in so doing ? If he was right, how c.an we expla:n his conduct? The circumstances may he carerully compared with those narrated concerning the prophet who was unfaithful to the commission distinctly entrusted to himself (i,ee 1 Kings xiii. 1-26). "It seems at fimt somewhat startling that St. Paul should reject what is described as an insp~ ?ou~sel; or, ir we believe him also to have been guided by the Spirit, that the t.wo msp1rnt1ons should thus clash. We remember, however, that men received the Spirit • by measure,' and the prophets of the Churches at 'l'yre, as elsewhere, though foreseeing the danger to which the apostle was exposed, might yet be lacking in that higher inspiration which guided the decision of the apostle." This explanation is given in a simpler form in the• Speaker's Commentary.' "The foreknowled~e was inspired• the ad'l'ice based npon it was merely a human inference. St. Paul accepted th~ information, but did not yield to the warning. Christ's approvnl of his conduct is implied in eh. xxiii. 11." This suggestion in explanation of the difficulty may be fully .onsidcred and illustrated. I. ST. PAUL HAD DISTINCT LEADINGB OF THE SPIRIT. He had (1) those which were general to his apostolic work; and (2) those which were special to particular occasions, as e.g. at Troas (eh. x,·i. 9). We may, therefore, be quite sure that he lmewperfectly well when he was under Divine lead; and, on this occasion, we have evidence that he knew what God's will for him was, and that he was taking the path of duty in going up to Jerusalem. In eh. xx. 22 he distinctly says, "Now I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem." No doubts or questions disturbed his own mind. He knew that God led; and he knew that, regardless of consequences, it was his simple duty to follow. It may be shown that still, in our day, a man may have a full and clear knowledge of God's will for him, and then he is bound to do that will, however men's prophecies and advice and warnings may entice him aside. When a man has inward conviction of what is right for him, all prophesying of consequences becomes temptation to be resisted. IL OTHERS BAD n.'TIIU.TIO1''8 OF FACTS THAT WOULD OCCUR. These came by the Spirit. But carefully note the distinction~no one was commanded, in the Name of the Lord, to tell St. Paul that he must not go up to Jerusalem. We have only the fact noticed that,certain persons, in the exercise of their prophetic gift, foresaw the con- sequences of his so going, and stated what they anticipated. This comes out plainly in the fuller account of what Agabus did and said (ver.11). His intimation was simply of/acts. Aga.bus does not seem to have felt entitled to add any personal persuasions. This distinction between the leadings of the Spirit in St. Paul and the leadings of the Spirit in the prophets and prophetesses, removes all difficulty of antagonistic inspirations. In the e.postle the leadings concerned duty ; in the prophets it concerned only facts. Wha.t relation the knowledge of the facts had to the doing of duty we shall presently see. , ill. Oni.Kes ADDED PERSUASIONS BASED ON THEm OWN PBOPllETIO KNOWLEDGE. But the persuasions were their own, not the inspiration of God's Spirit, and St. Paul was in no sense bound to follow them. No conceivable anthority could lie in them. 'l'he character of the attempts to hinder the apostle are clearly seen in ver. 12: "And when we heard these things, both we [St. Paul's companions], and they of that pla~, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem." Manifestly the apostle would have been altogether wrong if he had yielded to these kind friends, and resisted the inward monitions and leadings of God's Spirit. Oftentimes in Christian life we fiud that our mol!t anxious work is to resist the importunities and affectionate entreaties of those who would keep us from the work to which God plainly calls us. Illustration: keeping men back from consecration to ministerial and missionary life. IV. SUCH PEBBUASIONB TESTED ST. p AUL'B LOYALTY TO THE SPIRIT'S INWABD LEA.DINOS. And this is the reason why the prophetic intimations of coming facts were given. How deeply the apostle felt both tLe prophecies and the persuasions is seen in ver. 13. Would he be drawn aside from the plain path of duty by them? They made it hard to be faithful to God's will as he knew it; but he did not yield. Well he knew thnt mere consequences resulting from action, as men see them, never can decide the right or tbe wrong of the action. A man must always act upon the light and lead which God gives him, and accept the issues which Divine providence is pleased to bring out of his conduet. A man is alwa;ys right who is true to the witness that God makes iu on. xxr. 1--1.0,] THE ACTS OF THE Al'OSTLES. 189
his own he~rt. Show how much of Christian failure is really dne to yielding under the temptations that would remove us from following out our convictions. So St. Peter tried to hinder bis Lord nnd Master, and received this Bevero answer "Get thee behind me, Satl\n," Distinguish, however, very clearly between mere self~willedness and the conviction of 11n inward Divine leading sncb as open and trustinO'0 hearts need never fail to recognize. This example of the great 11postle should impress upon us that, if we distinctly know what God would have us do, then no kind of peril of circumstances or fear of con- sequences may be permittrd to lead us aside from the plain path of duty. We must ever be loyal to the "inward lead."-R. T.