ teaches us, that as his body was to be broken or crucified, une nμwv, in our stead, so his blood was to be poured out (xxrouvor, a sacrificial term) to make an atonement, as the words remission of sins evidently imply; for without shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb. ix. 22.), nor any remission by shedding of blood but in a sacrificial way. Compare Heb. ix. 20. and xiii. 12.

III. What treaties or covenants were between the high contracting powers who were authorized to conclude them, that contracts of bargain and sale are between private individuals.

Among the Hebrews, and long before them among the Canaanites, the purchase of any thing of consequence was concluded and the price paid, at the gate of the city, as the seat of judgment, before all who went out and came in. (Gen. xxiii. 16—20. Ruth iv. 1, 2.) As persons of leisure, and those who wanted amusement, were wont to sit in the gates, purchases there made could always be testified by numerous witnesses. From Ruth iv. 7-11. we learn another singular usage on occasions of purchase, cession, and exchange, viz. that in earlier times, the transfer of alienable property was confirmed by the proprietor plucking off his shoe at the city gate, in the presence of the elders and other witnesses, and handing it over to the new owner. The origin of this custom it is impossible to trace: but it had evidently become antiquated in the time of David, as the author of the book of Ruth introduces it as an unknown custom of former ages.

In process of time the joining or striking of hands, already mentioned with reference to public treaties, was introduced as a ratification of a bargain and sale. This usage was not unknown in the days of Job (xvii. 3.), and Solomon often alludes to it. (See Prov. vi. 1. xi. 15. xvii. 18. xx. 16. xxii. 26. xxvii. 13.) The earliest vestige of written instruments, sealed and delivered for ratifying the disposal and transfer of property, occurs in Jer. xxxii. 10-12., which the prophet commanded Baruch to bury in an earthen vessel in order to be preserved for production at a future period, as evidence of the purchase. (14, 15.) No mention is expressly made of the manner in which deeds were anciently cancelled. Some expositors have imagined that in Col. ii. 14. Saint Paul refers to the cancelling of them by blotting or drawing a line across them, or by striking them through with a nail: but we have no information whatever from antiquity to authorize such a conclusion.4

IV. It was customary for those who appealed to the Deity in attestation of any thing, to hold up their right hand towards heaven; by which action the party swearing, or making OATH, signified that he appealed to God to witness the truth of what he averred. Thus Abram said to the king of Sodom-I have LIFT UP MY HAND unto the LORD the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,.....that I will not take any thing that is thine. (Gen. xiv. 22, 23.) Hence the expression," to lift up the hand," is equivalent to making oath. In this form of scriptural antiquity, the angel in the Apocalypse is represented as taking a solemn oath. (Rev. x. 5.)5

Among the Jews, an oath of fidelity was taken by the servant's putting his hand under the thigh of his lord, as Eliezer did to Abraham (Gen. xxiv. 2.); whence, with no great deviation, is perhaps derived the form of doing homage at this day, by putting the hands between the knees, and within the hands of the liege. Sometimes an oath was accompanied with an imprecation, as in 2 Sam. iii. 9. 35. Ruth i. 17. 1 Kings ii. 23. 2 Kings vi. 31.: but sometimes the party swearing omitted the imprecation, as if he were afraid, and shuddered to utter it, although it was, from other sources, sufficiently well understood. (Gen. xiv. 22, 23. Ezek. xvii. 18.) At other times he merely said, “Let God be a witness;" and sometimes affirmed, saying, "As surely as God liveth." (Jer. xlii. 5. Ruth iii. 13. 1 Sam. xiv. 45. xx. 3. 21.)

These remarks apply to the person who uttered the oath 4 Schulzii Archæologia Hebraica, cap. 14. de Fœderibus et Contractibus, pp. 130-132.; Pareau, Antiquitas Hebraica, part iii. § 2. cap. 3. de Fœde ribus et Contractibus, pp. 322-325. Bruning, Antiquitates Hebrææ, cap. 26. pp. 242-245. Michaelis's Commentaries, vol. i. | pp. 310-313.

"This mode of swearing has descended even to our own times and nation, being still used in Scotland, and there allowed by act of Parliament to those dissenters who are styled Seceders. The Solemn League and Covenant, in the time of Charles I., was taken in this form." Dean Woodhouse, on Rev. x. 5.

Paley's Mor. and Polit. Philosophy, Book iii. ch. 16. § 1.

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 ruas, 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. Ixiii. 11.) A person sometimes swore by himself, and sometimes by the life of the person before whom he spoke, as in 1 Sam. 26.

2 Kings ii. 2. Judg. vi. 13. 15. 1 Kings iii. 17. 26.; a prac tice which obtains in Syria to this day. In some instances, persons adjured others by the beasts of the field (Sol. Song i. 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. STRANGERS are frequently mentioned in the laws of Moses, who specifies two different descriptions of them, viz. 1. (TOSCH BIM), 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

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 consequence than he was before; and to allow precedence to old age cannot be a matter that will ever affect a young man 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.

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 land; and he enjoins the Hebrews to open wide their hands to their brethren, to the poor and to the needy in their land. He exhorts the opulent to assist a decayed Israelite with a loan, and not to refuse even though the sabbatical year drew nigh (Deut. xv. 7-10.); and no pledge was to be detained for the loan of money that served for the preservation of his life or health (Deut. xxiv. 12, 13.), or was necessary to enable him to procure bread for himself and family, as the upper and nether mill-stones. During harvest, the owner of a field was prohibited from reaping the corn that grew in its corners, or the after-growth: and the scattered ears, or sheaves carelessly left on the ground, equally belonged to the poor. After a man had once shaken or beaten his olive trees, he was not permitted to gather the olives that still hung on them: so that the fruit, which did not ripen until after the season of gathering, belonged to the poor. (Lev. xix. 9, 10. Deut. xxiv. 19, 20, 21. Ruth ii. 219.) Further, whatever grew during the sabbatical year, in the fields, gardens, or vineyards, the poor might take at pleasure, having an equal right to it with the owners of the land. Another important privilege enjoyed by the poor was, what were called second tenths and second firstlings. "Besides the tenth received by the Levites, the Israelites were obliged to set apart another tenth of their field and garden produce; and in like manner, of their cattle, a second set of offerings, for the purpose of presenting as thank offerings at the high festivals." Of these thank offerings only certain fat pieces

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

But though Moses has made such abundant provision for the poor, yet it does not appear that he has said any thing respecting beggars. The earliest mention of beggars occurs in Psal. cix. 10. In the New Testament, however, we read of beggars, blind, distressed, and maimed, who lay at the doors of the rich, by the way sides, and also before the gate of the temple. (Mark x. 46. Luke xvi. 20, 21. Acts iii. 2.)2 But "we have no reason to suppose, that there existed in the time of Christ that class of persons called vagrant beggars, who present their supplications for alms from door to door, and who are found at the present day in the East, although less frequently than in the countries of Europe. That the custom of seeking alms by sounding a trumpet or horn, which prevails among a class of Mohammedan monastics, Kalendar or Karendal, prevailed also in the time of Christ, may be inferred from Matt. vi. 2.; where the verb ans, which possesses the shade of signification, that would be attached to a corresponding word in the Hiphil form of the Hebrew verbs, is to be rendered transitively, as is the case with many other verbs in the New Testament. There is one thing characteristic of those orientals, who are reduced to the disagreeable necessity of following the vocation of mendicants, which is worthy of being mentioned; they do not appeal to the pity or to the alms-giving spirit, but to the justice of their benefactors. (Job xxii. 7. xxxi. 16. Prov. iíi. 27, 28.)"3

L. 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 Ibid. 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 Litterale 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. 1. 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.

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. 10— 15.) 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 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.)

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 a 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 (2 Chron. 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.