(Deut xii. 13, 14; xiv. 23). The Temple at Jerusalem was that place: "He refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim: but chose the tribe of Judah, the Mount Zion which He loved" (Ps. lxxviii. 67, 68; cxxxii. 13, 14). That choice had been solemnly announced at the recent dedication of the Temple: "I have heard thy prayer, and have chosen this place to Myself for an house of sacrifice:" "I have chosen and sanctified this house, that My Name may be there for ever" (2 Chron. vii. 12, 16).

The only question is, how far was this affected by the authorized partition of the kingdom. We must remember that Israel was not only a kingdom but also a Church (Acts vii. 38). Consequently the promise had been twofold: "Since the day that I brought forth My people out of the land of Egypt I chose no city among all the tribes of Israel to build an house in, that My Name might be there; neither chose I any man to be a ruler over My people Israel: but I have chosen Jerusalem, that My Name might be there; and have chosen David to be over My people Israel" (2. Chron. vi. 5, 6). The promise as to the kingdom was recalled by reason of the idolatry of Solomon; but

settled east of Jordan to violate the religious unity of the nation is narrated in Joshua xxii. It provoked the fierce indignation of the children of Israel, which was only allayed on the earnest repudiation by the accused of the design imputed to them: "God forbid that we should rebel against the Lord, and turn this day from following the Lord, to build an altar for burntofferings, for meat-offerings, or for sacrifices, beside the altar of the Lord our God that is before His tabernacle" (Josh. xxii. 29). The record is important as establishing the fact that the duty of religious unity was universally recognized by the Israelites.

the unity of the Church was still to be maintained till the end of the Dispensation (2 Chron. vi. 38; Dan. vi. 10; Jon. ii. 4; Mat. v. 35; John iv. 20). It was a continuous thread of Divine purpose, one end of which we take up at the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai (Ex. xx. 24), and the other we find on the Day of Pentecost, when devout men out of every nation under heaven gathered to Jerusalem (Acts ii. 5-12). Even after the interruption of the Babylonish Captivity, the Mind of God (we say it reverently) reverted to His original purpose (Ezra i. 2; Neh. i. 9). Unquestionably, then, there were to be two kingdoms, but not two Churches. That there might be no misunderstanding on this point, in His message to Jeroboam announcing the division of the kingdom God once more specifies Jerusalem as the religious centre in these words, "the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel," "the city which I have chosen Me to put My Name there." In no other light could an Israelite have understood them.

Nevertheless, Jeroboam set himself, in defiance of God, to prevent the ten tribes from going up to Jerusalem to do sacrifice. This is the key to his whole policy. "If this people go up to do sacrifice in the House of the Lord at Ferusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah. Whereupon the king took

This expression is repeated from time to time throughout the history of the Southern Kingdom (1 Kings xiv. 21; 2 Kings xxi. 7; xxiii. 27; 2 Chron. xxxiii. 7). It stands out in relief against the parallel record of the Northern Kingdom, “the sin of Jeroboam the son of Nebat who made Israel to sin."

that but for this the But for this there had

counsel," &c. It is implied people would have gone up. been no sin of schism. But "Jeroboam the son of Nebat made Israel to sin."

It was a fearful aggravation of this sin, when pandering to the natural hankering after a visible symbol of Deity he set up the golden calves, not scrupling to use almost the very words uttered by Aaron in the wilderness, "Behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt" (see Ex. xxxii. 4).1

1 Aaron, it is plain, had no intention of repudiating the worship of Jehovah, for he made proclamation, "To-morrow is a feast to the Lord (Jehovah)" (Ex. xxxii. 5). The calf was to be the visible symbol of Deity. In this respect the two sins were identical, but the distinctive feature of Jeroboam's sin was schism. The character of the idolatry varied from reign to reign. The calves were at one time means, at another ends of worship. First it was a breach of the Second, then of the First Commandment. But the one fixed element in Jeroboam's sin was its schism. Is it on this account that the writer of the Book of Kings never traces it back to Aaron's sin, but treats it as sui generis, "the sin of Jeroboam the son of Nebat who made Israel to sin"?

There are those who insist that it was simply a breach of the Second Commandment, and ask where is religious unity there inculcated. The connection is not so remote. The Ten Commandments were given to " an holy nation, a peculiar people" whom God chose to Himself. In the First Commandment He enjoined on this chosen people one Divine Object of worship. By the Second He guarded that worship from corruption : none might "make to himself" his own type of worship. Is not religious unity contemplated here?

Jeroboam went directly to this point. He deliberately set himself to break that unity by corrupting the true worship. The idolatry gave distinctiveness to the schism; the schism tended to disseminate the idolatry.

A third feature of Jeroboam's sin was that he set at nought God's ordinance by which the priesthood was confined to the line of Aaron. In his anxiety. to enlist the popular support on his side, "he made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi ;" "whosoever would he consecrated him, and he became one of the priests of the high places" (1 Kings xii. 31; xiii. 33). That this was no light sin may be gathered from the fate of Korah and his company, and the punishment inflicted on Saul and Uzziah (Numb. xvi.; I Sam. xiii. 13; 2 Chron. xxvi. 19).

To attempt to separate these sins and to assign to each its measure of guilt would be presumptuous. We can only regard them as the fruit of the same evil disposition of a wilful heart. Regarding, therefore, the sin of Jeroboam as the worship of the true God in an unauthorized way, in unauthorized places, with unauthorized ministers, we cannot but see much to identify it, in its main features, with Schism, or Dissent; though we scarcely need to add, the guilt in each case will vary according as the aggravations are present or absent.

Let us follow out this inquiry a stage further. In carrying out this far-sighted scheme, it is evident he met with opposition from the priests and Levites, the ordained ministry of God, for in the Second Book of Chronicles we read that he cast them off from executing the priests' office before the Lord, and ordained him priests for the high places (2 Chron. xi. 14). Whereupon the priests and Levites resorted to Jerusalem, and "after them out of all the tribes of Israel

such as set their hearts to seek the Lord God of Israel came to Jerusalem, to sacrifice unto the Lord God of their fathers!" So that some, at least, refused to join in the schismatic worship some remembered that Jerusalem was the city which God had chosen to set His Name there.

It will be asked, Why did Jeroboam select Dan and Bethel? We can plainly discern a reason for the first, for Dan was already a stronghold of Dissent. There is an account in the Book of Judges (chap. xviii.) of a colony of Danites moving northward. On their way they lodged with one Micah, and carried away certain images that he had, together with a Levite whom they compelled to accompany them, in order to give a colour of authority to the strange worship they set up in a town in the extreme north of the land, which they named Dan, after their old home in the south-and this, we are told, during "all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh” (Judges xviii. 31).

It was in this very town, and as we cannot doubt for this reason, that Jeroboam set up a golden calf; and here the strange worship struck root at once, "for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan."

Bethel was selected for a different, though equally intelligible reason. It was the place of all others that had sacred associations with the old worship of Jehovah. It was hard by Shiloh where the tabernacle had stood (Judges xxi. 19). It was the place where Jacob not only saw his vision of the heavenly ladder, but on his return built an altar to the Lord in obedience to His command (Gen. xxxv. I, 6). Here, too,