generation of Moses and Aaron in the wilderness. Some of the accounts suggest that other narratives than those now extant were in the possession of the Hebrews and emphasized Yahweh's providence (80 Deut. viii., xxix.; Jer. ii.; Judges v. 11); the account of a holy war appears only in Ex. xvii. 8–16; Num. xxi. 1-3; but this idea influenced mightily the early religion of Israel.

It has long been the custom, and this custom is still followed in part, to employ these sources, as well as accounts in early and late literature of places and names, partly in a harmonistic method, using historical, geographical, and etymological learning, as

though the tracing of the journeyings

2. Methods presented no difficulties of moment, esof Study- pecially since no good maps of the reing the gion existed. Matters which were by Narratives. no means certain were taken as proved (e.g., the situation of Sinai), and without making clear the details of the journeying, by seizing now upon this and now upon that name which sounded like the Biblical name in the narrative, the material was used as if elastic to produce what was hoped to be a satisfying result; the processes of literary and textual criticism not being employed. Indeed, the question was not squarely met whether the conditions for the wandering of so numerous a people with all their possessions really existed. The newer method is to take account of the various threads and sources, to investigate the character of each, to take into consideration investigations into the natural conditions presented by the region, and so to reach conclusions which satisfactorily meet the case.

The account of J involves great difficulties. Moses, according to this narrator, led the people from the Red Sea to the wilderness of Shur, where they were three days without water (Ex. xv. 22); the Marah and Elim episodes are by E (Ex. xv. 23–27). J tells in Ex. xvi. of the gift of manna, in xvii. of the murmuring against Moses at Meribah, and in xxxiii. 1 sqq. of the command to leave Sinai; Num. x. 29–32 deals with the relations with Hobab the 3. The Midianite as guide, Num. xi. gives the Four Main episode of the quails and the journey to Narratives. Hazeroth and to Paran (xii. 16). From Kadesh (?) Moses sent out the spies, among them Caleb, who report the land as fruitful but impossible to take into possession (Num. xiii.), so that the people desire to return to Egypt (xiv. 3). The further course of the narrative of J is not clear. Num. xvi. tells of the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram, and xxi. 1–3 of the ban of the city of Hormalı. After that comes the capture of the fortified cities east of the Jordan. E is somewhat clearer in his narrative. In Ex. xvii. 8-16 is recounted the victory over Amalek, in chap. xviii. the advice of Jethro to appoint judges; in Ex. xxxiii. 1 sqq. the command to leave Horeb is regarded as punishment for the worship of the golden calf, but the ark shows the way (Num. x. 33-36); Num. xi. 1-3 tells of the fire from Yahweh which destroyed some of the people, and other verses of the chapter deal with the seventy elders; in chap. xi. Miriam's leprosy is accounted for; Num. xiii. 26 tells that from Kadesh Moses sent spies, and Caleb alone entreats the people to trust

Yahweh (xiv. 8-9); in xiv. 25 the people are commanded to return into the wilderness, while the people were defeated in their attempt on Canaan; Num. xx. 1b shows the people again in Kadesh, where Miriam died, after which the people go by way of Edom to the Arnon (Num. xx. 14–21, xxi. 4-9, 12-20). The Deuteronomist (i. 6-ii. 25) gives a short review of the course from Horeb to the Arnon, and (ix. 22) recalls Taberah, Massah, and Kibroth-hattaavah. The indications of the narrative of P are clearer. From Elim "all the congregation" went into the wilderness of Sin (Ex. xvi. 1), and when hunger assailed the people manna and quaile were sent them, thence by way of Rephidim they passed to the wilderness of Sinai (Ex. xvii. 1, xix. 1), the separate stations not being named. After the giving of the law, they depart from the wilderness of Sinai, and twelve spies are sent forth, go from the wilderness of Sin, swing northward by way of the entrance to Hamath, and after forty days return to the wilderness of Paran. At their report the assembly expresses its disappointment in an outbreak against Moses and Aaron. The next rebellion is that of Korah against the exclusive priesthood of the Levites, whose right is vindicated by a miracle of destruction and the budding of Aaron's rod (Num. xvi.-xvii.). In the wilderness of Sin the people murmur against the leaders because of lack of water, which is brought them from the rock (Meribah), and thence they proceed to Hor, where Aaron dies (Num. xx.), and to the territory opposite Jericho (Num. xxi.). The omission of the stages of the journey is supplied by Num. xxxiii., which purports to be by Moses (verse 2), and, apart from the starting-point and finish, contains the names of forty places, corresponding to the forty years of the wandering, but twenty-two of these are new and do not appear else where in the Pentateuch. Examination shows that the author of this chapter has used the Pentateuch in practically its present forin, hence the chapter is one of the latest in the Pentateuch. It appears to be the work of a Jew of Jerusalem of the end of the fifth pre-Christian century, who used not only the Pentateuch but other sources, involving the journey of others or of himself in that region; and into his account insertions appear to have been made. The wandering according to this chapter appears in four stages: From Rameses to Sinai (3–15); from Sinai to Bene-jaakan (16–30a, 36b-41a, 30a-31); thence south to Ezion-gaber (32-35); and thence north by way of the Wadi 'Arabah to Abel-shittim in Moab (36a, 41b-49). From the dating given above, it follows that among the sources this piece takes not the first but the last place among the data for determining the course of the wandering. The attempt must fail which aims to show that a difference among the narrators reflects itself here; that in the first part of the catalogue of stations the ideas of P and J are followed in that the Hebrews went in a northeasterly direction to Moab, while in the second part the notion of E and D is repro duced, viz., that they went by a circuit which took them first southeastward by Ezion-gaber. The many new place names stand in the way of reconciliation; moreover, of the forty or more names only about one-fourth may with greater or less probabil

ity be located, and these do not suffice to guide one on the way the Hebrews took. Moreover, since the number forty is there, not much room probably is left for additions or subtractions (by later editors). The four narratives are not of equal value. That of P is the latest; in this, e.g., Joshua represents the tribe of Ephraim, in E he is the servant of Moses; so Caleb represents Judah, while before the exile he stood out as still an independent tribe. D depends upon JE; while J and E are the earliest sources.

A series of narratives naturally deal with the matter of the sustenance of the people in the desert; it was early recognized that for the assumed two millions this was a difficult problem.

The solution was by miracle-God gave them water, bread, and meat. Yet the natural situation was kept in mind. Water was alleged 4. Suste- to be given only where it later existed. nance of Manna is known, even by modern the People. Arabs, as the sweet exudation of the Other Tamarix mannifera, which when perTribes. forated by an insect (coccus manniparus) gives forth a sort of gum in drops, which may be collected before the sun causes it to melt (cf. Ex. xvi. 21). These and other narrated facts, as its sweet taste, are in accordance with those observable. On the other hand, some details are rather poetical (Num. xi. 8). Similarly quails are in that region numerous, both as migratory and also as breeding there. Moreover, they do not fly high, especially when fatigued, and may be caught with the hand. An Arab writer of the tenth century speaks of the numbers of quails and says that the flesh often induces illness (cf. Num. xi. 33). In this way the nature of the wilderness and of the life there is accurately reproduced in many particulars in the narratives. Other details have to do with the peoples of other tribes with whom dealing was had. If Num. x. 29–32 originally spoke of Kenites (not Midianites), it leads to the conclusion that the Kenites went with the Hebrews to Canaan (cf. Judges i. 16, iv. 11; I Sam. xv. 6). The war with the Amalekites at Rephidim (Ex. xvii. 8-16) may be put in connection with Massa and Meribah (= Kadesh; cf. verses 2-7); but of the situation of Rephidim apart from this nothing certain is known, nor of the place of the altar of verse 15. The kernel and occasion of Num. xiii.-xiv, is discernible as coming from the history of the Calebite stem as dwelling near Hebron; this narrative explains the connection of the stock with Israel by its obedience to Yahweh. The narrative concerning Hormah and the former name Zephat is etymologically clear, since Hormah is connected with the Hebr. herem, "ban"; but the historical content is put in question. In an entirely different class are Ex. xviii.; Num. xi. 14, 16–17, 24b-30, which deal with the selection of laymen as judges and aids in leading the people. Num. xi. places them in a grade lower tlian Moses, possessing only a part of the divine spirit which rested upon him; Ex. xviii. makes Jethro the teacher of Moses in this matter. Some of the stories are closely connected with the cultus (Ex. xvii. 8-16; Num. xxi. 49; cf. II Kings xviii. 4). Other passages deal with etymological explanations of place names (Marah, Ex. xv. 23; Massah and Meribah, Ex.

xvii. 7: Taberah, Num. xi. 1-3; and Hormah, ut sup.). The narratives are partly etiological, partly etymological, and partly popular renarration of historical recollections from various standpoints, some also having their point of departure in pedagogical purpose (so the Korah narrative in its relation to priestly precedence, Num. xvi.). Complicating the discussion is the fact that the subject is the people of Israel as a whole as having the desert experience, though nationality was attained first in Canaan and only little tribes or stocks collected about Moses, with their possessions of flocks lingering where water permitted.

5. Place Names.

The names of places finding mention in the older narratives and in P are few-chiefly on the Egyptian border and in Edom and Moab. Stretches of territory were often named from adjacent places (e.g., the wilderness of Shur, Ex. xv. 22, from Shur, cf. Gen. xvi. 7, or perhaps from an Egyptian border fortress Taru). Some explain Elim (Ex. xv. 27) by referring to Phoinikon, a place of worship rich in springs named by Agatharchides (150 B.c.), and putting it into connection with the gods (Elim) of the place, while Marah (Ex. xv. 23) is derived from the name of the Maraniten, a tribe which held possession. A later identification is with 'Ain Hawara in the wadi of that name, and of Elim with the Wadi Gharandel two hours south. The wilderness of Sin (Ex. xvi. 1), which has nothing to do with the deity of that name, is to be located east and northeast of the present Ismailiyeh; according to Ezek. xxx. 15, Sin was the name of a fortress on the northern boundary of Egypt. Of the places in the desert Kadesh is known with certainty (see NEGEB). It figures strongly in all the sources, and it is possible that Massah is the notable spring 'Ain al-Kaderat, not far from Kadesh. The war with the Amalekites and the meeting with Jethro point to Kadesh. It has long been noticed that in the present accounts Kadesh was a station of the Israelites both before and after the giving of the law, and this probably embodies the correct historical tradition; indeed, this place may have been the objective of the march from Egypt, since it must have been known by the nomads for its abundant water supply. It is never reported that water was found at Sinai or Horeb, and a long stay there is not to be supposed. The natural situation implies that Israel stayed long in Kadesli but it is not expressly stated in the older narratives, though it may be read between the lines. The location of the giving of the law might be conjectured for this neighborhood (cf. Judges v. 4), in accordance with the general situation, but this is obscured by the intimations regarding the law as given on Sinai or Horeb. What is in the foreground is the long halt at Kadesh, and this alone offers a reasonable ground upon which to construct the history of this period and of the founding of the religion. Taberah and Kibroth-hattaavah (Num. xi. 3, 34) were possibly not far from Kadesh, as was also Hazeroth (xi. 35), " courts, enclosures." Paran (q.v.), as represented, seems to have been more frequented by the Israelites than Kadesh, but this can hardly be historical. Hormah, to be distinguished from the place of that name in the Negeb (q.v.), is

in the Wilderness

located by Palmer at al-Zebeta, by Robinson at alZafa on the border of Edom. The wilderness of Sin lay south of Kadesh, between it and the wilderness of Paran. The latter is made by the narratives the place of the long wandering, and is to be sought west of the Edomitic boundary. Of the period spent there hardly anything is known-there was placed the rebellion of Korah. In the later conceptions of the Hebrews, the double halt of their forefathers at Kadesh was the fast fact. Mount Hor, where Aaron died (Num. xx. 22–29), is, according to the context, to be sought not far from Kadesh, and not in the neighborhood of Petra; Deut. x. 6 sqq. puts his death at Mosera, which may possibly be Jebel Madara, northeast from Kadesh. Oboth (Num. xxi. 10-11, xxxiii. 43) is located by Wetzstein at the watering-places ‘Ain al-Webe on the western slope of Wadi ‘Arabah south of the Dead Sea; but Num. xxxiii. 43 places it near Phunon (Khirbet Fenan), on the opposite side of the wadi. The location is not certain, but both supposed sites indicate passage through the wadi. Ije-abarim (Num. xxi. 11, xxxiii. 44-45) shows the people already in Moab; it may correspond to Khirbet 'Aij, between Katrabba (Kafrabba) and el-Kerak.

Bound up in the texture of the narrative of P is a chronology which makes frequent mention of forty years. This period as the length of the wandering is surely older than the age of the au6. Chronol- thor of this document, appearing in E ogy and the and D (Josh. xiv. 7, 10; Deut. viii. Route. 2, 4). In the present text this period is reckoned in various ways; from the march from Kadesh to the end of the desert (Num. xiv. 33, xxxiii. 38); or from the departure from Egypt (Ex. xii. 2 sqq., xvi. 1, xl. 1, 17; Num. x. 11; Deut. i. 3), which would make the period from the leaving of Kadesh thirty-eight years. Sometimes the reckoning is not completed, perhaps because it did not agree with other data (Ex. xix. 1; Num. xx. 1), but perhaps because the reckoning of forty years was a later conception. This conception is worked out into a schematic (i.e., unhistorical) form in Num. xxxiii., making the stations impliedly agree with the number of the years of the wandering. Of the events of these years little is known; the rebellion of Korah, the opening of the springs at Kadesh, and the death of Aaron are all. This lack of material best fits in with the supposition that the forty years were not in the original tradition. As to E and D it is to be noted that the former (Ex. xiii. 17 sqq.) declares that God did not lead the people by the way of the Philistines, but by the way of the Red Sea (q.v.); the other reports of the wandering are given in Deut. i.-ii. The road to the 'mountain of the Amorites" (Deut. i. 19) leads out of the desert south of the Negeb, out of the desert of Paran, to the north via Kadesh toward Beersheba and Hebron. The way to the Red Sea (i. 40, ii. 1) led from Kadesh through the desert to Elath. The "way of the plain" (ii. 8) leads (verses 3-4) north through the region of the Edomites. Thence the march was eastward or northeastward after leaving the Wadi 'Arabah to the wilderness of Moab and the brook Zered (verse 13). See ISRAEL, HISTORY OF, I., § 4. (H. GUTHE.)

"

BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Naville, in the Memoirs of the Egypt Exploration Fund, Nos. 1, 3, for 1883-84; C. Forster, Israel in the Wilderness, London, 1865; W. H. Bartlett, Forty Days in the Desert on the Track of the Israelites, new ed., London, 1867; E. H. Palmer, The Desert of the Exodus, part ii., chaps. 1-5, 2 vols., London, 1871; S. C. Bartlett, From Egypt to Palestine through Sinai, the Wilderness, and the South Country, New York, 1879; G. Ebers, Durch Gosen zum Sinai, Leipsic, 1881; H. C. Trumbull, Kadesh-Barnea, New York and London, 1884; M. J. Lagrange, in Revue biblique, ix (1900), 66 sqq., 286 sqq., 447 sqq.; C. Steuernagel, Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme, Leipsic, 1900; E Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, pp. 1 sqq., Halle, 1906; Bönhoff, in TSK, 1907, pp. 159 sqq.; A. Musil, Arabia Petræa (text), vols. i.-ii., Vienna, 19071908; O. A. Toffteen, Researches in Biblical_Archæology, vol. ii., The Historic Exodus, Chicago, 1909; L. Schneller, Durch die Wüste zum Sinai. In Moses Spuren vom Schilfmeer bis zum Nebo, Leipsic, 1909; EB, iv. 5256–61; JE, xii. 520-521; the literature under SINAI, and the commentaries on the Biblical books named in the text.

WAR AND CHRISTIAN SERVICE IN WAR.

I. Theory and Ethics of War.
Ethics of War (§ 1).

Patristic and Medieval Views (§ 2).
Clerics and Military Service (§ 3).

II. Movements and Societies for Mitigation of Horrors of
War.

Origin of Societies for Care of Wounded (§ 1).
German Societies (§ 2).

1. Ethics of War.

I. Theory and Ethics of War: Though war is undoubtedly an evil, it is not unmixed with good, and the view that condemns it unconditionally is one-sided. To base this view on the words of Jesus in the sermon on the mount (Matt. v. 39-44) is to misinterpret the passage. It is true that in the kingdom of heaven there will be no place for war, and that the development of the work of salvation among men points directly to the abolition of war; but the future can not be anticipated. The Christian must bear with patience present evils and tribulations (Rom. xii. 11). Did not Moses say, The Lord is a man of war "(Ex. xv. 3)? David confidently recommends his martial doings to the Lord (Ps. ix., xviii., lx.). There is no reason for restricting the validity of this view to the time of the old dispensation, for nowhere does the New Testament reject war unconditionally. John the Baptist did not ask of the soldiers that they abandon their profession (Luke iii. 14), nor did Jesus ask such a thing of the cen turion of Capernaum (Matt. viii. 5–13), or Peter of Cornelius (Acts x.). God has given the sword to rulers that they may punish evil-doers and maintain law and order. It was from this point of view that Luther wrote Ob Kriegsleute auch in seligem Stande sein können. He maintained that unneces sary war is a sin, but that necessary war is a duty. The part of the individual Christianin war is a matter of duty to the ruler. It is not for him to decide whether or not the war is justified. This view of the Reformer has not been changed greatly by later | Evangelical ethics. The right of intervention, which is now generally recognized, offers a difficult problem; and it is questionable whether, in matters pertaining to the kingdom of God, the sword should be drawn at all (Matt. xxvi. 52). Strategy in war has been recognized from time immemorial, and is justified, in that it serves to shorten the war and diminish loss of life. As regards the care of the

wounded and the life and property of non-combatants, warfare is now conducted on more humane principles than formerly. Even Luther regarded robbing and burning as unavoidable. It can not be too strongly emphasized that the only proper purpose of war is to restore peace and reestablish law and order, and that no more damage should be done to the enemy than is necessary for the accomplishment of this purpose. Recent attempts to secure a world-peace by disarmament are based upon economic considerations rather than upon Christian principles.

The early Christians abhorred war, partly on account of a misinterpretation of the words of Jesus to Peter, "for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matt. xxvi. 52); partly because military service brought them

2. Patristic in contact with many idolatrous rites. and Medi- The State seemed to them an expreseval Views. sion of the godlessness of the world and its hostility to Christ. In this spirit Tertullian treated the subject (De idol., xix.; De corona militis, xi., both in ANF, vol. iii.). Nevertheless, in spite of the reigning aversion, many Christians served in the Roman army (Tertullian, Apol., xlii.; Ad Scap., iv.); and when, under the reign of Constantine, the relation between State and Church became one of intimate friendship and alliance the objections of the Christians to war were gradually silenced. Augustine, who maintained intimate personal and epistolary intercourse with many distinguished statesmen, such as Marcellinus and Bonifacius, considered war a social benefit, and military service an employment of a talent agreeable to God (Epist., ccvii. ad Bonif., and Epist., cxxxviii. ad Marc.). In his book against Faustus (XXII., lxxiv.) he exclaims, "What is there bad in war"? Later on, when it became the great task of the Church to convert the Germanic tribes no objections to war were heard. True, its horrors and cruelties were mitigated by the “Truce of God" (q.v.), the sanctity of sacred places (see ASYLUM, RIGHT OF), etc. Indeed, the Church instigated the wars of the Crusades, which were regarded as wars of God. Nor is the attitude which Luther assumed with respect to the Peasants' War and the war against the Turks different in principle from that which the Latin Church originally assumed with respect to the Crusades. In the ancient church the clergy were absolutely forbidden to participate in war; and no one who had served in the army after he had professed Christianity was' admitted to holy orders. During the Middle Ages it was not rare to find great generals among the bishops. Such a one was Christian of Mainz. After the decay of the feudal system the clergy were freed from all personal military service.

Now that military service is required of all in Germany, the question of military service by clerics has again become a vital one, and has 3. Clerics occasioned much discussion. It has and Mili- been urged that military duties are intary Service. consistent with service in the kingdom

of God, and that the obligations of the young clergyman to his church should take precedence of secular duties. From the point of view

of the Church it is highly objectionable that the work of preparation of the theological student should be unnecessarily interrupted by a period of military service, which may prove both expensive and demoralizing. [For views traversing those of this article see PEACE MOVEMENTS.]

(KARL BURGER†.)

II. Movements and Societies for Mitigation of Horrors of War: Felddiakonie is the German term for voluntary service rendered to combatants in time of war. In its origin it partook of the nature of Christian ministration, but was also influenced largely by the spirit of secular humanitarianism.

The care of the sick and wounded in 1. Origin war presupposes three essential eleof Societies ments-the existence of a trained and for Care of devoted body of voluntary workers, Wounded. their harmonious cooperation with the regular military sanitary department, and the recognition of their neutral character by international law. Up to the middle of the nineteenth century the fate of those wounded in battle was pitiful, and even the Crimean War, which witnessed the heroic labors of Florence Nightingale and the first beginnings of organized sanitary activity on the part of volunteers, deprived war of but few of its horrors in the field and the hospital. It was the Lombard War of 1859 that gave the great impulse to the movement. Stirred by the dreadful sights of the battle-field of Solferino Henri Dunant of Geneva began to plead the cause of the wounded soldier, and so eloquently as finally to convince the entire world of the necessity of radical improvement in that sphere. On Aug. 22, 1864, was concluded the Geneva Convention by which the sick and wounded in war together with the staff devoted to their care and all utilities appertaining to the work were declared inviolable under the sign of the Red Cross (q.v.) on a white field. But of more avail than the specific conditions of the Geneva convention itself was the impulse thus given to a great humanitarian movement which speedily came to constitute one of the most wide-spread fields of beneficent human activity. The basis had been laid for the foundation of numerous societies which may be divided into two general categories according as the moving spirit is one of Christian mission work or of secular humanitarianism and patriotism.

Of Protestant associations the Knights of St. John trace back to the time of the crusades. The bailly of Brandenburg in the grand priory of Germany was disbanded in 1812, and revived in 1852 as an Evangelical order devoted to the 2. German defense of religion and the performance Societies. of works of mercy. Both in peace and war it has been active in the care of the sick through the erection and maintenance of hospitals and the knightly protection of sisters engaged in their work of mercy on the battlefield. In 1898 the order counted 770 active and 1,747 affiliated honorary members, and maintained 48 establishments with 2,297 beds, attended exclusively by the members of the sisterhoods. In time of war it can place 1,600 women nurses in the field. Among Roman Catholic orders the first place belongs to the Knights of Malta, divided into two associa

tions, one in Silesia organized in 1864, and one in the Rhenish and Westphalian region founded three years later. Its staff includes about 1,500 sisters of mercy and a smaller number of brethren. The Knights of St. George are a Bavarian order founded in 1729 and reorganized in 1871. Non-religious bodies are the Associations for the Care of the Wounded and Sick in War of which the first was founded in Württemberg in 1863, followed within five years by others in all the principal German states. In 1886 a movement was set on foot for the organization of voluntary associations for the care of the sick under the auspices of Johann Wichern, director of the Rauhes Haus, whose exertions resulted in the establishment of branches throughout Germany and the creation of a body of 2,200 trained nurses with a reserve of almost double that number. The organic law conditioning the existence and character of all these associations is the sanitary ordinance of Jan. 10, 1878. For Red Cross Societies

I. The Army.

Primitive Conditions (§ 1).

The Standing Army 2).

The Personnel and Pay (§ 3).

see the article on that subject; see also PEACE MOVEMENTS. (THEODORE SCHÄFER.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The subject is sometimes treated in dis cussions on ethios, as in R. Rothe, Ethik, §§ 1159-62 Wittenberg, 1869, and H. L. Martensen, Die christliche Ethik, iii. 280–292, Berlin, 1871, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1882. The reverse of this subject with its appropriate bibliography is presented in the article PEACE MOVEMENTE Consult further: G. W. MacCree, The Sword and the Olive, London, 1881; J. F. Bethune-Baker, Influence of Chris tianity on War, Cambridge, 1888; M. Jaehns, Ueber Kria, Frieden und Kultur, Berlin, 1893; A. F. Hamon, Psycho logie du militaire professionnel, Brussels, 1894; Y. A Novikov, La Guerre et ses prétendus bienfaits, Paris, 1894; M. Anitchkow, Krieg und Arbeit, Berlin, 1900, Eng. transl War and Labour, Westminster and New York, 1900; J. J. Green, War. Is it Consistent with Christianity? Lon don, 1901; W. Walsh, The Moral Damage of War, London, 1902, new ed., Boston, 1909; J. Barr, Christianity and War, Glasgow, 1903; K. Blutharsch, Die Ursache der Völkerkriege und die Grundlage für die Weltfrieden, Stuttgart, 1905; T. Kattenbusch, Das sittliche Recht des Krieges, Giessen, 1906; D. L. Dodge, War In consistent with the Religion of Jesus Christ, new ed., Boston, 1910.

I. The Army: Not till the royal period did the Hebrews possess a standing army, but from a much earlier time every male adult able to fight was liable to call for field service. Bedouins either on a raid

or when attacked expect the help of 1. Primitive every member of the tribe. The stateConditions. ment in P (Num. i. 1-2, xxvi. 2) of twenty years as the age when war service may be required may express ancient custom and possibly tells the age at which men became members of the tribe with full rights. The Book of Judges describes conditions from this point of view. In case of an expedition for booty or conquest or of necessity for repelling attack the men capable of bearing arms assembled under a recognized head-the boldest of their number (Judges xi. 1 sqq.); in case the danger was great, messengers were sent to friendly tribes for help. An example of this last was Jabesh-gilead, the elders of which sent for help throughout Israel, when Saul made his stirring appeal and called for the people to come to the war (I Sam. xi. 3 sqq.). In case of victory, each man returned home with his booty. This method did not permit great wars and slaughter or great armies, but resembled the conditions under which at the present Bedouin raids occur. The numbers of men engaged were relatively small; Gideon had 300 men (Judges vii. 16), the Danites numbered 600 (Judges xviii. 11). Larger numbers are mentioned in the Song of Deborah (Judges v. 8, cf. iv. 14). But the methods which had sufficed against the Midianites were not adequate when the enemy was a warlike and relatively great and well-armed people like the Philistines. So Saul recognized the need of a standing army, and after the victory over the Ammonites in view of conflicts with the Philistines he retained 3,000 men under arms (I Sam. xiii. 1 sqq.), though it is not said that this was a permanent force. Yet he had a force as a body-guard, of which David was the leader (I Sam. xxii. 14), the

Branches of Service (§ 2).
III. Fortresses.

IV. The Conduct of War.
V. Religious Significance of War.
members of which were noted warriors, selected by
Saul from all Israel (I Sam. xiv. 52).

kry purposes behind it. The organization was by thousands, hundreds, and fifties (I Sam. viii, 12, xvii. 18, xviii. 13; II Sam. xviii. 1; II Kings i. 9, xi. 4, 19); such an organization is attributed to Saul's times, but it is doubtful whether this breaking up of the old tribal organization occurred so soon. Regal interests furthered the dissolution of tribal ties, and tribal organization was disregarded in Solomon's divisions (I Kings iv. 7 sqq.), which may have had A military basis. Obligation to bear arms and to pay taxes rested on possession of the soil, so that when Nebuchadrezzar took away "the mighty men of valor" (II Kings xxiv. 14), naturally only "the poorest of the land " remained. In later times among the officers of the army was the "scribe of the host" (Jer. lii. 25).

Limitations to a call to war are placed by Deut. xxiv. 5, xx. 5-8, and certain prescriptions were observed by Judas the Maccabee (I Macc. iii. 55). Which of these prescriptions is the older is difficult to define, and the practicality is both questioned (Wellhausen, Composition des Hexa3. The teuch, p. 182, but cf. p. 359 of the 3d Personnel ed., 1899) and defended (Schwally, and Pay. Semitische Kriegsaltertümer, i. 74 sqq.). Since the wars of Israel were wars of Yahweh, ceremonial impurity excluded from service. At the time when these prescriptions were written, customs were still in memory which made them explicable, and some of them can be explained from present knowledge. In Maccabean times there were changes in the military establishment. Judas had, in addition to the groupings already mentioned, one of ten men (I Macc. iii. 55); Simon raised a force paid from his own resources (ib. ziv. 32); Hyrcanus enlisted foreigners (Josephus, And., XIII., viii. 4), while Jews increasingly entered the service of foreign kings (both Ptolemies and Seleucidae; I Macc. x. 36; Josephus, Ant., XII., ii. 5). Under Alexander Jannæus and Alexandra foreign mercenaries held the Jews in check (Josephus, Ant., XIII., xiii. 5); Hyrcanus furnished troops to the Romans (ib. XIV., x. 2); under the Herods, the army was trained in Roman fashion, and Germans were among the forces. In case the need was urgent, the forces were summoned by the trumpet or by the display of signal. Whether the forces carred standards in early times is unknown, but passages in P (Num. i. 52, ii. 2-34) speak of such both for tribes and families, though their character is not determined. Naturally in ancient times the commisariat was not specially governed; each man took what he could, even in his own country (II Sam. vii. 27)-Jesse sent provisions to his sons through David (I Sam. xvii. 17). Yet Judges xx. 10 (the

A step momentous in its consequences was the king's assumption of appointment of the leaders, the people's voice being no longer heard in the mat ter. While at first naturally the heads of the tribes and such men were first chosen by 2. The Saul, his own interest led to the placing Standing in responsible positions of those known Army. to be true to him, eventually to members of the royal household, as Jonathan (I Sam. xiü. 1 sqq.), and under David near relations like Joab, Abner, and Amasa. Saul sought to bind David to himself by giving him his daughter Michal. The body-guard had a place in history which was noteworthy. Under David it was 400 strong at Adullam (I Sam. xxii. 2), and a little later numbered 600 (I Sam. xxiii. 13); at the time of the Philistine fight (I Sam. xxviii. 1 sqq.) it must have been a formidable force, as the times then went. This force became David's guard, known as "heroes" and Cherethites and Pelethites" (I Kings i. 8, 38). The last designation has been taken to show that Philistines were in it; this is not certain, but David had a company of 600 under Ittai of Gath who were trustworthy in critical times (II Sam. xv. 19), and Benaiah was their general (II Sam. xxiii. 23). This body-guard was the kernel of David's army; whether the standing army included more is not. known. The Chronicler (I., xxvii. 1 sqq.)ge of which is not determined) speaks of regular divides the whole army into twelve corps of 24,000 each, which served each one month; but the report is untrustworthy. Still, regular organization of the army under David is clear, since Joab's office as general-in-chief was permanent. Considering the number and length of David's wars, it is improbable that the entire force available was always under arms such a condition was often unnecessary, and economic conditions would not permit it. The num bering of the people by David probably had mili

provision for supply of food. Only the standing my and mercenaries received pay, and the warriors' reward consisted in part in their share in the booty (Gen. xiv. 24; Num. xxi. 25 sqq.; Deut. xxi. 11), in which those who remained behind for cause shared (Num. xxxi. 27; Josh. xxii. 8; I Sam. xxx. 24; II Macc. viii. 28, 30).

IL Arms and Weapons: From their nomadic life the Hebrews brought into Canaan the chief Weapon of the Bedouins, the lance with wooden

shaft and bronze head. The sling was an early weapon, but the sword became common only after they reached Palestine. There they first met foes whose method of warfare was of a high 1. Offensive standard. Canaanitic weapons were and Defen- derived from the Hittites on the north, sive Armor. and the part of their equipment which most terrified the Hebrews was the chariots of iron, to the possession of which is attributed the ability of Canaanites to retain mastery of the plains (Josh. xi. 4; Judges i. 19; I Sam. xiii. 5). The chariots carried three men-driver, warrior, and shield-bearer who protected the others. The Philistines had cavalry also (I Sam. xiii. 5). Infantry were of two kinds, light and heavy armed. The latter had a round helm of bronze, coat of mail, bronze greaves, sword, throwing spear, and lance; the former were bowmen and slingers. This armament the Hebrews adopted from their foes. The Chronicler mentions light-armed Benjaminites, and says that they were ambidextrous with bow and sling (I Chron. viii. 40, xii. 2; II Chron. xiv. 8, xvii. 17; cf. Judges xx. 16). Judahites were heavy armed, carrying spear and shield, as were Gadites and Naphtalites (II Chron. xiv. 8; I Chron. xii. 8, 24, 34). The light-armed had bow or sling and a small shield. The bow was usually of a hard springy wood, though later it was of bronze (Ps. xviii. 34; Job xx. 24); as it was strung by placing one end on the ground and bending the other with the hand, it must have been large; yet another kind was strung by the hands alone. The string was of ox or camel gut. The arrow was of light wood with point of metal, and was carried in a quiver; sometimes the point was poisoned (Jer. li. 11; Isa. xlix. 2; Job vi. 4). Fire arrows were used against city and camp (Isa. 1. 11). The sling was also the weapon of the shepherds, and was a strap of leather or such material, broader in the center where the missile, usually a smooth stone, was placed, this being discharged by loosing one end of the sling. The light-armed, at least the bowmen, carried a small shield only half as large as that of the heavy-armed, but the shape of neither is known. From Ezek. xxxix. 9; II Sam. i. 21; and Isa. xxi. 5 it seems clear that the shield was of wood covered with leather or of several layers of leather. Solomon's golden shields were merely for display; Rehoboam furnished instead those covered with bronze (I Kings xiv. 26). Apparently on the march the shields were carried by wagon. The heavy-armed had as weapon of attack the spear (hanith) used for thrusting, not throwing (I Sam. xvii. 7, xix. 9-10). How this weapon differed from that called romaḥ is unknown (II Chron. xi. 12), but the romaḥ later became the usual weapon. I Chron. xii. 8, 24, 34 distinguishes the hanith as the weapon of the Naphtalites, the romah as that of Judah and Gad. The weapon called kidhon probably differed from both as being a casting spear; Goliath had one besides his hanith (I Sam. xvii. 6, 45). The sword was of iron, its blade straight and often double-edged, and it was used both to cut and to thrust (I Sam. xiii. 19; Judges iii. 16, 21, xxi. 10). It was carried at the left by a girdle worn over the soldier's coat. The helmet (kobha' or kobha') in early times was worn not

by the man in the ranks but by the king or leader of the host (I Sam. xvii. 5, 38); the Chronicler (II., xxvi. 14) reports first of Uzziah that he equipped the army with helmets, and later it was a common article of defense. Saul and Goliath are reported to have had bronze helmets and coats of mail. Probably these were not wholly of bronze, but of leather covered with the alloy. The form is not known, but the monuments show that of Egyptians and Assyrians. Goliath's coat was of scales of bronze, while Saul's was probably of bronze also, since it was too heavy for David (I Sam. xvii. 38-39). From Assyrian sources it appears that the coat of the common soldier was a thick jacket of felt or leather somewhat strengthened with sheet iron; the charioteers wore the long coat reaching to the knees. In Græco-Roman times the metal coat was more common, in the Syrian armies the common soldiers wore interwoven coats of mail (I Macc. vi. 35). Other weapons of an uncommon sort are mentioned, but do not characterize the armament of the Hebrews (Job xli. 26; Jer. 1. 23, li. 20; Prov. xxv. 18; Gen. xlix. 5; Ps. xxxv. 3).

Up till the time of Solomon the Hebrews had only infantry; David's course in the Syrian war when he captured chariots and horses was to disable the horses (II Sam. viii. 4). But Solomon 2. Branches introduced cavalry and chariots, and of Service. is said to have had 12,000 cavalry, 1,400 chariots, and 40,000 chariot horses (I Kings x. 26), which were kept partly in Jerusalem and partly elsewhere (I Kings ix. 19). This marks the beginning of a great standing army over and above the body-guard of the king. Cavalry and chariotry thenceforth were a part of the Hebrew army, although a large part of the land was not suited to their evolutions. For this element of the army the prophets had no liking and frequently denounced reliance upon it (Hos. i. 7, xiv. 3). The chariots were doubtless like those of Philistines and Canaanites, two-wheeled, open behind, and probably carried three persons.

III Fortresses: When the Hebrews crossed the Jordan, they found the land defended by numerous strong places and fortified cities which, with their high walls, made great impression upon the sons of the desert (Num. xiii. 28; Deut. i. 28), who were not able at once to reduce them. For a time they dwelt in the open, and in time of war fled to woods and caves for refuge (I Sam. xiii. 6). This condition changed in the kingly period, when Canaanitic fortresses fell into their hands, especially Jebus (II Sam. v. 9); they learned also to build their own fortifications, as when David refortified JebusJerusalem, and when Solomon built Hazor and Megiddo on the roads to the north, Gezer, lower Beth-horon, and Balaath toward the west, and Tamar toward the south. Rehoboam erected no less than fifteen border fortresses on the west and south (II Chron. xi. 5 sqq.); Jeroboam fortified Shechem and Penuel in the north (I Kings xii. 25); Baasha attempted to fortify Ramah as an outpost against Judah, but Asa destroyed it and used the material to build Geba and Mizpah (I Kings xv. 16-22). Omri built Samaria on an isolated hill and made it so strong that it was able to hold out for

a smaller outside wall.

three years against the Assyrians (II Kings xvii. 5)ravery, strength, dexterity, and quickness. OccaThe Maccabeans and Herods built many fortressonally a duel between chosen champions decided among which especially worthy of mention the battle (I Sam. xvii.; II Sam. ii. 14 sqq.). Though Beth-zur, Jotopata, Herodium (southwest of Beth the Hebrews were behind the Assyrians in cruelty, lehem), Masada, and Machærus. Naturally, these their treatment of the conquered was harsh. While fortresses stood on hills; and it was the custom for the latter cut off the heads and hands of the fallen each great fortified city to have in or near it also trophies, the former seem to have done this only citadel (so Jerusalem, q.v.; Shechem, Penuel, and exceptional cases (I Sam. xvii. 5 sqq., xxxi. 9; Thebez; Judges ix. 46, 51, viii. 9, 17). The primary I Sam. xx. 22); possibly it was an old custom to fortification was an encircling wall, usually of that off the foreskins of the fallen foe (I Sam. xviii. largest stones obtainable or workable, often n 25, 27); not seldom the captive kings or generals squared, and in ancient times set without mortar were killed (Josh. x. 24 sqq.; Judges vii. 25), though it was so thick that not only the watch but consid the Hebrew kings bore a reputation for mildness erable forces could occupy its crown (Neh. xii. 311 Kings xx. 31). Sometimes the entire captive sqq.; I Macc. xiii. 45). There were also placed host was slain (Judges vii. 25; Josh. x. 24 sqq.), there catapults and other engines of war, beginning and severe practises of other kinds are known from the time of Uzziah (II Chron. xxvi. 15). Mas (Judges i. 6-7; I Sam. xi. 2). As a rule the capsive towers of great stones protected the corner, tives became slaves, yet the usually mild Deutergate, and other portions of the walls. Battlement onomy (xx. 13-14) enjoins the enslaving of women protected the defenders. The entrances were not and children only. For examples of other horrors simple openings in the walls, but quite room of war cf. II Kings viii. 12, xv. 16; Isa. xiii. 16; Hos. structures with towers and an upper story (II Sam. 14; Amos i. 13. The land of the enemy was xviii. 33); the gates were usually double doors draged, the trees cut down, the wells stopped up strong wood, probably covered with plates of brome (Deut. xx. 19; Judges vi. 4; II Kings iii. 19, 25), or iron and fastened with bars of the same metal while cities and villages were burned (Judges ix. (Deut. iii. 5; I Kings iv. 13). Commonly a city 45; I Macc. v. 28). The subjected people were put had but one gate, which was closed at evening under ransom of a large sum or under tribute (Gen. xxxiv. 20; Josh. ii. 5). Frequently there was (II Kings xviii. 14; Isa. xxxii. 18), for the payment of which hostages were taken (II Kings xiv. 14). IV. The Conduct of War: A preliminary to war Victory was celebrated with song and dance (Ex. was the consulting of the oracle (Judges i. 1, xx. 27-.; Judges v.; I Sam. xviii. 6 sqq.). The burial of 28; I Sam. xiv. 37) or of the prophet (I Kings xi the fallen was a sacred duty (I Kings xv.); the host 5 sqq.); there were sacrifices (I Sam. vii. 8 sqq, mourned fallen leaders (II Sam. iii. 31), whose xiii. 9 sqq.) and consecration, since war was holy weapons were buried with them.· (see below). In great conflicts the war palladium, V. Religious Significance of War: In common the ark, was present as a matter of course (I Sam with other Semites, Hebrews regarded war as a saiv. 4 sqq.; II Sam. xi. 11); Deut. xx. 2 prescribes tred thing, a concern of Yahweh (Ex. xvii. 16; Num. that before the fight the priest address the soldier xxi. 14; I Sam. xxv. 28); hence in Deborah's song and inspire them with courage, and the priestly those are cursed who remained away from the battle requires the presence of the priest with his silver (Judges v. 23). Israel's foes are also Yahweh's trumpet (Num. x. 9, xxxi. 6). This ordinance was (Judges v. 31; I Sam. xxx. 26). As "Lord of hosts observed by the Maccabees (I Macc. xvi. 8). I and "God of the armies of Israel" (I Sam. xvii. 45) possible, the war began in the spring, that retur Yahweh participated in the battle; and cast stones might be had before the winter, when men stayed upon the enemy to assist his people (Josh. x. 11). at home. Of the arrangement of the camp nothing is presence with the army was believed to be a is known; Num. ii. seems to indicate a triangula literal fact, in common with the ordinary belief of form, but how nearly this corresponded to actul the times, and he was represented by the ark, which custom is not clear. Tents are mentioned as being by the enemy was taken as the presence of God himin the camps of Hebrews and Syrians (II Sam. self (I Sam. iv. 6-7). War was therefore one of the 11; II Kings vii. 7) in connection with protracted religious institutions of Israel; the warrior was obsieges of fortresses. The night was divided int gated to perform certain cultic duties before batthree watches (Judges vii. 19); while the main forte, being consecrated to God (Josh. iii. 5; Isa. xiii. was away, a camp guard protected the camp. The 3), men spoke of "sanctifying war (Joel iii. 9, maintenance of the purity of the camp was strict V. margin; Jer. vi. 4); and the warrior was to enjoined (Deut. xxiii. 10 sqq.). The battle am Bel. of Sem., p. 455; cf. II Sam. xi. 6 sqq.). From remain ceremonially pure during the war (Smith, was either in line or in three parts of center and tw | wings (I Sam. iv. 2, xvii. 8, 20-21; Judges vii. this standpoint has been explained the exemption 20, xx. 20, 30; Isa. viii. 8), with sometimes an am from warlike duties of those newly married, or who bush at the rear of the enemy (Josh. viii. 13-14 had just built a house; and this, too, explains the The attack was accompanied by a loud outer at that the camp is sacred (Deut. xxiii. 10 sqq.). (Josh. vi. 20; I Sam. xvii. 52). The art of war w Thus is explained also the custom of the ban; all not highly developed, though stratagem, in booty belongs to Yahweh, hence the extreme form way of surprise or rear attack, was employed, af the ban was the killing of all which had life and the turning of the flanks (Josh. ii., vi. 22, vi 2 burning of everything else (Josh. vi. 17; I Sam. vi. 12; Judges vii. 10 sqq., 16 sqq., xx. 36 sqq.; II San; cf. Deut. xiii. 16-17). Limitations of the ban v. 23). The fight depended often upon individuare found in Deut. vii. 27 sqq.; while historical

If

16

practise or prescription is found in Num. xxxi. 7 sqq., 17–18; Josh. viii. 2, 27–28, xi. 10 sqq.; Judges xxi. 11 sqq. In all probability practise was milder than theory, the desire for booty having its influence. The destruction of a part of the booty signifies consecration of that part to Yahweh, and parallel for the Hebrew custom is found in the Moabite Stone (q.v.), which declares that Mesha devoted 7,000 men to his god Chemosh (lines 3, 11, 12, 16–17). (I. BENZINGER.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. Schwally, Semitische Kriegsaltertümer, part i., Der heilige Krieg in Israel, Leipsic, 1901; J. L. Saalschütz, Mosaisches Recht, pp. 258-286, 641 sqq., Berlin, 1846-48; S. Spitzer, Das Heer- und Wehr-Gesetz der alten Israeliten, 2d ed., Pressburg, 1879; Benzinger, Archäologie, pp. 279-308; Nowack, Archäologie, i. 357-375; DB, i. 154-156, 346, 703, iv. 892-897; EB, i. 312–316, 605-607, ii. 1918, 2013, iii. 4463-65, iv. 5261-70, 5275; JE, ii. 120-122, xii. 463–466; and, for comparative purposes, A. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, pp. 520 sqq., New York, 1894.

WARBURTON, WILLIAM: Church of England bishop of Gloucester; b. at Newark-upon-Trent (17 m. n.e. of Nottingham) Dec. 24, 1698; d. at Gloucester June 7, 1779. His father, an attorney, had him educated for the law, which he probably practised 1719-23; but he had always a passionate liking for theology, and was ordained deacon, 1723, and priest, 1727; he became rector at Greaseley, Nottingham, 1726; was rector at Brant-Broughton, 1728-30; and at Frisby, 1730-56; became chaplain to the Prince of Wales, 1738; preacher to Lincoln's Inn, 1746; chaplain to the king, 1754; prebendary of Durham, 1755; dean of Bristol, 1757; and bishop of Gloucester, 1760. In the retirement of country life during the earlier years of his activity he prosecuted his studies with great diligence, and wrote those works which have perpetuated his memory. The first of these was The Alliance between Church and State; or the Necessity and Equity of an established Religion, and a Test Law demonstrated, from the Essence and End of civil Society upon the fundamental Principles of the Laws of Nature and Nations (1736), in which, while taking high ground, as the title indicates, he yet maintains that the State Church should tolerate those who differed from it in doctrine and worship. Soon thereafter came his great work, The Divine Legation of Moses, Demonstrated on the Principles of a Religious Deist, from the Omission of the Doctrine of a Future State of Rewards and Punishments in the Jewish Dispensation. Books i.-iii. appeared in vol. i. (1737-38); books iv., v., vi., in vol. ii. (1741); books vii. and viii. never appeared; book ix. was first published in his Works (1788; 10th ed. of the entire work, ed. James Nichols, 3 vols., 1846). The treatise was directed against the Deists (see DEISM), especially their doctrine of the Old Testament and their stress upon the omission of mention of immortality in the Old Testament. Warburton turns the tables upon them by constructing, out of the very absence of such statements, a proof of the divinity of the Mosaic legislation. The first three books deal with the necessity of the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments to civil society from (1) the nature of the thing, (2) the conduct of the ancient lawgivers and founders of civil policy, and (3) the opinions and conduct of the ancient sages and

philosophers. The fourth book proves the high antiquity of the arts and empire of Egypt, and that such high antiquity illustrates and confirms the truth of the Mosaic history. The fifth book explains the nature of the Jewish theocracy. In the sixth book Warburton shows from the Old and New Testaments that a future state of rewards and punishments did make part of the Mosaic dispensation. The ninth book treats of the true nature and genius of the Christian religion. The general argument is that because the sacred books of Judaism said nothing respecting a future state of rewards and punishments, it must be divine, since it did really accomplish the punishment of wrong-doers without such a doctrine, and no other legislation has been able to do so without it. This it could do because the foundation and support of the Mosaic legislation was the theocracy which was peculiar to the Jews, and dealt out in this life righteous rewards and punishments upon individual and nation. An extraordinary providence conducted the affairs of this people, and consequently the sending of Moses was divinely ordered. The work is confessedly limited to one line of argument, is defective in exegesis, and does not do justice to the intimations of immortality among the later Jews; yet it is distinguished by freshness and vigor, masterly argumentation, and bold imagination. The excursuses are particularly admirable.

Warburton was a man of untiring energy, wide information, clear insight, and lively imagination. He had a noble, open, guileless heart; yet as a critic he was sharp, and often satirical. His writings, besides those already noted, embrace a commentary upon Pope's Essay on Man (1742; by this he won Pope's firm friendship); Julian (1750; on the numerous alleged providential interferences which defeated Julian's attempt to rebuild the temple); The Doctrine of Grace; or the Office and Operations of the Holy Spirit vindicated from the Insults of Infidelity and the Abuses of Fanaticism (2 vols., 1762; a work directed against the Methodists, which did not advance his reputation). His Works were edited with a biographical preface by Bishop Hurd (7 vols., 1788; new ed., 12 vols., 1811; the expense was borne by Warburton's widow). Supplementary to this edition are the Tracts by Warburton and a Warburtonian (1789); Letters (Kidderminster, 1808; 2d ed., London, 1809); Selections from the Unpublished Papers of Warburton (1841).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Life by Hurd was issued separately, ed. F. Kilvert, London, 1860. There is a life by J. S. Watson, ib. 1863. Consult further: J. Nichols, Literary Anecdotes of the 18th Century, v. 529-658, 9 vols., London, 1812-15; idem, Illustrations of the Literary Hist. of the 18th Century, ii. 1-654, 8 vols., ib. 1817-58; John Hunt, Hist. of Religious Thought in England, iii. 146-151, et passim, ib. 1873; L. Stephen, Hist. of English Thought in the 18th Century, passim, New York, 1881; M. Pattison, Essays and Papers, ii. 119-176, London, 1889; DNB, lix. 301-311.

WARBURTONIAN LECTURE: A lecture course founded by a testamentary bequest of £500 by Bishop William Warburton (q.v.) to prove "the truth of revealed religion in general, and of the Christian in particular, from the completion of the prophecies in the Old and New Testaments, which relate to the Christian Church, and especially to the apostasy of papal Rome." The lecture is to be preached an

nually, in the chapel of Lincoln's Inn, London, on the first Sunday after Michaelmas Term and the Sunday before and the Sunday after Hilary Term, and no lecturer may continue more than four years. A list of the lectures, so far as they have been published, is as follows:

1768–72. Richard Hurd, Introduction to the Study of the Prophecies concerning the Christian Church, and in Particula concerning the Church of Papal Rome, London, 1772. 1772-76. Samuel Halifax, On the Prophecies concerning the Christian Church and Papal Rome, London, 1776. 1776-80, Lewis Bagot, Twelve Discourses on the Prophe cies concerning the first Establishment and subsequent History of Christianity, Oxford, 1780.

1782-86. East Apthorp, Discourses on Prophecies, 2 voli, London, 1786.

1801-05. Robert Nares, A Connected and Chronological View of the Prophecies relating to the Christian Churck, Low don, 1805.

1807-11. Edward Pearson, On the Subject of the Prophesia relating to the Christian Church, London, 1911.

1811-15. Philip Allwood, On the Prophecies relating to the Christian Church, and especially to the Apostasy of Papel Rome, 2 vols., London, 1815.

1821-25. John Davison, Discourses on Prophecy: in whic are considered its Structure, Use, and Inspiration, London, 1825.

1833-36. Frederick Nolan, The Chronological Propherin as constituting a connected System; in which the principd Events of the Divine Dispensation are determined by the precise Revelation of their Dates, demonstrated, London, 1837.

1837-40. Alexander M'Caul, On the Prophecies, proting the Divine Origin of Christianity, London, 1846, and Th Messiahship of Jesus, 1852.

1842-46. Frederick Denison Maurice, The Epistle to the Hebrews, three Lectures, with a Preface, containing a Revie of Mr. Newman's Theory of Development, London, 1846.

1846-49. Benjamin Harrison, Prophetic Outlines of th Christian Church and the Antichristian Power, as traced in th Visions of Daniel and St. John, London, 1849.

1849-53. Edward Bishop Elliott, The Christian Church't Institution and Declension into Apostasy, London, 1856.

1854-58. William Goode, Fulfilled Prophecy a Proof of the Truth of Revealed Religion, with an Appendix of Notes, ir cluding a full Investigation of Daniel's Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, London, 1863.

1866-70. Benjamin Morgan Cowie, The Voice of God London, 1872.

1870-74. Edwin Hamilton Gifford, Voices of the Prophets, Edinburgh, 1874.

1876-80. Stanley Leathes, Old Testament Prophecy, Witness as a Record of Divine Foreknowledge, London, 1880 1880-84. Alfred Edersheim, Prophecy and History Relation to the Messiah, London, 1885.

1886-90. Alexander Francis Kirkpatrick, Doctrine of the Prophets, London, 1892.

1890-94. Francis Henry Woods, The Hope of Israel, Edinburgb, 1896.

1894-98. Henry Wace, Prophecy, Jewish and Christian London, 1911.

1903-07. Edgar Charles Sumner Gibson, The Old Tes ment in the New, London, 1907.

1907-11. Michael George Glazebrook, The End of th Law, London, 1911.

A number of Warburtonian lecturers have never published the lectures which they delivered. Though not formally issued as a Warburtonian Lecture, the Propædia prophetica, a View of the Use and Design the Old Testament, by William Rowe Lyall, London, 1840, formed, in its general argument, the substance of the course delivered by him.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Darling, Cyclopædia Bibliographica, cos 3102-8103, London, 1854; W. T. Lowndes, Bibliographer' Manual of English Literature, ed. H. G. Bohn, p. 2834, London, n. d.; private information from Mr. Ernest C Brown, of the British Museum, and Rev. John Harrington, Chaplain of Lincoln's Inn.

WARD, MARY. See ENGLish Ladies.

WARD, SETH: Church of England bishop of Salisbury; b. at Aspenden (18 m. n.e. of St. Albans), Hertfordshire, Apr. 5, 1617; d. at Knightsbridge, Salisbury, Jan. 6, 1688–89. He was educated at Sidney-Sussex College, Cambridge (B.A. 1636–37), where he became fellow in 1640 and mathematical lecturer in 1643, but in the following year he was deprived of his fellowship by the Puritans for refusing to subscribe the Solemn League and Covenant. He then resided in London, and at Aspenden, pursuing his mathematical studies and acting as a private tutor, until 1649, when, being willing to take the oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth, he was appointed Savilian professor of astronomy at Oxford, where he enunciated a clever, though unsuccessful, theory of planetary motion, and where he also became involved in a controversy with Thomas Hobbes (q.v.), the results of his astronomical studies being embodied in his In Ismaelis Bullialdi astronomiæ philolaicæ fundamenta inquisitio brevis (Oxford, 1653) and Astronomia geometrica; ubi methodus proponitur qua primariorum planetarum astronomia sive elliptica sive circularis possit geometrice absolvi (1656), and his points of disagreement with Hobbes being contained in his Vindicia academiarum (1654) and In Thomæ Hobbii philosophiam exercitatio epistolica (1656).

At Oxford Ward resided at Wadham College, and about 1649, on the formation of the Philosophical Society of Oxford, he became a member of that body, while he was later one of the original members of the Royal Society. In 1657 Ward was elected principal of Jesus College, Oxford, but was obliged to give place to an appointee of Cromwell; and two years later he was chosen president of Trinity, but was compelled within a year to resign since he did not possess the statutory qualifications. He now retired to London, where Charles II. appointed him vicar of St. Lawrence Jewry and rector of Uplowman, Devonshire, while in 1662 he was rector of St. Breock, Cornwall. He had been precentor of Exeter since 1656, and in 1660 he was made a prebendary, and dean in the year following. In 1662 he was consecrated bishop of Exeter, and five years later was translated to Salisbury, while in 1671 he was appointed chancellor of the Order of the Garter. In 1672 he declined to become the successor of John Cosin (q.v.) in the see of Durham. Both as dean and as bishop Ward strongly opposed dissenters, suppressing their conventicles and ejecting them and their stalls from his cathedral, although, on the other hand, he was very willing to make certain concessions to win them back to the Church. He restored and beautified the cathedrals and palaces of both his sees, and founded several beneficent institutions, such as a college of matrons at Salisbury (1682) for widows of the Exeter and Salisbury clergy.

The chief theological works of Ward, besides many sermons, were Certain Disquisitions and Considerations representing to the Conscience the Unlawfullness of the ... Solemn League and Covenant (Oxford, 1643; the first edition destroyed by the Puritans, the earliest edition extant being that of 1644), and Philosophical Essay towards an Eviction of the Being and Attributes of God, the

Immortality of the Souls of Men, and the Truth and Authority of Scripture (1652); and he also edited Samuel Ward's Dissertatio de baptismatis infantilis vi et efficacia (London, 1653) and Opera nonnulla (1658).

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The primary life is by Walter Pope, London, 1698, on which cf. A. à Wood, Athena Oxoniensis, ed P. Bliss, i. p. clxx., and jii. 588, 1209, iv. 246, 805, 512, and Fasti, ii. 184, 4 vols., 1813-20, and the same writer's An Appendix to Pope's Life of Ward, ib., 1697. On the materials for a life of Ward cf. J. E. B. Mayor, in Notes and queries, 2 ser., vii. 269, and for a list of references DNB, lix. 336-340.

WARD, WILLIAM GEORGE: English Roman Catholic; b. in London Mar. 21, 1812; d. at Hampstead, London, July 6, 1882. He was educated at Christ Church and Lincoln College, Oxford (B.A., 1834), and was elected fellow of Balliol, where he also acted as lecturer in mathematics and logic. He took orders in the Church of England, and though he was at this time a pronounced latitudinarian, his combination of a severely logical mind with deep personal piety convinced him that there was no middle way between submission to ecclesiastical authority and absolute rationalism. It was at this period that he came under the sway of Tractarianism (q.v.), and he went far beyond the attack of J. H. Newman (q.v.) on the natural meaning of the Thirty-Nine Articles in Tract Ninety, Ward's own position being set forth in A Few Words in Support of No. xc. and A Few More Words in Support of No. xc. (both Oxford, 1841). The result was loss of his lectureships and tutorial position at Balliol, though he was appointed junior bursar in 1841 and senior bursar in the following year. Meanwhile his trend was more and more toward the Roman church, and in 1844 he published at Oxford, in reply to William Palmer, his Ideal of a Christian Church considered in Comparison with existing Practice, lauding the Roman communion as an almost perfect embodiment of Christianity, and by his comparisons with non-Roman communions incurring the extreme displeasure of English churchmen of all types. Declining to disavow the book either in whole or in parts specified as contrary to the Thirty-Nine Articles, Ward was formally censured by the vicechancellor and by the convocation of the University of Oxford and on Feb. 13, 1845, was degraded, a proceeding regarding the legality of which there was much room for doubt. Notwithstanding this doubt, Ward resigned his fellowship and on Sept. 5 of the same year was received into the Roman Catholic Church. In 1846 he removed to Ware, and from 1851 to 1858 was lecturer in moral philosophy in St. Edmund's College, his lectures being designed not only to meet the needs of his students, but also to prepare the way for a systematic monograph On Nature and Grace, although only the philosophical introduction was ever published (London, 1860). After residing for three years on one of his estates in the Isle of Wight, he returned to Ware in 1861, and from 1863 to 1878 was editor of The Dublin Review, which he transformed from a moribund condition to a powerful organ against all that savored of religious latitudinarianism, lending all his strength to the defense of Ultramontanism (q.v.). In its columns he supported the encyclical Quanta cuTA