drink at Bethel; and still more, why the old prophet should have been so anxious to persuade him to do what was forbidden him. Now the reason why the prophet who came from Judah was neither to eat nor to drink at Bethel, nor to return by the same way that he had set out, was in order to show that Jeroboam and his people were fallen away from the true commonwealth of Israel, that the bond of brotherhood between them and Judah was broken off utterly; that they were become to the servants of God like heathen men and publicans, with whom they were to hold no intercourse. As St. John then desires the Christians not to receive into their house certain men who by their evil deeds had broken the bond of Christian communion, nor even to bid them God speed, "for he that biddeth them God speed,” he adds, "is partaker of their evil deeds," so the prophet of God who was bearing the message of God's judgment against Bethel, was to have no friendly intercourse with its people; he was to keep himself aloof from them, and even to return by a different road, lest by renewing his acquaintance with any of the inhabitants whom he had seen on his first journey, he might be the more tempted to hold intercourse with them, and to linger on his way home.

This being the reason of the command given to the prophet of Judah, we are now to consider what motives the old prophet could have had to tempt

him to disobedience. The old prophet must be supposed to have been one who had taken part heartily with Jeroboam in separating himself from the common worship at Jerusalem; one who had strongly supported the setting up the altars at Bethel and at Dan. He would, therefore, be ill pleased to see his own conduct and that of his countrymen declared to be so sinful, as that God's prophets might hold no communion with them. He would feel the command issued to the prophet to be a reproach upon him and on his cause, and knowing the effect of old habits and impressions upon the people at large, he would be afraid lest they themselves should be shocked at finding themselves so utterly condemned as unholy by a prophet of Jerusalem, and lest they might desire to escape from his censures by conforming again to the worship of the tribe of Judah. As Saul had besought Samuel to turn with him, and honour him before the elders of his people and before Israel; so this old prophet wished to persuade the prophet of Judah to abate something of his severity, to enter into his house and eat of his bread, and drink of his cup, that so the people might think that their conduct was not so utterly condemned at Jerusalem; that the prophet, while bearing a message of severity, was himself inclined to think it too severe; that, whilst denouncing a judgment, he acted as if he did not himself believe that it would come to

pass. For men's actions are more than their words; and it would have been of little consequence that the prophet in public, and in his official character, if I may so speak, should have denounced Jeroboam and his worship as sinful, if privately, and in those moments when a man's real sentiments appear, he should hold friendly intercourse with one of the prophets of that worship, and enter with him into the sacred relations of hospitality.

Such were the old prophet's motives; motives arising out of no hatred to the prophet of Judah, but simply from a wish to make it appear, that the cause of the worship of Bethel was not so evil as might be thought from the prophet's public message; and that the prophet by his own acts showed that he himself did not so regard it. And therefore, when he found that the prophet had fallen a victim to his policy, that he had been himself condemned for lowering in a manner the sentence of God's condemnation against others, then his heart smote him, and while he mourned for him whom his arts had ruined, and said over his grave, Alas, my brother!" he confirmed with his own lips the voice of that sentence on which he had vainly endeavoured at the price of so much guilt to throw discredit.

But now if from understanding this story, as a thing which took place in Judæa so many hundred years ago, we proceed to ask what is its meaning

for us, and what instruction we may derive from it, then the answer must be given warily and with knowledge, or else we shall turn the Scripture to our hurt, and not to our benefit.

Here, as every where else in the Scripture, the spirit of the story is an eternal lesson; the letter of it, as in so many other parts of the Old Testament, must be looked upon as passed away. I mean that it is a lesson for us, if we take into our account the differences between our situation and that of the Jews: if we do not do this, it will then absolutely mislead us. Now, before I proceed to apply this rule to the story of the disobedient prophet, I will show its necessity by another part of the same chapter, where it says that "Jeroboam made of the lowest of the people priests of the high places: whosoever would, he consecrated him, and he became one of the priests of the high places;" and adds immediately, "That this thing became sin unto the house of Jeroboam." Now I have actually met with comments upon this passage, which have argued from it against appointing Christian ministers from what are called the lower orders. This is a complete instance of the mischief of quoting the letter of the Scripture, and not its spirit. It is surely not hard to know that the priesthood among the Jews, as amongst almost all ancient nations, was confined to one particular family; that no one who was not of the seed of Aaron could lawfully be made a priest.

It might be known also that the priest's business was not to teach, but to offer sacrifice; and that Christian ministers are in no respect like the priests among the Jews, but rather like the prophets. Now the prophets were chosen from any family, and from any condition of life: for instance, the prophet Amos was chosen from the lowest of the people, for he was a herdsman; and in like manner, the first and greatest Christian ministers, our Lord's own Apostles, were fishermen, or engaged in other employments equally humble. The letter, therefore, of this passage about Jeroboam has passed away; we have no priests under the Gospel, and our prophets or ministers, like the prophets of old, may be taken freely from any family, or from any condition of life. But the spirit of it remains; that is, it is a grievous sin to appoint as a Christian minister any man who wants that quality, which is as essential to the Christian ministry as being born of a particular family was essential to the Jewish priesthood. This quality is holiness; and he who were to consecrate to our ministry whosoever would, -whosoever wished to enter it,-let his ignorance or his wickedness be ever so great; he, and he only, would be guilty in this matter of the sin of Jeroboam.

Now, then, we must apply the same rule to the whole story of the disobedient prophet. If we do not, a Roman Catholic might very falsely apply it