heart, unwillingness to return to God, and the ascription of the evils befalling us to the opposite of their true cause, are

only too common in that sorrow which Holy Scripture characterizes as "of the world," and working "death."

The horrible story which the woman told to the king was that she and another had made the agreement that each of

them was successively to kill her son for a meal in which they two were to share; that the one had fulfilled her part of

the bargain, but that, after partaking of the dreadful feast, the other had hidden her son. Whether or not the feelings of

motherhood had thus tardily asserted themselves in the second mother, or whether, in the avarice of her hunger, she

wished to reserve for herself alone the unnatural meal, matters not for our present purpose. But we recall that such

horrors had been in warning foretold in connection with Israel's apostasy (Leviticus 26:29; Deuteronomy 28:53); that

they seem to have been enacted during the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (Lamentations 4:l0); and lastly, that

we have historical evidence of their occurrence during the last siege of Jerusalem by Titus (Jos. War, 6., 3, 4). Even if it

had not reminded the king of the predicted Divine curse, such a tale could not have fallen on his ear, especially in

existing circumstances, without exciting the deepest and strongest feelings. The story itself was sufficiently harrowing;

but that a mother should, even in the madness of self-reproach, make public appeal to the king, that her neighbor should

be kept to her part of the compact, revealed a state of matters and of public feeling which called for that universal

mourning which the king, as head of the state, inaugurated, when almost instinctively "he rent his clothes." And so, too

often, they that will not mourn for sin have to mourn for its consequences.

But as the people watched their king as, with rent clothes, he passed on his way, they took notice that he wore other

token of mourning - that "he had sackcloth within upon his flesh." And yet, strange as it may seem, there is not any

inconsistency between this and what immediately follows in the sacred narrative. There is no reason to doubt his

outward penitence, of which this was the token - perhaps, alas, the main part. Nor do we require to suppose, as has been

suggested, either that he had put on sackcloth in obedience to a general command of Elisha, or else that his anger

against the prophet was due to the advice of the latter that Samaria should hold out in expectation of Divine

deliverance, and that he (the king) had put on sackcloth in the belief that thereby he would secure the promised help.

For similar conduct may still be witnessed as regards its spirit, although the outward form of it may be different. A man

experiences the bitter consequences of his sinful ways, and he makes sincere, though only outward, repentance of them.

But the evils consequent upon his past do not cease; perhaps, on the contrary, almost seem to increase, and he turns not

within himself, for humiliation, but without, to what he supposes to be the causes of his misfortunes, perhaps often

those very things which are intended ultimately to bring spiritual blessing to him. The sudden o utburst of the king's

anger against Elisha indicates that he somehow connected the present misery of Samaria with the prophet; and the

similarity of his rash vow of Elisha's death with that of his mother Jezebel in regard to Elijah (1 Kings 19:2) would lead

to the inference that Joram imagined there was a kind of hereditary quarrel between the prophets and his house. This,

although he had but lately experienced personal deliverances through Elisha (2 Kings 6:9, 10). Perhaps, indeed, we

may hazard the sugges tion that one of the reasons for them may have been to show that the controversy was not with

the members of the house of Ahab as such, but with them as alike the cause and the representatives of Israel's apostasy.

But the king's mood was fitful. The command to slay Elisha was immediately succeeded by another resolve, whether

springing from fear or from better motives. He hastily followed the messenger whom he had sent, in order to arrest the

execution of the sentence on which he had gone. Meanwhile the p rophet himself had been in his house with the elders

of the city - we can scarcely doubt, making very different application of the state of matters in Samaria than the king

had done. We do not wonder that all that was happening should have been Divinely co mmunicated to Elisha, nor yet

that he should have described in such language the purposed judicial murder by Joram as characteristic of the son of

Ahab and Jezebel. Plain and fearless as the words were, they would also remind the elders of the pending judgment

against the house of Ahab. By direction of the prophet they who were with him now prevented the entrance of the

king's messenger, who was so soon to be followed by the monarch himself. The words (ver. 33): "And he said, Behold

this the evil is from Jehovah, why should I wait [hope] any longer?" were spoken by the king as he entered the presence

of Elisha. They are characteristic of his state of mind. It was perhaps for this reason that the prophet apparently gave no

heed of any kind to them. They only served to bring into more startling contrast the abrupt announcement which the

prophet was commissioned to make. Alike in itself and in the circumstances of the city, it seemed to imply not only a

miracle but an absolute impossibility. Yet the message was not only definite but solemnly introduced as "the word of

Jehovah." It was to this effect, that about that time on the morrow, a seah (about a peck and a half of fine flour would

be sold in the gate of Samaria, where the public market was held, for a sheke l (about 2s. 7d.), and two seahs (about

three pecks) of barley for the same price.