ground for a tomb, in a land, the possession of the whole of which he had been promised. By arrangement with Ephron, Abraham purchases the cave of Machpelah, in Hebron, in the country of the Hittites, for 400 shekels of silver, which are paid, not by tale, but by weight; the bargain being concluded in the audience of the children of Heth,' 'at the gate of the city' (Gen. xxiii). Thus was made sure unto Abraham'the field, and the cave therein, and all the trees in the field, in all the borders round about,' for a possession of a burying-place.'

After interring Sarah, Abraham became anxious about a wife for his son. He, on this, makes a solemn engagement with the eldest servant of his house to take a wife for Isaac, not among the Canaanites, but from his relations in Mesopotamia; in doing which he gives us reason to conclude that the eldest house servant performed, in these patriarchal days, an office similar to that of executors with us.

The result is, that Eliezer of Damascus (Gen. xv. 2) goes to Mesopotamia, unto the city of Nahor (Gen. xxiv. 10), and engages for Isaac the hand of Rebekah, Abraham's grand niece (xxiv. 15), who, accordingly, becomes the young man's wife.

Abraham then took another wife, Keturab. She bare six sons (Gen. xxv. 1-4), who became founders of so many Arab tribes (Joseph. Antiq. i. 15), and who were dis missed from the paternal home towards the east country, with certain presents, as being, together with Ishmael, sons of the concubines, that is, Hagar and Keturah (xxv. 6); a remarkable illustration of the care which Abraham took to preserve the line of transmission intact and unmingled in Isaac; thus obeying the will of God, who had declared, 'In Isaac shall thy seed be called;'-'My covenant will I establish with Isaac' (Gen. xvii. 21; xxi. 12. Rom. ix. 7. Heb. xi. 18), and showing an accordance of one part of the sacred narrative with another, which must tend to confirm its credibility, as being an account of real events.

The disposal of his property now engaged the attention of the venerable patriarch. By some formal act or other, having the effect of a deed of gift or testament, he had bequeathed the substance of his wealth to Isaac, before he sent his servant to solicit the hand of Rebekah (Gen. xxiv. 36; comp. xxi. 10). Accordingly, contenting himself with making presents to the sons of his concubines, who, on receiving them, were dismissed from home and sent eastward, he seems, ere he left the world, to have put Isaac into possession of his goods. Having thus accomplished his last wishes, Abraham, conformably with the divine promise (Gen. xv. 15), died in a good old age,' -175 years (A. M. 3360; A.Č. 2188; V. 1821),— and was gathered to his people, being laid

by the side of his wife in the cave of Machpelah (xxv. 8, 9), leaving behind a reputation that finds no equal throughout the East, which is full of memorials of his influence and greatness. Of these memorials not a few are perversions and corruptions of the realities whence they are taken: yet even these serve by contrast to show the truth and confirm the reality of the events recorded in the Bible. Of these events the general tenor is so natural, simple, and unsophisticated; the narrative is so congruent with the mauners and spirit of a primitive age; the character of the patriarch is so consistent, harmonious, and entire, -a gradual development, not a heap of disjointed and unconnected facts, - - a life-something really lived -a transcript of a human being's experiences, that those who study the Biblical records in their own light, and not in the light of theological philosophies, will have little difficulty in rejecting the theory of De Wette and others; namely, that this is only a part of the great Hebrew epic; and may with the writer feel a pleasure in the conviction, that, amidst the scattered fragments and discordant notices of early profane history, the sacred page begins to shed a clear, trustworthy, and useful light on the path trodden by human kind, some fifteen centuries before the Christian era. In this fact is found a very high eulogy on the Bible, which its friends, as well as its detractors, would do well to ponder.

Piety, which led to entire trust and implicit obedience towards God, and prompted gentleness and justice in his dealings with man, was Abraham's chief characteristic. Converted from idolatry (Josh. xxiv. 2), he became a constant and unswerving witness of the one true and only God; and was, in consequence, honoured as the great father of the faithful, whether found in the Jewish or in the Christian church. Accordingly, Abraham appears in the New Testament as the type of unshaken confidence and holy submission towards God (Rom. iv. 2. Heb. xi. 8); while to be admitted to the intimacy of so great a personage was naturally accounted the highest honour and the largest happiness. So, in the conceptions of the Jews of our Lord's day, to be in Abraham's bosom—that is, to have a place next to him at the celestial banquet-was a figure denoting the enjoyment of the bliss of heaven. The same estimation of Abraham led the Jews to be proud of their descent from him, and to boast of being Abraham's seed (John viii. 33).

The fact that religiousness was the essential feature of the patriarch's character may serve to make apparent God's own way of carrying forward human civilisation. Doubtless, Providence works for that purpose by

various instrumentalities; but, when God elects and sets up a special agency, it is not Egyptian art, but patriarchal piety the simple manners of home and of rural life-nourished, strengthened, and refined by a warm and operative faith. This fact seems to teach us, that religion must be at the basis of all true social advancement. It is not to Greece nor Italy, but to Mesopotamia and Judea, that we owe our religion, and what is best and most durable in our civilisation. Man may spare the pleasures of taste; but he cannot live and be happy without the sentiments of piety, and the principle of obedience.

The nature of true and acceptable faith is exemplified in Abraham, -the friend of God. If compared with the views which are entertained by enlightened Christians, Abraham's idea of God was very limited and rudimental; for though he may have had some shadowy notion of God's spirituality and omnipresence, yet it was mostly as his God, - the God of his family, that the patriarch regarded the Creator. Yet his imperfect and defective knowledge falling as good seed into good ground, brought forth that trust, that confidence, that love towards God, which prompted to obedience, and made its possessor willing to sacrifice even his fondest affections and his dearest hopes, in compliance with what appeared to him the divine will. Such is the character of all genuine faith, which is very dissimilar to mere opinion, with which it is often confounded; and thus we see, that true religion is as old as at least the patriarch Abraham. As he pleased God, so may we.

Most important for mankind was the call of Abraham. It was one of those events on which human destiny is found from time to time to hinge. Idolatry was all but universal. The knowledge of the Creator had nearly vanished from the earth. Egypt, the centre of the arts and refinements of life, worshipped even the lowest animals. There it was fully proved how little man can do for himself in regard to the solemn obligations of duty, and the high hopes and destiny of the religious life. But God chose Abraham, and a new era began which will never come to an end; for Jesus finished what Abraham commenced. It is a gratifying fact, that the series of biographical pictures begins with one which is so pleasing and so ennobling as that of Abraham. Had the dispositions which actuated him been shared by all who came afterwards, we should not have found the great life-roll of humanity blotted, blurred, and disgraced by such names as Alexander, Nero, and Napoleon.

Already, at the times of Abraham, had the world made some decided progress in civilisation; a knowledge of which, so far as it is definite and satisfactory, we owe to the di

vinely illuminated pages of the Bible. The most useful arts of life had long been invented, and were in general use. Those large societies of men which are called nations were gradually forming themselves on spots which were determined by a regard to the natural limits and advantages afforded by seas, rivers, and mountain-ranges. And, as men fixed themselves in different places up and down the earth, so did they become more and more divided from each other by the continually increasing diversity of languages, which led to other alienating diversities in social usages, and in religious opinions and observances. The first empires were thus founded, and the great question of human education began to be seriously worked out. War had begun its desolations; slavery was quietly but effectually wasting human energies away, perverting the natural relations of life. The union of the sexes, which is the great hinge of man's highest good, was uncertain and ill-regulated. Hospitality had assumed a distinguished position, and sheds a mild lustre over these early days; but if, from such a tent as that of Abraham, we turn to the world at large, we behold scarcely any other virtue in a high condition, and such vices abounding as easy abundance and extreme leisure may produce, under the aid of burning skies, vivid imaginations, and uncontrollable passions.

The sacrifice of his son, demanded of Abraham, has given occasion to many objections, most of which have arisen from falsely viewing the subject through the atmosphere of modern times. As a means of putting Abraham's reliance on God to the test, it was peculiarly efficacious and appropriate, seeing that the child was demanded, which God had openly and extraordinarily given. The Power that had bestowed Isaac on parents advanced in years was, Abraham may well have felt, both willing and able to do all things well,' and make all things work together for good.' To have faltered would have betrayed a weakness of moral character, ill befitting one who had been so signally favoured of God. Unquestioning, undoubting reliance on God was Abraham's duty, and it proved his 'crown of rejoicing.' He was tried, and was found faithful. In his fidelity, he remains a model to all generations, though the specific sacrifice required of him is required no more. Yet the principle remains the same. Our Lord gave expression to it when he said,

1

'He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me' (Matt. x. 37). Without sacrifices there is no true religion. Without trial there is no conscious strength. We have no proof that we love Christ, till we have surrendered some cherished thing on his behalf. It is a baneful delusion to regard religion as an easy thing. Hence the superficiality that prevails, the

Abraham's bosom (Luke xvi. 23) denotes the place where happy and immortal spirits dwell. The idea seems to be taken from the manner in which, in the time of our Lord, the Jews, imitating the customs of their Western masters, used to recline, while at feasts; namely, leaning on the elbow and the haunch, each guest below his neighbour, so that the head of one lay towards and near the bosom of another. The place of honour was next to the master of the feast- that is, in his bosom. The term bosom was used in a larger sense than is customary with us; embracing the whole of the body covered by a fold of the long flowing robe, which, being taken up by the extremity, was thrown over the left arm, so as to form a large fold or bosom, in which articles of use and value were carried. Abraham, as the friend of God,' is represented in the parable (Luke xvi. 22) as presiding at the feast of fat things,' having near him the special favourite of God. This was in agreement with current ideas, which set forth heaven as a place of social enjoyment, in which were gathered together the patriarchs, prophets, and an innumerable company of just men made perfect (Matt. viii. 11. John xiii. 23; xxi. 20). From the phrase now explained, the reader may form some conception of what is meant when the Son of God is said to be in the bosom of the Father (John i. 18); for, as the bosom-friend' was ad

mitted to the utmost intimacy and confidence, so was Jesus put into possession of the divine will in all its secrets, as well as in all its grandeur and comprehension.

ABSALOM (H. father of peace. A. M. 4528; A.C. 1020; V. 1032), David's third son, whose mother was Maacah, the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur- a district lying on the east of Jordan, and reckoned as a part of Syria, which formed still in the days of Solomon a petty kingdom (2 Sam. iii. 3; xiii. 37; xiv. 23). Absalom possessed extraordinary beauty, and was distinguished for a fine and copious head of hair (2 Sam. xiv. 25, 26). Enraged at his brother Amnon, in consequence of his having ravished Tamar his sister, Absalom, not improbably remembering that Amnon was by birth his father's successor, took occasion, after having long concealed his animosity, of a sheepshearing, which he observed with festivity in Baal-hazor, in Ephraim, on an estate of his own, to slay, by means of his servants, the guilty man. After this, he fled for shelter to the court of his father-in-law, at Geshur, where he remained three years. Near the end of this time, David desired to see Absalom; a feeling which was enhanced by the earnest pleadings of the wise woman of Tekoah,' whom Joab employed to further his views with the king; so that that minister was himself commissioned to visit Geshur, in order to bring back Absalom, who was

not, however, admitted into the royal presence for the space of two years. Absalom, weary of this disgrace, endeavoured to prevail with Joab to use his influence again with David; and, failing in his requests, he iniquitously and revengefully caused his servants to set on fire a field of barley belonging to Joab. The minister, however, yielded to fear what he had refused to entreaty. -saw the king, and interceded with him for his son, who was accordingly restored to favour.

The high and ambitious spirit of Absalom, which had been imperfectly repressed under difficulty, now, when he was in the full sunshine of his father's court, broke forth with ardour. He procured a splendid equipage

'So

- chariots and horses, with fifty men to run before him; who, as needs might be, would serve for use or show. Thus prepared, he began to court the people, hearing their legal complaints, listening to their social grievances, and even saluting with a kiss each person who came to do him homage; intimating, at the same time, that David was blameworthy in having appointed no one to hear and redress wrongs, and that, if he were judge in the land, justice should be fully and impartially administered. Absalom stole the hearts of the children of Israel.' When he had advanced his preparations (after forty years,' probably four years: see Kennicott), he asked his father's permission to proceed to Hebron, in order to pay a vow which he had promised while at Geshur. The permission was granted. Quit ting Jerusalem with 200 confidential friends, who appear to have been ignorant of his intention, he sent secret despatches throughout all the tribes of Israel, to the effect, that, on a given signal, they should all declare, Absalom reigneth in Hebron.' He also succeeded in gaining to his side Ahithophel of Giloh, in Judah, whose counsels David tried to countervail, by inducing Hushai to get into the confidence of Absalom, in order to betray his secrets. David, however, aware that the conspiracy was most formidable, quitted Jerusalem, which his traitorous son occupied, and proceeded, under the advice of Ahithophel, to commence his royal functions, by taking possession of David's harem. A council being called, Alithophel offered to take a force, and complete the war by destroying David, to which Absalom wickedly consented. Hushai, however, was called in, who advised a general muster of troops, so as to blot out, not David only, but all his partisans. This plan was finally adopted; intelligence of which determination was despatched to David by Hushai. A great battle was fought in the wood of Ephraim, near the Jordan, in which 20,000 men fell. While yet the result was in suspense, Absalom, hurrying along on a mule, in the ardour of battle, was caught in the thick boughs of a great oak' (a terebinth tree), and, his beast

going from under him, he was left suspended from the tree; on hearing which, Joab took three darts, and thrust them through the heart of Absalom, while he was yet alive in the midst of the oak; thus delivering his royal master from a treasonable son, and taking vengeance on one who had set his property on fire. After this, an act of wanton cruelty took place,-'ten young men that bare Joab's armour, compassed about and smote Absalom, and slew him.' The news of the young man's death was borne to the king (the narrative found in 2 Sam. xviii. 19-32, is beautifully graphic), who, on receiving it, was much moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate and wept: and as he went, thus he said, 'O my son Absalom! my son, my son Absalom! would God I had died for thee, O Absalom! my son, my son!' (2 Sam. xviii. 33).

A reckless ambition was the chief feature in Absalom's character. This ambition prompted him to erect a pillar in order to perpetuate his name (Joseph. Antiq. vii. 10, 3; comp. 2 Sam. xviii. 18), in the event of his children being killed. This pillar (of marble), which bore the name of Absalom's Hand (a figure of a hand, surmounting pillars of this kind, denoted power and skill), was in the king's dale, a short distance from Jerusalem. That which is now shown in the vale of Jehosaphat as Absalom's Pillar -a pyramidal stone structure—is proved to be of comparatively recent date, by its Ionic colonnade, though it may stand near the same place where Absalom erected the original structure, but cannot be the tomb of that prince; since, in 2 Sam. xviii. 17, we are informed that, immediately after the battle, his enemies took Absalom, and cast him into a great pit in the wood, and laid a very great heap of stones upon him.'

Absalom erected his own monument, and was buried ignominiously in a hole dug in haste. He tried to perpetuate his fame by a pillar he really made his name infamous by his rebellion. The record in books tells its tale when stones and marble are no more. Personal beauty is a questionable good, may prove a snare, and, when disgraced by wicked acts, excites no higher feeling than commiseration. Absalom's passions were his master; and so imperious did they prove, that they made him raise his impious hand against even the author of his own existence.

ABSOLUTION (L. freeing from) is, as a word, not found in the Bible; but ecclesiastics have used it to describe a scriptural fact; namely, the absolving of men from sin, or from the penalty of sin. It is undoubted that the Saviour gave to his apostles a power to remit sins. The nature and extent of that power can be learned in no other way than by diligently studying, and comparing together, the passages of Scripture in which it is mentioned. Without here entering into

the details of the subject, we may adduce, as sufficient for our present purpose, the great scriptural principle, that no one can forgive sins but God (Mark ii. 7); whence it appears that the act of the apostles in remitting sins was merely ministerial and declaratory. As such was it limited to those to whom the office was delegated. Of this kind is the act of Nathan (2 Sam. xii. 13), when he said to the repentant David, 'The Lord hath put away thy sin: thou shalt not die' (Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18. John xx. 23). If absolution consisted in actually forgiving sins, then no one but He, who knowing the heart knows also whether the mind has come into a suitable state, can forgive sins. If it consisted in remitting the penalty of sin, then only He who knows the bearings, tendencies, and effects of his own punitive and remedial measures, can forgive sins. If it lay in the announcement of pardon, then can that announcement be made by man only in those cases in which he may have received special delegation for the purpose. The remission of sins is obviously an individual favour, inasmuch as it has a relation to the state of an individual's soul: and consequently, apart from a formal divine commission, it can have no existence. Yet this, the most extraordinary of all earthly functions, have men, placed in ordinary circumstances, claimed to exercise. The claim should be proved before it is conceded, and it is not easy to see any very close connection between the two propositions-The apostles forgave sins; therefore A. B., living in the nineteenth century, has the power to forgive sins.' There is here a great logical gulf which cannot be filled up by other assumptions such as that A. B., whose whole manner of life is dissimilar to that which an apostle led, is a spiritual successor of the apostles. But if the inference should be allowed, what does the term successor' mean, and what does it prove? If a line of transmitted spiritual influence is intended, you must show the commencement of that line, and its unbroken continuance down to yourself; which can in no way be done, and which cannot even be attempted, without begging the very point which has to be proved. The priesthood proves its priestly character by assuming that priestly character itself. The modern doctrine touching the power to remit sins is one vast assumption.

-

ABSTINENCE (L. keeping from), the practice of self-denial, either occasional or continued. Abstinence took its rise partly in those notions of religion which represent the Deity as being conciliated by the pain and privation which his creatures undergo; partly also in considerations connected with health; for abstaining from gratifications in certain conditions of the body serves to restore it to its ordinary soundness and vigour, especially when it has been impaired by

excess. So far, too, as the foregoing of ordinary pleasures may act beneficially on the moral feelings, the practice of occasional abstinence may have been enforced by considerations drawn from practical religion. But abstinence can be looked on in no higher light than as a negative good, a needful remedy, a means of reparation; and must disappear in proportion as that sanctity of character in thought, word, and deed, is produced, which is not least among the aims and the achievements of the gospel.

Various kinds of abstinence may be found in the Sacred Scriptures. In Gen. ix. 4, blood is forbidden to be eaten, as containing the life; an inhibition which is repeated in Lev. iii. 17, fat being also forbidden — ( All the fat is the Lord's'), which was to be burnt. That which died of itself, or was torn by wild beasts, was not to be eaten (Lev. xxii. 8). The hollow of the thigh was forbidden food, because it was the part by touching which, the angel prevailed in wrestling with Jacob (Gen. xxxii. 32). Indeed whole classes of animals were prohibited (CLEAN). (Lev. xi.) The Hebrews were to abstain from food partaken on occasion of idolatrous sacrifices; since to partake thereof would have been to give an indirect sanction to the pollutions of Heathenism (Numb. xxv. 2, seq. Exod. xxxiv. 15. Ps. cvi. 28). Owing to the misconduct of Nadab and Abihu, Aaron's sons, probably in indulging to excess, wine was forbidden to the priests when they were about to go into the tabernacle (Lev. x. 9), When any man took the vow of a Nazarite.

-'He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink; neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes or dried: all the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine-tree from the kernels even to the husk.' The Nazarite was also to abstain from shaving (Numb. vi. 2—12). The Rechabites abstained from wine and strong drink at the command of their ancestor Jonadab, a man of fervent piety and strong zeal (Jer. xxxv. 6-10. 2 Kings x. 15).

The abstinence from certain kinds of food which they had practised while Jews, the primitive converts from the Jewish Church to Christianity thought that they themselves, as well as converts from Heathenism, were still bound rigidly to observe. This question troubled the early church, and occasioned the first Christian synod which assembled at Jerusalem, and relaxed the ceremonial bond-laying 'no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication' (Acts xv. 29). The decree did not suffice to bring the dispute to a termination, and much bad feeling and illiberality arose in consequence; which, however, under the