God, because there is no other god that can deliver after this sort' (Dan. iii.). The conduct of these Hebrew confessors is worthy of the highest praise, and may advantageously be studied in an age when men are so prone to bow down to the golden idols which the world sets up to receive their homage.

ABEL (H. more properly Hebel, vanity), the second son of Adam, gave himself to the shepherd's life; thus, while Cain, his brother, pursued hunting, representing the second state in a progressive civilisation. He offered to God an offering which was accepted, while his brother's was refused; on which Cain became jealous, and, being enraged, slew Abel (Gen. iv. 8). In Heb. xi. 4. the preference which was given to Abel's offering is ascribed to its being offered in faith. Let us mark the difference between the two offerings. A bel brought of the firstlings of his flock' (Gen. iv. 4) to the altar. Cain, on the contrary, presented an offering of fruits. Abel's offering was a confession that he was a sinner, and as such, liable to death. Therefore, he offered in sacrifice an in ocent lamb, in the faith that God, in accordance with His own institution of sacrifice, would graciously accept its life in the room of his own. Cain, by his offering of fruits, said, in effect, I have not sinned, I have not forfeited my life. I need no substitute, and so I bring no lamb to the altar. Abel's offering was an acknowledg. ment of the Fall. Cain's was a denial of it. Abel looked to Christ, the true propitiation.' Cain renounced the promise and hope of a future redemption. Thus vast is the difference between the two offerings. This example is set up at the opening of the world to teach the great lesson that there is no salvation but by blood. This constitutes the essential point of difference between the many religions of man and the one religion which is of God.-W.

ABEL (H. a grass-plot), the nane of several places in Palestine, distinguished one from another by some additional word, which appear to have been spots of peculiar fertility: thus, in 2 Chron. xvi. 4, we read of, I. Abel-maim, that is, the green spot near the waters. From 2 Sam. xx. 14, and following, this seems to have been an ancient place of religious and social note, and was also termed Abel-beth-maachah (1 Kings xv. 20). It lay in the north of Palestine, and belonged to the tribe of Naphthali. Another place was denominated, II. Abel-shittim (Numb. xxxiii. 49, that is, the green spot of acacias; it was in the plain of Moab, the same as Shittim (Numb. xxv. I. Mic. vi. 5). Josephus places it a short distance from the Jordan. The Hebrews delayed here some time before they entered Palestine: hence Joshua sent his spies (Josh. ii. 1), and hence he began to pass the Jordan. III. Abel-keramim, which, though translated in our version (Judg. xi. 33) 'the plain of the vineyards,' was really a proper

name: the place lay on the eastern side of the Jordan, in the country of the Ammonites, and was celebrated for its wine in the time of Eusebius. IV. Abel-mizraim, the green sward of the Egyptians, called originally 'the thrashing-floor of Atad' (Gen. i. 11): the name was changed because there Joseph bewailed his father when carrying his corpse for burial into the land of Canaan. Jerome places it on the west side of the Jordan, as the direction which the mourners took suggests, though others assign the east side as its locality. It obviously lay not far from that river, and must have been on the southwest of the cave of Macpelah, near Mamre or Hebron, in the country of the Hittites. V. Abel-meholah, the dancing plot (1 Kings iv. 12; xix. 16), lay in the north-west extremity of the land of Issachar, and is remarkable as probably the birthplace of the prophet Elisha.

ABIA (H. Jehovah-father), the designation of one of the twenty-four courses or companies into which the priests were divided, from the time of David, for conducting the service of the temple in Jerusalem (Luke i. 5-10). Abia was the name of a descendant of Eleazar, Aaron's son, from whom, together with his brother Ithamar, the Mosaic priesthood was derived. The company was called Abia, from its original head; for every course had a chief, whose business was to superintend the discharge of the duties of the course. These twenty-four bands took the office in turn, week by week. Abia was the eighth company. Among the duties was that of burning the incense, morning and evening (at the time of incense,' ver. 10), on the altar of incense, before the mercy-seat, which was the place appropriated for the appearance of Jehovah, and the manifestation of his will. Accordingly, here it was that Zacharias had his vision relating to the birth of John the Baptist. The whole scene, as depicted by Luke, is intensely Hebraic (1 Chron. xxiv. 3. 2 Chron. viii. 14; xxiii. 4; xxxv. 4; xxxvi. 14. Neh. xii. 7. Ezra x. 5. 2 Kings xi. 39. Joseph. Antiq. vii. 4, 7; xx. 7, 8).

ABIGAIL (H. father of joy), wife of Nabal, a woman of good understanding, and of a beautiful countenance, whose husband was churlish and evil in his doings (1 Sam. xxv. 3), dwelling in Carmel, in great substance. David, when flying from Saul, sought aid from Nabal, whose property he had protected; and, being refused, proceeded with a band of inen to punish him for his ingratitude, but was met by Abigail, who, without her husband's knowledge, had gone forth to meet David, with a large present. Her husband, through her entreaties and generosity, was spared. On this, Nabal made a great feast, and was not informed by his wife of what she had done till the day after his carousing; on hearing which, his heart died within him, and he became as a stone. Shortly afterwards

he was a corpse. David then married Abigail, who bore him his second child, Chileab (2 Sam. iii. 3), who, in 1 Chron. iii. 1, is called Daniel.

The address which Abigail utters in order to deter David from his purposes of revenge, offers a remarkable combination of simplicity, shrewdness, and skill. It bears in itself the evidence of its truth. No one who knows any thing of oriental manners in ancient times, ean doubt its reality. It affords also a permanent testimony to not merely the good sense, but the high culture, of Abigail, who, failing to make any good impression on the great lines of her husband's character, must have felt herself most unequally yoked, and, having a princely soul, well deserved to become David's queen. The promptitude with which she undertakes to try whether she could appease David's wrath, while the poor churl, Nabal, could do nothing but sit still and await the storm, shows the laudable deeision of virtuous energy. A good conscience is the source of the noblest impulses.

ABIHU (H. he is my father), a son of Aaron, who, with his brother Nadab. was devoured by the fire which came out from the tabernacle, in consequence of the unbidden and strange fire which they offered in their eensers (Lev. x. 1). The offence appears to have consisted, not merely in the oblation being unbidden, and therefore likely to interfere with the purity of divine worship, but in the improper state in which resort to strong drink had brought the young men (ver. 811). In untold instances, alas! has 'strong drink' annihilated in men's minds the essential difference between holy and unholy, and between clean and unclean;' causing its inextinguishable and most deadly 'fire' to 'devour,' first their hearts, and then their bolies; leaving them, in regard to eternity, without God and without hope.

ABIJAH (H. my father Jah. A.M. 4602; A.C. 946; V. 958), the name given in the Chronicles to the second king of Judah, the follower of Rehoboam. In the Book of Kings, he is termed Abijam. He began his reign in the eighteenth year of his father, and reigned three years in Jerusalem. In ascending the throne, Abijah had all the advantages which birth could convey, and on that account seems to have cherished the project of bring ing the ten tribes back under the sceptre of Judah: but, if they were given to idolatry, he was not free from its abominations; and the great ends of Providence in the furtherance of monotheism would have been little promoted by allowing his wishes to be realized, and so strengthening the kingdom of Judah. Even the power which Abijah did possess, was greater than he knew how to use religiously. However, he made an attempt to carry his plan into execution, and for that purpose engaged in war with Jeroboam. But some feasible pretext was required. Accord

ingly, having marshalled his troops, to the number of 400,000 valiant men of war,' he proceeds, after the ancient custom, to address his enemy, and for this purpose ascends Mount Zemaraim, in the territories of Jeroboam; and then makes a speech, which shows that he possessed more talent than honesty, reproving the king of the ten tribes with the idolatrous practices to which he himself was not a stranger. Then came the battle, which ended in favour of Abijah, and in the slaughter of 500,000 chosen men on the opposite side. The chronicler ascribes the victory to the divine assistance; nor is it difficult to believe, that the Judahites, not having become religiously so corrupt as the Israelites, were superior, as in strength and courage, so in a consciousness of the favour of God (1 Kings xv. 2 Chron. xiii.). This victory increased Abijah's power, who, in the true spirit of an oriental monarch, had a harem of fourteen wives, and a family of twenty-two sons and sixteen daughters. As Abijah appeared as the champion of the national religion, so he took care to borrow from it more than the aid which words could give. A body of priests was placed in his army, whose office it was, at the onset of the forces, with sounding trumpets to cry alarm against the enemy;' and, no doubt, the worshippers of the golden calves retained in their bosoms enough of the influence of the old national religion, to be struck with a superstitious panic when they heard a blast, which, reminding them of the solemnities of the temple worship, sounded like the voice of God, uttered against their rebellion and idolatry.

The enemies of religion have endeavoured to turn to their own account the vast numbers arrayed and slain on this occasion and on others. The case is not without difficulty. We subjoin a few remarks, which may lessen the objection. Mistakes are easily made by transcribers in copying numbers, especially, from the nature of the Hebrew notation, the higher numbers. It may even be questioned, whether the apparent exaggeration rests with the historian, or with our misconception of his mode of reckoning. These large are also round numbers, and do not therefore pretend to more than a general accuracy, which is sufficient for the object that the writers had in view. We must not look at these armies with modern eyes. They were not regular standing troops, but a sort of levy en masse, brought together for the occasion, and com prising the bulk of the adult population. This fact goes far to account for their magnitude, as well as for the extent of slaughter which ensued on a defeat; for the flight would be no less confused and scattered than precipitate, and the ravages of a pitiless and bloodthirsty conqueror would, in the first flush of victory, be fearful.

It is an old, but not the less blame-worthy expedient, for ambition and tyranny to cover

their designs with religious pretexts; but Abi"jah's misconduct was not mitigated by his disingenuousness, nor can hypocrisy in any case do aught but make a lust of power hateful in the sight of God and man.

ABILENE (G.), a district of country, at the foot of Antilebanon, named from Abila, its chief city (Luke iii. 1). Bankes considers Abila to have lain on the river Barrada, in which he agrees with Pococke. Burial mounds are found on the spot, and Bankes discovered a Grecian inscription on a rock; Pococke had previously discovered one in a church; both of which gave countenance to the idea, that the city stood there. We have only an imperfect knowledge of this small state. It is not mentioned in history before the time when Antony, the Roman triumvir, held sway over Western Asia, when it is denominated by Josephus (Antiq. xx. 7. 1) as a tetrarchy and a kingdom (Jewish War, ii. 11. 5). The first ruler on record bore the name of Ptolemy Mennæus, who died about A.C. 40. Lysanias followed him. He was put to death by Antony, A.C. 34. Then came a tetrarch named Zenodorus, who, A.C. 23, was compelled by Augustus to give up a large part of his territories, and the entire district fell into the hands of the Roman emperors.

According to this view, no mention is made by Josephus of the Lysanias who, in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, was tetrarch of Abilene; at which we need feel no surprise, as Abilene was a small state, and lay beyond the borders of Palestine; while the terms employed by historians show, that Lysanias was an established name, in connection with the supreme magistrate, so that the Lysanias of Luke may have been a descendant of the Lysanias who was put to death by Antony. It must, however, be added, that language employed by Josephus admits the interpretation that he refers also to the Lysanias of Luke; and, speaking of Caligula, the Jewish historian says (Antiq. xviii. 6. 10) that emperor gave to Agrippa, I. 'the tetrarchy of Lysanias. The bestowal of the gift, however, was postponed; for Claudius is declared to have presented Agrippa, II. with Abila of Lysanias, and all that lay near Mount Lebanon' (Antiq. xix. 5. 1), which did not take effect till the twelfth year of Claudius (A.D. 52). In reference to the final disposal of Abila, Josephus remarks, which had been the tetrarchy of Lysanias' (Antiq. xx. 7. 1). One thing is very clear, namely, that Abilene was early in the first century currently spoken of as the tetrarchy of Lysanias. And it is scarcely to be supposed, that the reputation of a prince of so inconsiderable a state should have been such as to transmit the name of Lysanias, during various changes in the government, over a period of above half a century. The currency of the name is much more likely to be owing to its being borne by tetrarch Lysanias, who held power, agree

ably with Luke's statement, in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar, which would be not many years short of the time when the tetrarchy was assigned by Caligula to Agrippa. The scattered historical intimations seem to favour the idea of there having been at least two rulers of Abilene, named Lysanias; one put to death by Antony, the other who governed at the time defined by Luke. Nor need we feel any surprise, that Luke makes use of the name as a means of dating by; since, as we have seen, the tetrarchate of Lysanias was a well-known object of reference. Lysanias bears the title of tetrarch on an inscription found by Pococke in the neighbourhood of Abila.

ABIMELECH (H. king's father. A. M. 3284; A. C. 2264; V. 1897) was a king of the Philistines, who ruled over Gerar which lay on the south-western border of Palestine. This petty prince took Sarah, Abraham's wife, as the patriarch journeyed in his nomadic wanderings towards the west, and put her into his harem, believing that she was merely Abraham's sister; for Abraham, in virtue of her being his father's but not his mother's child, had, with a view to safety, caused Sarah to be called his sister. Sarah, however, resisted the wishes of Abimelech, who, at length, discovers that Sarah was the wife, as well as sister, of Abraham, and, in consequence of a divinely sent punishment, restores her to her husband, whom the king seeks to conciliate with presents, and who, being thus satisfied, interposes with God to relieve Abimelech and his house from the penalty under which they lay (Gen. xx). Abimelech, in order to make an acknowledgment to Sarah for her severance from her husband, kindly informs her that he had given him a thousand shekels of silver, which ought to act as a covering of the eyes;' that is, according to eastern phraseology, a veil to conceal what had been done amiss, and a means of satisfaction and forgiveness; so that Sarah, who appears to have complained of the treatment she had received, was thus gently reproved (ver. 16). On the termination of this business, Abimelech sought to form permanent relations of friendship with Abraham. In Gen. xxvi. 1, we find an Abimelech in the days of Isaac, reigning over the same country who was in danger of standing, in regard to Isaac and his wife Rebekah, in the same position as that which has just been narrated. This Abimelech can scarcely be the same as the prince before spoken of: probably Abimelecn was a name common to all the princes of Gerar, as Pharoah was in Egypt.

The conduct of both Abimelech and Abraham will be better understood when it is known, that Eastern princes possess an unquestioned right to all the beauties which may be found in their dominions (Gen. xii. 15. Esth. ii. 3).

Another Abimelech (A. M. 4237; 4. C.

(811; V. 1236), a son of Gideon by a coneubine, was born at Shechem; and, after the death of his father, he became ruler the sixth judge of Israel, by means of his mother's relatives, who, however, at the end of three years took up arms against Abimelech; and he, after much bloodshed and ferocity, caused himself to be put to death, in consequence of a blow received from a millstone thrown on his head by the hands of a woman (Judg. viii. ix.). Probably owing to his own ambition, he is termed king, though the properly so-called kingdom of Israel was not established till long after his time. His assumption, however, of supreme power led to the composition of a parable, which, though produced in a time of national degradation, does not suffer in comparison with the famous apologue, spoken by Menenius Agrippa (Liv. ii. 32), in order to reconcile the revolted people to the aristocracy. It runs thus: -‘At a time when all the members of man did not, as now, join to form the whole, but each had a distinct power of speaking and thinking, the rest of them were indignant that by their care and labour the belly was nourished, and that, remaining quie. in the middle, it did nothing but enjoy pleasures provided for it. On this account, they agreed that the hands should convey no food to the mouth, that the mouth should not receive what was offered to it, and that the teeth should not perform their office. By this foolish anger, each one of the members, and the whole body, were reduced to the greatest state of emaciation. Then it appeared that the belly also was not idle; that it was no less nourishing than nourished, sending out to all parts of the body, equally distributed through the veins, the blood by which we live, and which it obtained from the food it consumed. The scriptural fable is introduced by the statement that its author, Jotham, went and stood on the top of Mount Gerizim, and lifted up his voice, and cried and said, 'Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that God may hearken unto you: The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olivetree, Reign thou over us: but the olive-tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? And the trees said to the fig-tree, Come thou, and reign over us; but the fig-tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees? Then said the trees unto the vine, Come thou, and reign over us; and the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us; and the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my sha

dow; and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon' (Judg. ix. 8-15).

One or two circumstances deserve to be specially noticed, as they supply incidental marks of reality, and therefore tend to establish the credibility of the book in which they are found. We content ourselves with a mere reference to the parable of the choice of the trees. Abimelech, when he had destroyed Shechem (ix. 45), sowed it with salt, according to an ancient custom, symbolising perpetual ruin. The death of this prince has a parallel in the history of Pyrrhus II. king of Epirus (Justin. xxv. 5), who, after having enjoyed most signal success, being repulsed by the Spartans, proceeded to besiege Argos, when, valiantly fighting in the thickest of the battle, he was slain by a stone hurled from the walls. But the blow which slew Abimelech came from a woman's hand, which was accounted a disgraceful death (comp. 2 Sam. xi. 21). Thus, perishing ignobly, was this ferocious ruler deservedly punished for the cruelties he had perpetrated. The millstones in use in those days were of such a size, as that one of them could be hurled by a woman's hand; and the putting of such an instrument of destruction into a woman's hand is accordant with the usages of a period, when grinding was a female occupation, being originally performed by one stone being turned on another.

ABINADAB (H. noble father), a son of Saul, who, together with his brother Melchishua, was slain by the Philistines, in Mount Gilboa (1 Sam. xxxi. 1, 2). A second of the name was a Levite, to whose house 'in the hill' the men of Kirjathjearim brought the ark, committing it specially to the care of his son Eleazar, who was sanctified' for the purpose (1 Sam. vii.). The second son of Jesse, David's father, also bore the name of Abinadab (1 Chron. ii. 13). The ark remained in the family of Abinadab for about seventy years, when it was transported by David to the house of Obed-edom; he fearing, after the sudden death of Uzzah, to take it into Jerusalem. Having, however, been the occasion of good to the family of Obed-edom, the ark, after a stay there of three months, was at length conveyed into the city of David with gladness.'

It is strange that so sacred a thing as the ark should have been so long severed from the tabernacle, and in the care of unofficial individuals. The unsettled state of the government may have been the cause of this separation. But, had there been any collusion or falseness at the bottom, this entrusting of the ark to private hands would hardly have been allowed by the priests, and, if allowed, could not have failed to cause detection and exposure.

ABISHAI (H. father of a gift), son of Zeruiah, sister of David, to whom he proved

a faithful and brave servant in war (1 Sam. xxvi. 6-12. 2 Sam. xvi. 5-12. 1 Chron. ii. 16). He slew the giant Ishbi-benob, who was on the point of killing David in battle (2 Sam. xxi. 16). In 2 Sam. xxiii. 18, he is reckoned chief among three mighty chiefs of David's, and celebrated for slaying three hundred persons with his spear at once.

ABLUTION.-Bodily cleanliness, which is of high importance in every part of the world, not only for the comfort and convenience of social intercourse, but to preserve and promote each individual's physical welfare, by purifying the body from the natural effects of that insensible perspiration which has so large a share in the working of the animal economy, as well as from the contaminations which ensue from contact with an atmosphere more or less loaded with impurities, is of special consequence in the warm regions of the East, and with the oriental temperament (Neh. iv. 23). It came therefore very naturally to be accounted among men's first duties, and was soon invested with the sanctity of religion, in order that its requirements might the more readily, surely, and durably receive attention. The priests of Egypt (Herod. ii. 37) 'bathed in cold water twice each day, and twice each night; nor was this regard to cleanliness confined to the sacred order (Wilkinson's Egyp. iii. 358). It was a natural feeling that purity of body was essential, in order to a worshipper's being accepted by the object of his homage: accordingly, ablutions soon came to be accounted important among the preparations for appearing before the divinities. Water thus became a type of moral purity, and an element in religious observances. Eventually, the employment of water was regarded as emblematical of washing away sins (Acts xxii. 16). As personal cleanli ness had a religious worth ascribed to it, so was the health which ensued accounted a sign of the divine favour; while bodily diseases, especially such as were held to ensue from bodily impurity, were considered as symbols of moral pollution, and tokens of God's displeasure (Lev. xiv. Numb. v. 2, 3). These feelings and opinions, as they found their birth in circumstances, in the main, peculiar to the East, so were they common to oriental countries in general. The Hindoos bathe in the Ganges, in order to purify themselves from the stain of sin; others, when dying, have themselves sprinkled with the branches of a certain tree, or cause their corpses to be thrown into holy rivers, after death. The Mohammedans are strictly enjoined to cleanse themselves from sin by pure water (Meiner's Geschichte der Relig. ii. 119). Water was held by the Rabbins to be a symbol of the Holy Spirit (Othon. Lex. Rabb. 51).

Washings of various kinds are mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures. Abraham washed the feet of his angelic visitors (Gen. xviii. 4);

for washing the feet was reckoned among the duties of hospitality due to travellers in a country where the heat was intense, the legs bare, and the feet were protected only by sandals (see also Gen. xxiv. 32; xliii. 24). The office, however, was, at least in later periods, commonly performed by slaves, and came therefore to be a type of humility, as well as kind attention (John xiii. 5). This passage shows the extent to which the moral import of ablution was carried, since our Saviour intimates to Peter that the efficacy lay not so much in the application of water,—He that is washed, needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit' (ver. 10), -as in the spiritual tendency and effect of the symbolic act. Washing was sometimes purely of a moral and symbolic nature; thus, in Ps. xxvi. 6,

'I will wash my hands in innocency,

So will I compass thine altar, O Lord:' the latter member of the sentence shows that washing of hands, as a token of personal purity, was a preliminary to worship. Not dissimilar in import was the act of Pilate, when he declared his innocence of the death of Jesus, not by word only, but, more strikingly, by washing his hands (Matt. xxvii. 24). The spiritual significance of washing may be found instanced in Ps. li. 2:

'Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity,
And cleanse me from my sin.'

(comp. Ezek. xxxvi. 25. Zech. xiii. 1. 1 Cor vi. 11. Heb. ix. 13, 14; x. 21, 22. 1 John i. 7, 9.) With that proneness to abuse which is natural to man, the use of the very element which caused and betokened purity came, in process of time, to give force and sanction to corrupt practices and superstitious notions. Accordingly, the Lord Jesus Christ found but too much reason to reprove the Pharisees for, among other outward observances, their scrupulous attention to various washings, -as the washing not only of hands, but of cups and pots, brazen vessels and tables;' which practices rested on nothing higher than the tradition of the elders, or the oral law, and had a strong tendency to supersede the commandment of God (Mark vii. 2-9. Matt. xv. 2-9).

As washing was accounted a means, so also was it naturally regarded as a token (figuratively) of inward purity, and, by easy sequence, of those spiritual acts and states which that purity implies: accordingly, washing stands for pardon and sanctification (1 Cor. vi. 11. Rev. i. 5; vii. 14). In Isa. i. 16, repentance and the consequent reformation chiefly are betokened (Prov. xxx. 12).

Various washings and bathings were required by the Mosaic law, doubtless as a consequence of their salutary tendency, as well as their naturally forcible and striking symbolic significance. The leprous man, who was to be cleansed by the priest, was to wash his clothes and himself, as well as to shave