the Israelites chose to wage war at a disadvantage, and with maimed hands, it was necessary that they should wage it on the principles recognised by the nations with whom they were brought into conflict, and deal out to them the same measure which they received from them. In the first wars, the conquerors gave no quarter at all, but destroyed all their enemies, without distinction of age or sex. Prisoners were also destroyed in the same manner. This was the ancient war-law. But by the law of Moses, the Israelites were forbidden to enforce it except in aggravated cases, like the one to which reference has just been made, and except as regarded the devoted nations of Canaan. In process of time, men began to perceive that they might safely gratify the natural impulse to spare helpless women and children, and even secure an advantage in so doing, by retaining them for the discharge of servile offices, or selling them to those who had need of their services. At first, this degree of mercy was limited to women and female children, as it was considered that the boys might grow up to avenge their fathers, or at least to prove troublesome; but eventually the male children also were spared. It was to this point that men had come in the time of David, of Homer, and even of Moses. It had been probably the practice of Egypt to spare the male prisoners, owing to the great demand for servile labour in that country; and Moses, in enforcing it with respect to all but the devoted nations, probably went beyond the practice of Syria and Arabia, in which the old custom still prevailed. In expeditions against all nations but these last, the whole were to be spared, if they submitted without fighting, and consented to tribute. But in case they resisted and were taken in arms, the men so taken were to be put to death. Now, the Moabites were not of the devoted nations, and came therefore under the general law, as laid down by Moses, in conformity with the usages of the time. That law was certainly transgressed by David in the present case, but it was on the side of leniency, not of severity; and we are fully persuaded that it is for the very purpose of marking his humane consideration for the Moabites, contrary to all the rules of warfare in that age, that the fact is mentioned, which has been fastened upon by thoughtless persons as a proof of his harshness. There can be no doubt, we think, that every man among the Moabitish prisoners fully expected to be put to death; and that the exemption of a large section, or rather more than a third, was received as an act of unparalleled grace and mercy on the part of David. It may indeed be asked, Why, since he had made up his mind to save one-third of the prisoners, he might not as well have saved the whole? Nothing is easier than to ask, Why, if a person does one thing, he does not also do another? There is no end of such questions; for they may be applied to any case in which an alternative is possible. David intended his war to produce a certain result-to be effectual not only for the present, but with reference to future undertakings. This result, he thought, might not be compromised by his sparing a portion of the prisoners, but might be so to a serious extent if, by sparing the whole, the enemies he had yet to subdue were led to presume upon his leniency, and to expect from him a degree of forbearance which was not known in that age, and which they were not themselves in the habit of showing to those whom they overcame. The war-usages of that part of the world were in ancient times notoriously barbarous, and retained their severity long after they had been considerably softened among other nations. Thus the Carthaginians, who were of Canaanitish origin, and retained the usages of Canaan, were reprobated for their severities to prisoners by the Romans, although the latter were themselves, according to our notions, by no means the most gentle of conquerors. Thirty-seventh Week-Sixth Day. THE GREAT WAR.-2 SAMUEL VIII. 3-13. ALL the enemies with whom David has been hitherto engaged, were of the small neighbouring nations, well known to us from the frequency with which their names occur in the sacred history. But we next find the king of Israel leading his forces against a more distant and formidable enemy than any against which his arms had been hitherto directed. The particulars given are few, and such as rather excite than satisfy our curiosity. The inferences deducible from the facts stated are, however, very important and interesting to those who like to explore the precious fragments of foreign history preserved in the amber of the sacred pages. Hadadezer, king of Zobah-by which we are, perhaps, to understand the Zobathites, as no such place as Zobah is known -had established a great power in Syria, which extended into northern Mesopotamia, if indeed it did not originate there, and spread thence westward. This power was achieved apparently by the subjection of the various small states which lay between Lebanon and the Euphrates. It is questioned where the metropolitan seat of this power lay. The Syrian writers, followed by Christian commentators, say it was at Nisibis, beyond the Euphrates, while the Jews place it at Helbon, the modern Haleb or Aleppo. Damascus was comprehended in this realm, but was not its metropolitan seat. The object of this conquering and aggressive power must have been to push westward to the sea; and that being done, the south-west-forming the dominion of David-would not have been long left unmolested. Against this westward progress, were opposed the double chain of the Lebanon mountains, and the arms of Toi, king of Hamath. The city of Hamath, which gave name to this kingdom, still known by this name, was, in a later age, called by the Greeks Epiphania. It lay northward upon the river Orontes, about midway between Aleppo and Damascus; but the dominion extended southward through the great plain called the Hollow Syria (Coelesyria), which lies between the ranges of Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon. Its southern frontier thus touched the northern frontier of the Hebrew dominion, the limit of which, in this direction, is often described as being at the entrance of Hamath.' Hence Israel and Hamath were neighbouring powers, though their capitals lay far apart; and they had a common interest in repressing the inroads of the king of Zobah. The name of Toi does not, indeed, occur till after David's expedition has been recorded; but from the nature of the case, they had probably acted together from the first; and as the king of Hamath's danger was more immediate than that of David, it is highly probable that the latter engaged in this war upon his representations. It must have been clear to David, that Hadadezer and himself must come eventually into conflict; and it could not but appear to him wiser to act at once, than to wait until the power of the king of Zobah should be strengthened by the acquisition of Hamath. In any case, he must have seen that it was better policy to support Hamath, as interposed between him and this aggressive power, than to remain quiet until its territories impinged upon his own frontier. The forces of Hadadezer consisted chiefly of chariots of war, which, however well suited to the warfare in which he had hitherto been engaged upon the high plains of Syria, were but ill suited for action in such mountainous territories as those of David and Toi. Hence the power of infantry-of which the Hebrew army entirely consisted-against chariots in such regions; and the good policy of the law which discouraged the use of horses, and therefore compelled the chosen people to rely upon the kind of force best suited to the nature of their country. On the other hand, this infantry was ill suited to conflict with chariots in the open plains; and as David was too experienced a general to throw away any advantages, it is probable that he sought, in his repeated engagements with this new kind of force, to meet them on ground unsuited to their operations. Matters eventually came to the decision of a great battle, in which Hadadezer was totally defeated, and his power for the time broken; and Damascus, with the other small states to the west of the great river, beholding in the event merely a change of masters, received without any visible repugnance the king of Israel as a conqueror. Thus were realized for the first time the ancient promises, that the dominion of Abraham's seed should extend to the Euphrates. The troops of Hadadezer seem to have brought something VOL. III. 2 A like Assyrian magnificence from beyond the Euphrates. There were not only chariots and horses, but some of the troops had golden shields, which of course came into the hands of David. He found also valuable spoils of brass in some of the captured cities. All this, as well as the metallic spoils of his other wars, David appropriated, not to his own enrichment, but to the object he had most at heart, the future temple of the Lord. He was forbidden to build it himself, but there was nothing to prevent him from gathering materials for it; and this he did to such an extent-not only by the treasure he accumulated, but by leaving a plan of the building, and by organizing the sacred ministrations-that a careful consideration of the matter may leave it doubtful whether much more of the credit of the undertaking is not due to him than to Solomon. To the same object were appropriated the costly presents which king Toi sent by his own son Joram (for the greater honour), in acknowledgment of the essential services which had been rendered to him, amounting to little less than the preservation of his kingdom. These presents consisted of various articles in gold, silver, and brass-which last we find now continually mentioned along with the precious metals. Some kinds of it were probably little inferior in value to silver; and we know that, anciently, some qualities of brass were even more precious than gold. Thus, even under David, began that influx of precious metals which came to its height in the next reign. This must have wrought a great change in the land, where these metals had hitherto been scarce. This we may appreciate by the great changes which have been produced in Europe by the discovery of the South American mines, and the consequently great abundance of the precious metals, and by the results that are expected, and are already felt, from the recent discoveries of gold in California and Australia. We do not afterwards find any apparent scarcity of such metals in Palestine. We must consider that all the wealth acquired in these wars was not locked up for the future temple. David was not the man to take from his soldiers their fair share of the spoil. What he dedicated to the Lord was such as accrued to him as |