by the later light of the gospel-as in that word of the Lord to Moses, from which Christ himseli declares that this doctrine might be inferred. Matt. xxii. 32. And in the more certain light of later prophecy, this comfortable doctrine, though not very distinctly declared, is so clearly indicated, that the Jews themselves, by the time our Lord appeared, believed nearly all that we believe in this great matter, although there were those by whom it was still denied. It was drawn from the completed canon of the Old Testament, though it was not, perhaps, a matter of ancient popular belief, like the immortality of the soul. The belief existed, and that belief must have been drawn from the Old Testament-it must have been a revelation; for there was no other source from which the Jews could derive a doctrine (seeing that it was a true doctrine) not held by any other people, not discoverable by the human understanding, and one at which philosophy curled its lip in proud disdain. It may therefore be, that the woman of Tekoah meant what her words literally indicate, and expressed the popular belief of her time—that life returned not to the dead. But, blessed be God, it is not so. The very contrary to what she said is the fact. We must needs die, but are not as water spilt upon the ground, which cannot be gathered up again. It shall be gathered up: Again : 'Wherever slept one grain of human dust, Wherever tossed, obedient to the call Of God's omnipotence, it hurried on No atom of his spoils remained to Death.' 'Each particle of dust was claimed: the turf For ages trod beneath the careless foot Of men, rose organized in human form; The monumental stones were rolled away: The doors of death were opened; and in the dark That sought their proper place. Instinctive every soul The nameless spirit took its ashes up.'-POLLOK. Yet, in returning to the words of the woman of Tekoah, it must be confessed that such expressions being in their very essence poetical and figurative, must not be pressed too closely for matters of doctrine. They may prove the existence of a doctrine or belief, but not the absence of a doctrine or belief. They take the lower and obvious sense of facts as they appear, and go not into the higher sense of unseen and unexperienced things. Gray's Elegy in a Country Churchyard' supplies a case very much in point. The poet certainly knew and believed in the immortality of the soul-he knew the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, and probably believed in it. Yet in his poem, the subject of which might seem naturally to suggest the production of these doctrines, there is not one word bearing the slightest reference to either; and if, in a distant age, inferences as to the belief of the British people were drawn from that poem alone, it might, with as much probability as in the case before us, be inferred that they possessed no knowledge nor belief of either doctrine. But the fact is, that the poet had only to deal with the external and social aspects of his subject; and although he knew that there were higher and remoter aspects, his manifest object did not require him to extend his view to them. In a great variety of phrases and images he illustrates the idea that man shall no more return to the relations he has filled, and the position he has occupied-shall never recover the very form of life which he has laid down. Indeed, all Gray's images and illustrations, so much admired and so often quoted, are but expansions and variations of the words of Job: 'He that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. He shall return no more to his house, neither shall his place know him any more.' Here, on the words, shall come up no more,' an elaborate old commentator1 remarks: 1 Joseph CaryL, Exposition, with Practical Observations on the Book of Job. London, 1676. A work in two immense and closely printed folio volumes, of about 4700 pages together, now very scarce. "No! That is sad news indeed, to go down into the grave and come up no more. Are all the hopes of man shut up in the grave? And is there an utter end of him when this life ends? Shall he come up no more? . . . . What he saith, it is not a denial of a dying man's resurrection to life, but of his restitution to the same life, or to such life as he parted with at the grave's mouth. They who die a natural death do not live a natural life again; therefore he added in the next verse, He shall return no more to his house. He does not say absolutely, he shall return no more, but he shall return no more to his house he shall have no more to do with this world, with worldly businesses or contentments, with the labours or comforts of the creature, or of his family; he shall return no more to his house. A portion of this fine old expositor's remarks upon the next clause, might persuade one that Gray had read his ponderous volumes, with which he might certainly have employed himself to much more advantage than by reading Crebillon's romances upon a sofa, which was his idea of supreme enjoyment. The words are, 'Neither shall his place know him any more;' on which Caryl observes, 'When a man lives and comes home to his house, his house (as it were) welcomes him home, and his place is glad to entertain him. As in the psalm the little hills are said to rejoice at the showers, so when a man comes home, his house and all he hath, have, as it were, a tongue to bid him welcome, and open arms to receive and embrace him; but when he dies, he shall return no more, and then his place shall know him (that is, receive him) no more.' Thirty-ninth Week-Second Day. FILIAL INGRATITUDE. -2 SAMUEL XV. 7; XVI. 14. WHEN Absalom had gained permission to appear at court, and consequently acquired the right to show himself in public, and mingle freely in society, he adopted a line of conduct which enables us, by the light of subsequent events, to see that he had already formed the design of depriving his father of his crown. It may occur to many to ask, What motive he could have to take a step so premature? There is, at the first view, a want of adequate motive, seeing that he was the eldest living son of the king,1 and as his father was now advanced in life, the lapse of a few years would, in the course of nature, place the crown upon his head. But if our previous statements have been understood, it must be clearly seen that under the Hebrew constitution, the fact of his being the eldest son by no means ensured the succession to him. No one had yet succeeded to the kingdom of Israel by right of primogeniture, and the principle of such succession was not as yet, therefore, established by a single precedent. Besides, David could not have failed to make his sons clearly understand that, although the crown was assured to his family, the nomination of the individual was with the Lord; and they needed not him to teach them that in the absence of any such nomination, the power rested with himself of bequeathing the crown to any one of his sons he pleased. This alone was enough to make Absalom's prospects in the future somewhat precarious. The divine nomination of another might, at any time, be interposed; and he had probably seen enough to feel that he was not to calculate too surely even upon his father's preference. He knew indeed that he had no second place in his father's heart, but enough had passed to satisfy him that he held no high place in that father's judgment. More than this, it is our impression that David already knew that Solomon was, by the Lord's appointment, to be his successor on the throne. In the promise made to David through Nathan, it was clearly indicated that a son not yet born was to sit upon his throne; and when Solomon was born, he could not but understand that this applied to him. If he had any doubt of this, it must have been 1 Chileab, the son of David by Abigail, was born before him, but he appears to have died ere this time, for nothing is reported of him but the fact of his birth. removed by his knowledge that the 'Lord loved him,' and had, through Nathan, bestowed upon him the new name of Jedidiah (beloved of the Lord). Sam. xii. 24, 25. It is even probable that he had long before the present time, if not from the first, received those more distinct intimations of the Lord's will in this matter, which he mentions in 1 Chron. xxviii. 5-7 ; but this alone could not but be enough to enable one so anxious as David was, to trace and act upon the divine indications. Besides, we learn from 1 Kings i. 17, that the king had pledged himself to Bathsheba, who must have been aware of all this, that her son should be his successor, or, in other words, that his choice should enforce these intimations, and that no impulses of affection or preference for any other son should induce him to contravene them. Whether this pledge had been already given, is not clear; but as Solomon was now about fourteen years of age, and as the intimations we have traced were long before afforded, it is likely that the pledge which was founded on them had not been so long delayed. Now, if David had not yet made this designation of Solomon publicly known, enough may have transpired, or have been surmised, to lead Absalom to think his succession by right of primogeniture to be in danger, and to feel that the danger would increase by lapse of time; and thus we perceive that, to a man of Absalom's temper, there were motives for immediate action which do not at first sight appear. Absalom did not, however, plunge at once into open rebellion. He began by assuming a semi-regal magnificence, to assert his rank as heir-apparent. He procured for himself chariots and horses-then a new, and therefore striking, luxury in Israel—and appeared abroad in much state, with fifty outrunners. The dignity thus assumed, rendered the more persuasive the blandishments by which he strove to seduce from their allegiance the suitors who repaired from all parts of the land to Jerusalem, and gave emphasis to his seditious insinuations, and his promises of redressing all public wrongs. These people spread through the country, on their return home, glowing accounts of the inexpressible beauty of the king's son, |