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 (1 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.) 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 covered 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. Boots or GREAVES were part of the ancient defensive harness, because it was the custom to cast certain surda, 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 Sain. xviii. 11. It was worn and those with which they annoyed the enemy at a distance. 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.) 1 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 np (ROMACH), and (CHONITH), are variously rendered in Num. xxv. 7. 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 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. 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. weapon was thought so necessary in war, that it is called the bow of war, or the battle-bow. (Zech. ix. 10. x. 4.) This 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.); on which were erected towers or bulwarks. (2 Chron. xiv. 7. See p. 87. supra, for examples of this custom. xvi. 9. Psal. xlviii. 13.) These towers were furnished with machines, from which the besieged could discharge arrows and great stones. (2 Chron. xxvi. 15.) It was also usual to erect towers on the confines of a country, to repress the incursions of troublesome neighbours, and which also served as occasional places of refuge. The tower of Peniel (Judg. viii. 9. 17.), and those erected by Uzziah (2 Chron. xxvi. 9, 10.), appear to have been of this description; and similar towers were afterwards erected by the crusaders. When the Israelites were about to besiege a city, they dug trenches, drew a line of circumvallation, erected ramparts, built forts against it, and cast a mount against it; they also set the camp against it, and set battering rams against it round about, (2 Sam. xx. 15. Lam. ii. 8. Ezek. iv. 2.) These engines of shot, as our margin renders it in the prophecy of Jeremiah (vi. 6.), in all probability, resembled in some measure the baliste and catapultæ among the Romans; which were used for throwing stones and arrows, and anciently served instead of mortars and carcasses. Further, in order to give notice of an approaching enemy, and to bring the dispersed inhabitants of the country together, they used to set up beacons on the tops of mountains, as a proper alarm upon those occasions. Such were the various instruments of offence and defence in use among the ancient Israelites. Sometimes, however, they were very badly provided with military weapons: for, after the Philistines had gained many considerable advantages over them, and in effect subdued their country, they took care that no smith should be left throughout the land of Israel, to prevent them from making swords and spears; so that the Israelites were obliged to go down to the Philistines whenever they had occasion to sharpen their instruments of husbandry. (1 Sam. xiii. 19, 20. 22.) Long before the reign of Saul we read that there was not a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel (Judg. v. 8.); though it is probable that they had other military weapons which are not mentioned. After Nebuchadnezzar had captured Jerusalem, he adopted the policy of the Philistines, and took all the craftsmen and smiths with him to Babylon, that the poorest of the people, whom he had left behind, might be in no condition to rebel. (2 Kings xxiv. 14.) It was an ancient custom to shoot an arrow or cast a spear into the country which an army intended to invade. As soon as Alexander had arrived on the coasts of lonia, he threw a dart into the country of the Persians.2 The throwing of a dart was considered as an emblem of the commencement of hostilities among the Romans.3 Some such custom as this appears to have obtained among the eastern people; and to this the prophet Elisha alluded when he termed the arrow shot by the king of Israel, the arrow of deliverance from Syria (2 kings xiii. 17.): meaning, that as surely as that arrow was shot towards the lands which had been conquered from the Israelites by the Syrians, so surely should those lands be reconquered and restored to Israel. When Jephthah was appointed judge of the Israelites beyond the Jordan, he sent messengers (or ambassadors) to the king of the Ammonites, saying, What hast thou te do with me, that thou art come against me, to fight in my land? (Judg. xi. 12.) On the Ammonites complaining that the Israelites had forcibly seized their lands, Jephthah, after justifying his people from the charge, concluded by saying, The LORD, the Judge, be judge this day between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon (27.); after which he attacked and totally discomfited them. When the Philistines invaded the territory of the tribe of Judah, to avenge the injury committed by Samson in burning their corn, in reply to the question of the men of Judah, Why are ye come up against us? and on their promising to deliver up Samson, the Philistines withdrew their forces. (Judg. xv. 9, 10, &c.) After the detestable crime committed by certain Benjamites of the town of Gibeah, upon the Levite's concubine, all the assembled Israelites sent to the tribe of Benjamin, to demand that the guilty parties should be delivered up, that they might put them to death, and put away evil from Israel. (Judg. xx. 12, 13.) Nor did they resolve upon war, until after the refusal of the Benjamites. In later times, we may observe a kind of defiance, or declaration of war between David's army under the command of Joab, and that of Ishbosheth under Abner, who said to Joab, Let the young men now arise and play before us. And Joab said, Let them arise; and immediately the conflict began between twelve men of each army (2 Sam. ii. 14, 15.) Amaziah, king of Judah, proud of some advantages which he had obtained over the Levites, sent a challenge to Jehoash king of Israel, saying, Come, let us look one another in the face. Jehoash, in a beautiful parable, dissuaded him from going to war; to which Amaziah refused to listen. The two kings did look one another in the face at Bethshemesh, where the king of Judah was totally defeated. (2 Kings xiv. 8-12.) BenHadad, king of Syria, declared war against Ahab in a yet more insolent manner. Having laid siege to Samaria, he sent messengers, saying, Thy silver and thy gold is mine; thy wives also, and thy children are mine. Ahab, who felt his weakness, replied, My lord, O king, according to thy saying, I am thine and all that I have. Then Ben-Hadad, more insolent than before, rejoined, Although I have sent unto thee, saying, Thou shalt deliver me thy silver, and thy gold, and thy wives, and thy children; yet I will send my servants unto thee to-morrow about this time, and they shall search thine house, and the houses of thy servants, and whatsoever is pleasant in thine eyes, they shall put it in their hand, and take it away. These exorbitant demands being rejected by Ahab and his counsel, who resolved to defend themselves and sustain the siege, Ben-Hadad was obliged to abandon it, after having lost the greater part of his army. (1 Kings xx. 4—21.5 When Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt, on his way to Carchemish against the Assyrians, was desirous of crossing the dominions of the king of Judah, Josiah, who was the ally or tributary of the Assyrian monarch, opposed his passage with an army. Then Necho sent ambassadors to him, saying, What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith 1 have war, for God commanded me to make haste. Forbear thou from meddling with God, who is with me, that he destroy thee not. Josiah persisted, and was mortally wounded in a battle which he lost. (2 Chron. xxxv. 20-24.) IX. Previously to undertaking a war, the heathens consulted their oracles, soothsayers, and magicians; and after their example, Saul, when forsaken by God, had recourse to a witch to know the result of the impending battle (1 Sam. xxviii. 7.): they also had recourse to divination by arrows, and inspection of the livers of slaughtered victims. (Ezek. xxi. 21.) The Israelites, to whom these things were prohibited, formerly consulted the urim and thummim, or the sacred lot. (Judg. i. 1. xx. 27, 28.) After the establishment of the monarchy, the kings, as they were piously or impi- X. Of the precise mode in which the earliest Jewish ously disposed, consulted the prophets of the Lord, or the armies were drawn up, the Scriptures give us no information: false prophets, the latter of whom (as it was their interest) but, as the art of war was then comparatively imperfect, failed not to persuade them that they should succeed. much reliance was placed in the multitude of combatants, (1 Kings xxii. 6—13. 2 Kings xix. 2. 20.) Their expedi- a notion, the fallacy of which is exposed in Psal. xxxiii. 16. tions were generally undertaken in the spring (2 Sam. xi. 1.), Subsequently, however, under the kings, when the Jews and carried on through the summer. Previously to the en- had cavalry, they threw them upon the wings (according to gagement, the combatants anointed their shields, and took the chevalier Folard), in large squadrons of six or eight hunfood that their strength might not fail them. (Isa. xxi. 5. dred horse, with a depth equal to the front, and with little Jer. xlvi. 3, 4.) The law and usage of civilized nations re- intervals between them. But this order was not always obquire that no war should be undertaken without a previous served. John the son of Simon Maccabæus, in the battle declaration, and without a previous demand of satisfaction which he fought with Cendebeus, placed his horse in the for the injury complained of. Hence, in the voluntary wars centre, and threw his foot upon the wings; to which successof the Jews, Moses ordained that certain conditions of ful stratagem he was, under Providence, indebted for a compeace should be offered before the Israelites attacked any plete victory (1 Macc. xvi. 7, 8.): for the novelty of this place. (Deut. xx. 10-20.) There does not, however, ap-order of battle amazed the enemy's infantry, and confounded pear to have been any uniform mode of declaring war. Cendebeus, when he found that he had to encounter the whole of John's cavalry, which bore down his foot, while the infantry of the Jews broke through his horse, and put them to flight. From the time of Moses to that of Solomon, the ark of the covenant was present in the camp, the symbol of the divine Harmer's Observations, vol. iii. pp. 415-418. 425-423. • Justin, Hist. Philipp. lib. ii. Livy, lib. i. c. 32. Other instances from the Roman history may be presence, and an incitement to valiant achievements. Ittened his body and the bodies of his sons to the wall of Bethwas taken by the Philistines in the time of the high-priest Eli (1 Sam. iv. 11.), but subsequently restored. In like manner the Philistines carried their deities into the field of battle (1 Chron. xiv. 12.); and it appears that Jeroboam and the Israelites of the ten tribes had their golden calves with them in the field. (2 Chron. xiii. 8.) Before they engaged in battle, the law of Moses appointed two priests to blow with two silver trumpets (Num. x. 9.), which are described by Josephus to have been a cubit long, and narrow like a pipe, but wider, as ours are, at the bottom; no more than two were at first ordered for present use, but more were afterwards made when the priests and the people were increased. There were others called trumpets of rams' horns (Josh. vi. 4.), probably from their shape, which were used in war, to incite the soldiers to the conflict. These instruments were blown to call the people to the sanctuary to pay their devotion, and pray to God before they engaged; and they were sounded with a particular blast, that they might know the meaning of the summons: then the anointed for the war, going from one battalion to another, was to exhort the soldiers to fight valiantly. (Deut. xx. 2.) There were officers whose duty it was to make proclamation, that those whose business it was should make sufficient provision for the army before they marched; and every tenth man was appointed for that purpose. (Josh. i. 10, 11. Judg. xx. 10.) Sometimes they advanced to battle singing hymns (2 Chron. xx. 21, 22.); and the signal was given by the priests sounding the trumpets. (Num. x. 9. Judg. vi. 34. 2 Chron. xiii. 14. 1 Macc. iii. 54. iv. 13.) It should seem that a notion prevailed among the ancient idolatrous nations of the East, of the efficacy of devoting an enemy to destruction. Under this persuasion Balak engaged Balaam to curse the Israelites because they were too mighty for him (Num. xxii. 6.); and Goliath cursed David by his gods. (1 Sam. xvii. 43.)2 The Romans in later times had a peculiar form of evoking or calling out the gods, under whose protection a place was supposed to be, and also of devoting the people, which is fully described by Macrobius,3 and many accounts are related in the Hindoo puranas of kings employing sages to curse their enemies when too powerful for them. It was customary for the Hebrew kings or their generals (in common with other ancient nations) to deliver an address to their armies. (2 Chron. xiii. 4-12. xx. 21. 1 Macc. iv. 8-11.) These harangues had a great share in the success of the day, and often contributed to the gaining of a battle. The Greek and Roman historians abound with pieces of this kind; but they are too long, and too elaborate, to be originals. Those only which are recorded in the Scriptures appear to be natural: the terms in which they are conceived carry certain marks of truth, which cannot fail to strike the reader: they are short but lively, moving, and full of pious sentiments. shan; whence they were soon taken by the brave inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead. (1 Sam. xxxi. 9—12.) A heap of stones was raised over the grave of princes, as in the case of Abslom. (2 Sam. xviii. 17.) The daily diminishing cairn of pebble-stones, situated about two miles from the lake of Grasmere, in Cumberland, and known by the appellation of Dunmail Raise-stones, was raised in a like manner to commemorate the name and defeat of Dunmail, a petty king of Cumbria, a. D. 945 or 946, by the Anglo-Saxon monarch Edmund I. When a city was taken, after being rased to the foundation, it was sometimes sowed with salt, and ploughed up, in token of perpetual desolation. In this manner Abimelech, after putting the inhabitants of Shechem to the sword, levelled it with the ground, and sowed it with salt: and thus many centuries after, the emperor Frederick Barbarossa (A. D. 1163), irritated at the long and strenuous defence made by the besieged inhabitants of Milan, on capturing that city, abandoned it to pillage, and sparing nothing but the churches, ordered it to be entirely rased to the ground, which wa ploughed and sown with salt, in memory of its rebellion. The prophet Micah (iii. 12.) foretold that Jerusalem should be ploughed as a field, and his prediction (as we have seen in another part of this work) was most literally fulfilled after Jerusalem was taken by the Roman army under Titus. It was not unusual in remote antiquity to pronounce a curse upon those who should rebuild a destroyed city. Thus Joshua denounced a curse upon the man who should rebuild Jericho (Josh. vi. 26.), the fulfilment of which is recorded in 1 Kings xvi. 34. In like manner Croesus uttered a curse on him who should rebuild the walls of Sidene, which he had destroyed; and the Romans also upon him who should rebuild the city of Carthage. Various indignities and cruelties were inflicted on those who had the misfortune to be taken captive. On some occasions particular districts were marked out for destruction. (2 Sam. viii. 2.) Of those whose lives were spared, the victors set their feet upon the necks (Josh. x. 24.), or mutilated their persons (Judg. i. 7. 2 Sam. iv. 12. Ezek. xxiii. 25.8), or imposed upon them the severest and most laborious occupations. (2 Sam. xii. 31.) It was the barbarous custom of the conquerors of those times, to make their unhappy captives bow down that they might go over them (Isa. li. 23.), and also to strip them naked, and make them travel in that condition, exposed to the inclemency of the weather, and, which was worst of all, to the intolerable heat of the sun. Nor were women, as appears from Isa. iii. 17., exempted from this treatment. To them this was the height of indignity, as well as of cruelty, especially to those described by the prophets, who had indulged themselves in all manner of delicacies of living, and all the superfluities of 5 Modern Universal History, vol. xxvi. p. 11. 8vo. edit. It was a That the cutting off the thumbs and toes of captured enemies was an ancient mode of treating them, we learn from Ælian (Var. Hist. lib. ii. c. 9.), who tells us, that the "Athenians, at the instigation of Cleon, son of Cleænatas, made a decree that all the inhabitants of the island of Ægina should have the thumb cut off from the right hand, so that they might ever after be disabled from holding a spear, yet might handle an oar." custom among those Romans who disliked a military life, to cut off their own thumbs, that they might not be capable of serving in the army. Sometimes the parents cut off the thumbs of their children, that they might not be called into the army. According to Suetonius, a Roman knight, who had cut off the thumbs of his two sons, to prevent them from being called his property. Equitem Romanum, quod duobus filiis adolescentibus, causa detractandi sacramenti, pollices amputasset, ipsum bonaque subjecit hasta. Vit. August. c. 24. Calmet remarks, that the Italian language has preserved a term, poltrone, which signifies one whose thumb is cut off, to designate a soldier destitute of courage. Burder's Oriental Literature, vol. i. p. 310. The onset of the battle, after the custom of the orientals, was very violent (Num. xxiii. 24. xxiv. 8, 9.), and was made with a great shout. (Exod. xxxii. 17. 1 Sam. xvii. 20. 52. 2 Chron. xiii. 15. Jer. 1. 42.) The same practice obtained in the age of the Maccabees (1 Macc. iii. 54.), as it does to this day among the Cossacks, Tartars, and Turks. All the wars, in the earliest times, were carried on with great cruelty and ferocity; of which we may see instances in Judg. viii. 7. 16. 2 Kings iii. 27. viii. 12. xv. 16. 2 Chron. xxv. 12. Amos i. 3. 13. and Psal. cxxxvii. 8, 9. Yet the kings of Israel were distinguished for their humanity and lenity towards their enemies. (1 Kings xx. 31. 2 Kings vi. 21-23. a military life, was, by the order of Augustus, publicly sold, both he and 2 Chron. xxviii. 8-15.) When the victory was decided, the bodies of the slain were interred. (1 Kings xi. 15. 2 Sam. ii. 32. xxi. 14. Ezek. xxxix. 11, 12. 2 Macc. xii. 39.) Sometimes, however, the heads of the slain were cut off, and deposited in heaps at the palace gate (2 Kings x. 8 Ezek. xxiii. 25. They shall take away thy nose and thine EARS. This 7, 8.), as is frequently done to this day in Turkey, and in eastern countries. One of the most recent instances is thus related by cruelty is still practised under some of the despotic governments of the Persia; and when the conquerors were irritated at the ob- Messrs. Waddington and Hanbury, during their visit to some parts of stinacy with which a city was defended, they refused the Ethiopia:-"Our servants, in their expedition into the village, found only rites of burial to the dead, whose bodies were cast out, a fifty piastres apiece, which leads to a thousand unnecessary cruelties, an old woman alive, with her ears off. The pasha buys human ears at prey to carnivorous birds and beasts. This barbarity is and barbarizes the system of warfare; but enables his highness to collect feelingly deplored by the Psalmist. (lxxix. 1—3.) And on a large stock of ears, which he sends down to his father, as proofs of his some occasions the remains of the slain were treated with instances of this kind of cruelty may be seen in Dodwell's Classical Tour successes." Journal of a Visit, &c. p. 118. (London, 1822. 410.)-Similar every mark of indignity. Thus the Philistines cut off the through Greece, vol. i. p. 20. Sir James Malcolin's Hist of Persia, vol. i. head of Saul, and stripped off his armour, which they put in p. 555.; and Burckhardt's Travels in Nubia, p. 35. the house of their deity, Ashtaroth or Astarte; and they fas The Roman emperor Valerian, being through treachery betrayed to Sapor 9 A similar barbarous instance is recorded long after the time of Isaiah. king of Persia, was treated by him as the basest and most abject slave: for the Persian monarch commanded the unhappy Roman to bow himself down, and offer him his back, on which he set his foot, in order to mount his chariot or his horse, whenever he had occasion. (Lactantius, de Morte Persecutorum, c. 5. Aurelius, Victor, Epitome, c. 32.) Bp. Lowth's Isaiah, vol. ii. p. 315. In p. 307. he has given another similar instance. ernamental dress; and even whose faces had hardly ever been exposed to the sight of men. This is always mentioned as the hardest part of the lot of captives. Nahum (iii. 5, 6.), denouncing the fate of Nineveh, paints it in very strong colours. Women and children were also exposed to treatment at which humanity shudders. (Zech. xiv. 2. Esth. iii. 13. 2 Kings viii. 12. Psal. cxxxvii. 9. Isa. xiii. 16. 18. 2 Kings xv. 16. Hos. xiii. 16. Amos i. 13.) And whole nations were carried into captivity, and transplanted to distant countries: this was the case with the Jews (2 Kings xxiv. 12-16. Jer. xxxix. 9, 10. xl. 7.), as Jeremiah had predicted (Jer. xx. 5.), and instances of similar conduct are not wanting in the modern history of the East. In some cases, indeed, the conquered nations were merely made tributaries, as the Moabites and Syrians were by David (2 Sam. viii. 4. 6.): but this was considered a great ignominy, and was a source of reproach to the idol deities of the countries which were thus subjected. (2 Kings xix. 12, 13.) Still further to show their absolute superiority, the victorious sovereigns used to change the names of the monarchs whom they subdued. Thus we find the king of Babylon changing the name of Mattaniah into Zedekiah, when he constituted him king of Judah. (2 Kings xxiv. 17.) Archbishop Usher remarks, that the king of Egypt gave to Eliakim the name of Jehoiakim (2 Chron. xxxvi. 4.), thereby to testify that he ascribed his victory over the Babylonians to Jehovah the God of Israel, by whose command, as he pretended (2 Chron. xxxv. 21, 22.), he undertook the expedition. Nebuchadnezzar also ordered his eunuch to change the name of Daniel, who afterwards was called Belteshazzar; and the three companions of Daniel, whose names formerly were Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, he called Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. (Dan. i. 7.) It was likewise a custom among the heathens to carry in triumph the images of the gods of such nations as they had vanquished: Isaiah prophesies of Cyrus, that in this manner he would treat the gods of Babylon, when he says, Bel boweth, Nebo stoopeth, their idols were upon the beasts, and upon the cattle, and themselves have gone into captivity. (Isa. xlvi. 1, 2.) Daniel foretells that the gods of the Syrians, with their princes, should be carried captive into Egypt (Dan. xi. 8.); and similar predictions are to be met with in Jeremiah (xlviii. 7.) and in Amos. (i. 15.) XI. On their return home, the VICTORS were received with every demonstration of joy. The women preceded them with instruments of music, singing and dancing. In this manner Miriam and the women of Israel joined in chorus with the men, in the song of victory which Moses composed on occasion of the overthrow of Pharaoh and his Egyptian host in the Red Sea, and which they accompanied with timbrels and dances. (Exod. xv. 1-21.) Thus, also, Jephthah was hailed by his daughter, on his return from discomfiting the children of Ammen (Judg. xi. 34.); and Saul and David were greeted, in like manner, on their return from the defeat of the Philistines. The women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet king Saul, with tabrels, with joy, and with instruments of music. And the women answered one another as they played, and said, Saul hath slain his thousands and David his ten thousands! (1 Sam. xviii. 7, 8.) The victorious army of Jehoshaphat, the pious king of Judah, long afterwards, returned, every man of Judah and Jerusalem with the king at their head, to go again to Jerusalem with joy; for the Lord had made them to rejoice over their enemies. And they 1 Bp. Lowth's Isaiah, vol. ii. p. 15. In the thirteenth century, when the Moguls or Tartars under Zinghis Kahn overran and conquered Asia, "the inhabitants who had submitted to their discretion, were ordered to evacuate their houses, and to assemble in some plain adjacent to the city, where a division was made of the vanquished into three parts. The first class consisted of the soldiers of the garrison, and of the young men capable of bearing arms; and their fate was instantly decided: they were either enlisted among the Moguls, or they were massacred on the spot by the troops, who with pointed spears and bended bows had formed a circle round the captive multitude. The second class, composed of the young and beautiful women, of the arti frers of every rank and profession, and of the more wealthy or honourable citizens, from whom a private ransom might be expected, was distributed in equal or proportionable lots. The remainder, whose life or death was alike useless to the conquerors, were permitted to return to the city, which in the inean while had been stripped of its valuable furniture; and a tax was imposed on those wretched inhabitants for the indulgence of breath ing their native air." (Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. iii. pp. 367, 368. 4to., or vol. vi. p. 55. 8vo. edit.) Here we evidently see the distinction made by Jeremiah (xx. 5.) of the strength of the city (that is the men of war who constitute the strength of a city or state); its labours or industry (that is, the industrious artisans and mechanics); and all the precious things thereof, all that is valuable in it, or the honourable and respectable members of the community not included in the two former classes; and also those poorer and meaner citizens who, according to Jer. Ixxix. 18. and xl. 7., were left in Judæa, but still tributary to the Chaldeans, first under Zedekiah, and next under Gedaliah. Dr. Blayney, on Jer. xx. 5. came to Jerusalem with psalteries and harps, and trumpets unto the house of the Lord. (2 Chron. xx. 27, 28.) The same custom still obtains in India and in Turkey. In further commemoration of signal victories, it was a common practice, both among the ancient heathen nations and the Jews, to hang up the arms that were taken from their enemies in their temples. Thus we find, that the sword with which David cut off Goliath's head, being dedicated to the Lord, was kept as a memorial of his victory, and of the Israelites' deliverance, and was deposited in the tabernacle; for we find that when David came to Abimelech at Nob, where the tabernacle was, Abimelech acknowledged it was there, and delivered it to David. (1 Sam. xxi. 8, 9.) For when occasions of state required it, it was no unusual thing to take such trophies down, and employ them in the public service. Thus when Joash was crowned king of Judah, Jehoiada, the high-priest (who had religiously educated him), delivered to the captains of hundreds spears, and bucklers, and shields, that had been king David's, which were in the house of God. (2 Chron. xxiii. 9.) XII. By the law of Moses (Num. xxxi. 19-24.) the whole army that went out to war were to stay without, seven days before they were admitted into the camp, and such as had had their hands in blood, or had touched a dead body, though killed by another, were to be purified on the third and on the seventh day by the water of separation. All spoil of garments, or other things that they had taken, were to be purified in the same manner, or to be washed in running water, as the method was in other cases. All sorts of metals had, besides sprinkling with the water of separation, a purification by fire, and what would not bear the fire passed through the water before it could be applied to use. In the DISTRIBUTION OF THE SPOIL, the king anciently had the tenth part of what was taken. Thus Abraham gave a tenth to Melchisedec king of Salem. (Gen. xiv. 20. Heb. vii. 4.) And if any article of peculiar beauty or value were found among the spoil, it seems to have been reserved for the commander-in-chief. To this Deborah alludes in her triumphal ode. (Judg. v. 30.) After the establishment of the monarchy, the rabbinical writers say (but upon what authority it is impossible now to ascertain) that the king had all the gold, silver, and other precious articles, besides one half of the rest of the spoil, which was divided between him and the people. In the case of the Midianitish war (Num. xxxi. 27.), the whole of the spoil was, by divine appointment, divided into two parts: the army that won the victory had one, and those that stayed at home had the other, because it was a common cause in which they engaged, and the rest were as ready to fight as those that went out to battle. This division was by a special direction, but was not the rule in after-ages; for, after the general had taken what he pleased for himself, the rest was divided among the soldiers, as well those who kept the baggage, or were disabled by wounds or weariness, as those who were engaged in the fight, but the people had no share; and this was ordained, as a statute to be observed throughout their generations (1 Sam. xxx. 21.): but in the time of the Maccabees the Jewish army thought fit to recede from the strictness of this military law, for when they had obtained a victory over Nicanor, under the conduct of Judas, they divided among themselves many spoils, and made the maimed, orphans, widows, yea, and the aged also, equal in spoils with themselves. (2 Macc. viii. 28. 30.) In the Midianitish war, after the distribution of the spoils among the the service of the priesthood, and the Levitical ministry. army and the people, there was another division made for (Num. xxxi. 28-30.) The priests, out of the share that fell to the army, were allotted one out of five hundred of all women and children, and cattle that were taken; and the Levites, from the part that fell to the people, received one out of fifty, so that the priest had just a tenth part of what was allowed to the Levites, as they had a tenth part of the Levitical tithes, which was paid them for their constant support; but whether this was the practice in future wars is uncertain. Sometimes all the spoils were, by divine appointment, ordered to be destroyed; and there is an instance in the siege of Jericho, when all the silver and the gold (except the gold and the silver of their images, which were to be consumed utterly), and vessels of brass and iron, were devoted to God, and appropriated to his service. They were to be brought into the treasury which was in the tabernacle, after they were purified by making them pass through the fire according to the law; the Jews conceive that these spoils 3 Forbes's Oriental Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 295. Lady Mary Wortley Montague's Letters, vol. i. p. 197. (called in the Scripture the accursed thing on the account of their being devoted with a curse upon him who should take them for his own use) were given to God, because the city was taken upon the Sabbath-day. But in succeeding ages, it appears to be an established rule that the spoil was to be divided among the army actually engaged in battle; those who had the charge of the baggage (as already noticed) being considered entitled to an equal share with the rest. (1 Sam. xxx. 24.) Besides a share of the spoil and the honours of a triumph, various military rewards were bestowed on those warriors who had pre-eminently distinguished themselves. Thus Saul promised to confer great riches on the man who should conquer Goliath, and further to give his daughter in marriage to him, and to exempt his father's house from all taxes in Israel. (1 Sam. xvii. 25.) How reluctantly the jealous monarch fulfilled his promise is well known. David promised the command in chief of all his forces to him who should first mount the walls of Jerusalem, and expel the Jebusites out of the city (2 Sam. v. 8. 1 Chron. xi. 6.); which honour was acquired by Joab. In the rebellion of Absalom against David, Joab replied to a man who told him that the prince was suspended in an oak,-Why didst thou not smite him to the ground, and I would have given thee ten shekels of silver and a girdle? (2 Sam. xviii. 11.) Jephthah was constituted head and captain over the Israelites beyond Jordan, for delivering them from the oppression of the Ammonites. (Judg. xi. 11. compared with xii. 7.) 66 From 2 Sam. xxiii. 8-39. it appears that the heroes or mighty men," during the reign of David, were thirty-seven in number, including Joab, who was commander-in-chief of all his forces. These warriors were divided into three classes, the first and second of which consisted, each, of three men, Jashobeam, Eleazar, and Shammah; Abishai, Benaiah, and Asahel; and the third class was composed of the remaining thirty, of whom Asahel appears to have been the head. Such is the list according to 2 Sam. xxiii.; but in 1 Chron. xi. 10 -47. the list is more numerous, and differs considerably from the preceding. The most probable solution of these variations is, that the first list contains the worthies who lived in the former part of David's reign, and that it underwent various changes in the course of his government of the kingdom of Israel. At the head of all these "mighty men" was Jashobeam the son of Hachmoni (1 Chron. xi. 11.), who from his office in 2 Sam. xxiii. 8. (Hebr. and marginal rendering) is termed Joseb-Bassebet, the Tuchmonite, head of the three; and whose military appellation was Adino-He-Ezni (the lifting up or striking with—a spear) because he lifted up his spear against, or encountered, three hundred soldiers at once. However extraordinary it may seem, we may here clearly perceive a distinct order of knighthood, similar to our modern orders, and presenting the same honorary degrees, and of which Jashobeam, according to modern parlance, was the grand-master. An institution of this kind was in every respect adapted to the reign, the character, and the policy of David. After the return of the Jewish armies to their several homes, their military dress was laid aside. The militia, which been raised for the occasion, were disbanded; their warlike instruments, with the exception of such as were private property, were delivered up as the property of the state, until some future war should call them forth; and the soldiers themselves returned (like Cincinnatus) to the plough, and the other avocations of private life. To this suspension of their arms, the prophet Ezekiel alludes (xxvii. 10, 11.) when he says, that they of Persia, and of Lud, and of Phut, and of Arvad, were in the Tyrian army as men of war, and hanged their shields upon the walls of Tyre. To the same custom also the bridegroom refers in the sacred idyls of Solomon (Song iv. 4.), when he compares the neck of his bride to the tower of David builded for an armoury, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men. nissi, that is, The LORD is my banner. (Exod. xvii. 15.) Un der the influence of similar devout affections, David consecrated the sword and other arms of Goliath in the tabernacle, and subsequently deposited in the sacred treasury the rich spoils won in battle, as Samuel and Saul had done before him (1 Chron. xxvi. 26-28.), and as several of his pious successors on the throne of Judah also did. Thus they gratefully acknowledged that they were indebted to the Lord of Hosts alone for all their strength and victories. SECTION II. ALLUSIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT TO THE MILITARY DISCI PLINE AND TRIUMPHS OF THE ROMANS. I. Divisions of the Roman army, and Roman military officen mentioned in the New Testament.-II. Allusions to the ar mour of the Romans.-III. To their military discipline.Strict subordination.-Rewards to soldiers who had distin guished themselves.-IV. Allusions to the Roman triumphs. I. Ar the time the evangelists and apostles wrote, the Romans had extended their empire almost to the utmost boundaries of the then known world, principally by their unparal leled military discipline and heroic valour. Judea was at this time subject to their sway, and their troops were stationed in different parts of that country. The Roman army was composed of Legions (Asti), each of which was divided into ten cohorts, each cohort into three maniples, and each maniple (pa) into two centuries. The number of men in a legion was different at different times. But besides the cohorts which were formed into legions, there were certain others separate and distinct from any legion; such were the Cohortes Urbana, and Prætoriæ, &c. Such appears to have been the Italian Band (Σ Iran) mentioned in Acts x. 1., which was in attendance on the Roman governor, who at that time was residing at Cæsarea. It was probably called the Italian cohort, because most of the soldiers belonging to it were Italians, and also to distinguish it from the other troops which were drawn from Syria and the adjacent regions. The Italian legion was not in existence at this time. Of the same description also was the Augustan Band or Cohort (Acts xxvi. 1.), (upa ZELOTH), which, most probably, derived its name from Sebaste, the capital of Samaria. The commanding officer of the Prætorian Cohorts at Rome (a body of troops instituted by Augus tus to guard his person, and to whom the care of the city was subsequently committed) was termed Præfectus Prætorio. This last officer was the Captain of the Guard (Erparonspync), to whose custody Paul was committed, it being a part of his office to take the charge of accused persons. (Acts xxviii. 16.) The commanding officer of an ordinary cohort was called Tribunus Cohortis, if it was composed of Roman citizens; or Præfectus Cohortis, if composed of auxiliary troops. The officer intended by both these words is in the New Testament termed Xxx, or Captain of a Thousand, most probably because each tribune had under him ten centuries of troops. This was the officer who commanded the legion of soldiers that garrisoned the tower of Antonia, which overlooked the temple at Jerusalem, in the porticoes of which a company kept guard (div) to prevent any tumult at the great festivals.3 Claudius Lysias was the tribune or Roman captain of this fort, who rescued Paul from the tumultuous attack of the murderous Jews. (Acts xxi. 31. xxii. 34. xxiii. 26.) Under the command of the tribune was the centurion (Kerupy or 'ExaTerrapes), who, as his name implies, had one hundred men under him.4 The Roman infantry were divided into three principal classes, the Hastati, the Principes, and the Triarii, each of which was composed of thirty manipuli or companies, and each manipulus contained two centuries or hundreds of men: over every company were placed two centurions, who, however, were very far from being equal in rank and honour, though XIII. It does not certainly appear from the Sacred Writings, that the Hebrews were accustomed to erect TROPHIES or monuments for commemorating their victories. In 1 Sam. xv. 12. Saul is said to have set him up a place on Mount Car-possessing the same office. The Triarii and Principes were mel; which some expositors understand to be a column, or other monument, while others imagine it to have been simply a hand, pointing out the place where he had obtained his decisive victory over the Amalekites. Far more devout was the conduct of Moses, who, after discomfiting Amalek, erected an altar to the Lord, with this inscription, Jehovah Kuinöel on Acts x. 1. and xxvii. 1. 1 Coquerel, Biographie Sacrée, tom. ii. p. 167. esteemed the most honourable, and had their centurions elected first, and these took precedency of the centurions of the Hastati, who were elected last. The humble centurion, who in Matt. 2 Biscoe on the Acts, vol. i. pp. 328-332. Josephus, de Bell. Jud. lib. v. c. 5. §8. Biscoe on the Acts, vol. i. pp. 328, 329. pp. 336. 339. 52. Doddridge on Acts x. 1. and Ant. Jud. lib. xx. c. 4. § 3. Adam's Roman Antiquities, |