the whole human race was destroyed except their father and themselves. They had seen that the city of Zoar was spared; they probably obtained there the wine which they used in intoxicating their parent; so, when they say to one another, "There is not a man in the earth to marry us," they are thinking only of their present isolation, perhaps with some idea (lately learned) of the impropriety of forming any connection with the natives of the land, while they felt the strong necessity of preserving their family. Whence could they seek husbands? Who would be willing to unite themselves with those who had been dwellers in that wicked and ill-fated city, Sodom? Ishmael, their own relation, was still a child. There was in their view only one way practicable for preserving their house. And this was the way which they took. At the same time, they knew that it would be impossible to persuade their father knowingly to commit the contemplated crime; hence they took the means to compass their end which the record specifies, stupefying him with wine that he might be able to offer no opposition to their purpose. Doubtless, too, the degrading associations of the Cities of the Plain, the open licentiousness and depravity there exhibited, had lowered their moral tone, and blinded their eyes to the enormity of the offence. And thus Lot passes away from sacred history-saved, but with the loss of all that he held dear, widowed, homeless, childless save for the heirs of his shame, in strong contrast with Abraham who had peace and joy in believing, in whom was fulfilled the word of Holy Scripture (1 Tim. iv. 8): "Godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life which now is, and of that which is to come." And yet St. Peter applies the term "righteous" to Lot (2 Peter ii. 7); does the Scripture narrative warrant the use of this epithet in his case? Plainly the answer to such question lies in the relative worth of the adjective. Considered in the full connotation of the word, "none is righteous, no, not one." But human excellence is comparative. Contrasted with the habits and character of those among whom he dwelt, the virtue of Lot shines forth conspicuously; and if his conduct shows weakness, worldliness, selfishness, his own morality is unquestioned, and may well meet with commendation. God does not stamp imperfection with His approval, but He is merciful in His estimation of His weak creatures; and personal purity and faith receive limited praise, though they be combined with a lower

standard in other respects. Lot had to struggle against serious temptations which he had chiefly brought upon himself, and he successfully resisted the worst of them. He was saved amid ruin and loss and desolation (for sin always has the penalty to pay), because God saw the good that was in him, while He punished his folly and worldly spirit. As "one star differeth from another star in glory," so are there degrees in righteousness. Lot, indeed, must be placed very much below the level of Abraham; yet he is, at least, so far elevated among his contemporaries, as, in a restricted sense, to deserve the epithet applied to him by St. Peter: "For that righteous man dwelling among the wicked, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their lawless deeds."

CHAPTER XI.

GERAR AND BEERSHEBA.

Removal to Gerar--Philistines-Abraham's evasion-Sarah taken by Abimelech; saved by God's interposition-Abimelech's conduct--His rebuke-Beersheba-Treaty between Abimelech and Abraham-Origin of the name Beersheba-Isaac born; signification of his name— Ishmael's conduct- He and his mother cast out-Reason of this expulsion-Peril in the wilderness; relieved by the angel of God— Ishmael's subsequent history-Tribes sprung from him.

FOR fifteen years Abraham had dwelt at Mamre, but now he moves his camp to the south country. It was probably not merely for the requirements of his flocks and herds that he took this step. The terrible catastrophe in the Plain, the sight of that desolated region, the thought of the calamity of Lot and his family, rendered the whole neighbourhood hateful to the tender-hearted patriarch. If he knew of Lot's own safety he could have no comfort in intercourse with him, especially should any intimation of his nephew's crime have reached him. So he left his old home, and took his way into that region whither Hagar had fled from her mistress' tyranny, between Kadesh and Shur, and which Abraham himself had traversed on his road to and from Egypt. Here he roamed from spot to spot, and finally pitched his tent near a town called Gerar. This place lay in a valley running towards Beersheba, from which it is some twentyfive miles distant. It is identified with the heap of ruins called Umm el Jerrâr, ten miles south of Gaza, thirty from Eleutheropolis, where are remains of cisterns and large quantities of broken pottery. Here the patriarch first came in contact with the Philistines, who, in after years, inhabited the Shephelah

or maritime plain of Canaan, waging unceasing war with the Israelites. They had not at present formed that confederacy of five cities which was found so formidable in the days of the Judges, but were a pastoral tribe, living under the chieftainship of a king who bore the official title of Abimelech, "Father King." Succeeding years were to add so greatly to their strength and importance that from them the whole land was called Palestine, this appellation quite superseding the old name of Canaan under Greek rule. Neither numerous, nor warlike, at this period of their history, they, though not of Semitic descent, received the stranger cordially, and seem to have understood his language. At least, the word Abi-melek is Semitic, and there is no trace of the need of an interpreter in their intercourse with the Hebrews. Probably when they dispossessed the original Semitic settlers they adopted the language of the conquered race, as we ourselves saw Saxon prevail over Norman French. The friendly relation between them and Abraham seemed at first in danger of being interrupted from the same cause that had led to the difficulty with Pharaoh in Egypt, some twenty years before. Again Abraham gave out that Sarah was his sister; "for," as the Septuagint Version adds, "he feared to say she is my wife, lest the men of the city should slay him because of her" (chap. xx. 2); and again the same result followed, for Abimelech sent and took her." If it was for her beauty that he desired her, this creates a difficulty, as she was now ninety years old; and hence some critics have asserted that this episode is merely a repetition of that in chap. xii. introduced by the Elohist, as the earlier was by the Jehovist. However, the whole details of the two histories are different, and there is nothing improbable in the fact that the same danger twice beset Sarah while sojourning among heathen peoples. And as to the cause which led Abimelech to take her; it must be remembered that her youthful powers had been renewed since the visit of the three angels, when she was made capable of bearing a child, and so her comeliness may have been retained even to this advanced age. On the other hand, Abimelech may have merely desired to ally himself by the ties of affinity to a powerful chieftain, and to make, what would be termed in modern society, a mariage de convénance. The astonishing thing is that Abraham should a second time have had recourse to this unworthy 1 Comp. 1 Sam. xvii.

66

subterfuge, as if he thought that God had already sanctioned the artifice, and would again interfere to secure its success. He certainly had not yet learned the high morality which we expect in this righteous man; but, as we said before, we must not judge him by the Christian standard in this respect. The Oriental idea of veracity was of a very low order; and considering the Philistines to have no fear of God, and to be likely to exercise their power without regard to right, Abraham took that means of self-defence which naturally occurred to him. But could he have been blind to the possible result of his action? Sarah was promised a son within a year; and yet he was exposing her to sin and pollution, and endangering the fulfilment of his own hopes on which so momentous a result depended. He could not have forgotten the solemn visit of the angels; he could not have disregarded the claims of his unborn child. What was it that led him to play so mean a part? It was somewhat of that spirit which appeared so strongly in his posterity, only in his case it was free from pride; but it was not wholly free from presumption. God had once intervened for his wife's protection; He would do so again. The promise of an heir from his own body, lawfully begotten, must be fulfilled; no untoward event could mar God's design; however perilous the course, however inextricable the dilemma, a way of escape would be found. Thus Abraham may have reasoned. His conscience was not troubled by the deceit; the half-truth he told in saying that Sarah was his sister was not a cowardly falsehood in his eyes, but a clever evasion of a difficulty; and his trust in God's overruling Providence, and in his own high destiny, left him calm and confident in the midst of most critical circumstances. As the event proved, he was right in his expectation. The mighty future that centred in Sarah's son was not to be emperilled by man's frailty. God warned Abimelech in a dream not to commit the crime which he had meditated. "Thou art

but a dead man," said the Divine voice, "for the woman thou hast taken is a man's wife." The written law against adultery had not been given (Deut. xxii. 22), yet the grievous nature of that sin had long been recognized in society, and here God Himself gives His sentence about it. He had let Pharaoh learn his iniquity by consequences, and had not personally warned him of his error; but there was some good in this prince of Gerar; he knew right from wrong, and desired to