The prophets, who were alive to these conse quences, often raised their voices against such dangerous connections (I Kings xi. I I ; 2 Chron. xvi. 7; xix. 2; xxv. 7, etc.; Is. vii. 17) ; but it was found a difficult matter to induce even the best kings to place such absolute faith in Jehovah, the Head of their state, as to neglect altogether those human resources and alliances by which other nations strengthened themselves against their ene mies. The Jewish history, after Solomon, affords examples of several treaties with different kings of Syria, and with the kings of Assyria and Babylon. Asa, one of the most pious monarchs that ever sat on the throne of Judah, finding his kingdom menaced and his frontier invaded, sent to Ben hadad, who reigned in Damascus, the most costly presents, reminding him of the league which had Iona subsisted between them and their fathers, and conjuring him not to succour the enemies of Judah, nor renounce the obligations of their old alliance (r Kings xv. 16-20). Attacked by another king of Israel, whom another king of Damascus pro tected, Ahaz implored the king of Assyria for aid, and with the treasures of the temple and the palace purchased a defensive alliance (2 Kings xvi. 5, etc.; 2 Chron. xxviii. 16, etc.) In later times, the Maccabees appear to have considered themselves unrestrained by any but the ordinary prudential considerations in contracting alliances ; but they confined their alliances to distant states, which were by no means likely ever to exercise that influ ence upon the religion of the people which was the chief object of dread. The most remarkable alli ances of this kind in the whole Hebrew history are those which were contracted with the Romans, who were then beginning to take a part in the affairs of Western Asia. Judas claimed their friendly inter vention in a negotiation then pending between the Jews and Antiochus Enpator (2 Macc. xi. 34, sq.); turd two years after he sent ambassadors to the banks of the Tiber to propose a treaty of alliance and amity. By the terms of this treaty the Romans ostensibly threw over the Jews the broad shield of their dangerous protection, promising to assist them in their warn and forbidding any one who were at peace with themselves to be at war with the Jews, or to assist directly or indirectly those who were so. The Jews, on their part, engaged to assist the Romans to the utmost of their power in any wars they might wage in those parts. The obligations of this treaty might be enlarged or diminished by the mutual consent of the contracting parties. This memorable treaty, having been concluded at Rome, was graven upon brass and deposited in the Capi tol (I Macc. viii. 22-28 ; Josephus,
IO, 6: other treaties with the Romans are given in lib. xiii.) Anterior to the Mosaical institutions, such alliances with foreigners were permitted, or at least tolerated. Abraham was in alliance with some of the Canaanitish princes (Gen. xiv. 13) ; he also entered into a regular treaty of alliance, being the first on record, with the Philistine king Abimelech (ch. xxi. 22, sq.), which was renewed by their sons (ch. xxvi. 26-30). This primitive treaty is a model of its kind : instead of minute stipulations, it leaves all details to the honest interpretation of the contracting parties. Abimelech says : Swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son's son ; but according to the kindness that I have done unto thee, thou shalt do unto me, and unto the land wherein thou hast sojourned.' Even after the law, it appears, from some of the instances already adduced, that such alliances with distant nations as could not be supposed to have any dangerous effect upon the religion or morals of the people, were not deemed to be interdicted. The treaty with the Gibeonites is a remarkable proof of this. Believing that the ambassadors came from a great distance, Joshua and the elders readily entered into an alliance with them ; and are condemned for it only on the ground that the Gibeonites were in fact their near neighbours (Josh. ix. 3-27).
From the time of the patriarchs, a covenant of alliance was sealed by the blood of some victim. [COVENANT.] The perpetuity of covenants of alliance thus contracted is expressed by calling them covenants of salt' (Num. xviii. 19 ; 2 Chron. xiii. 5), salt being the symbol of incorruption. The case of the Gibeonites affords an exemplary instance, scarcely equalled in the annals of any nation, of scrupulous adherence to such engagements. The Israelites had been absolutely cheated into the alliance ; but, having been confirmed by oaths, it was deemed to be inviolable (Josh. ix. 19). Long afterwards, the treaty having been violated by Saul, the whole nation was punished for the crime by a dreadful famine in the time of David (2 Sam. xxi. 1, sqq.) The prophet Ezekiel (xvii. 12-21) pours terrible denunciations upon king Zedekiah for acting contrary to his sworn covenant with the king of Babylon. In this respect the Jews were certainly most favourably distinguished among the ancient nations ; and, from numerous intimations in Josephus, it appears that their character for fidelity to their engagements was so generally recognised after the Captivity, as often to procure for them highly favourable consideration from the rulers of Western Asia and of Egypt. J. K