"And Naaman said, Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two

mules' burden of earth? for thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the LORD. In this thing the LORD pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon thy servant in this thing. And he said unto him, Go in peace. So he departed from him a little way. But Gehazi, the servant of Elisha the man of God, said, Behold, my master hath spared Naaman this Syrian, in not receiving at his hands that which he brought : but, as the LORD liveth, I will run after him, and take somewhat of him. So Gehazi followed after Naaman. And when Naaman saw him running after him, he lighted down from the chariot to meet him, and said, Is all well? And he said, All is well. My master hath sent me, saying, Behold, even now there be come to me from Mount Ephraim two young men of the sons of the prophets : give them, I pray thee, a talent of silver, and two changes of garments. And Naaman said, Be content, take two talents. And he urged him, and bound two talents of silver in two bags, with two changes of garments, and laid them upon two of his servants; and they bare them before him. And when he came to the tower, he took them from their hand, and bestowed them in the house: and he let the men go, and they departed. But he went in, and stood before his master. And Elisha said unto him, Whence comest thou, Gehazi? And he said, Thy servant went no whither. And he said unto him, Went not mine heart with thee, when the man turned again from his chariot to meet thee? Is it a time to receive money, and to receive garments, and oliveyards, and vineyards, and sheep, and oxen, and men-servants, and maid-servants? The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow."-2 KINGS v. 17-27.

THERE is to observant minds a peculiar taint about many religious biographies. They may be exceedingly well meant, and very devoutly written. But, viewed as biographies, they are simply not true.

The statement may seem startling; it Who has ever met such people in real life? And thankful we are that the answer will be in the

is only too correct.

negative; since otherwise no hope of being Christians would be left to us, nor to any persons living outside printed books. For, assuredly, there is not a warp without a woof, nor light without shadow, nor yet a life without failings, foibles, and the thousand and one little things which give to character its individuality, and to life its peculiarity, but which are carefully left out of so many biographies. The religious phase alone is presented, and even that from the peculiar point whence it falls within the visional range of the interested onlooker, the spiritual adviser, or the religious writer. The result is, the record of lives which none of us can recognise as human-which are neither true nor real, in that they present only one phase of life, and even that in a manner distorted and exaggerated. Not so Scripture, which even in this respect proves its claim to Divine authorship, that it is so unlike human books. It has no predilections, and no passions-no heroes, caricatures, nor exaggerations. It is simply true; it gives the whole character and history of a man in all their phases; and what it says about a man's religion is neither unreal nor unnatural. We feel that even the farthest advanced, and most favoured of God's saints, were men "subject to like passions as we are." The bewilderment which this altogether unusual truthfulness of Scripture produces in the minds of good men appears in the discordant opinions of interpreters, whenever the subject of comment is some act which, to the honest Christian onlooker, viewing it in the light of our own days, seems, to say the least, doubtful. That it should, perhaps, be viewed in the dimmer light of Old Testament days, does not occur to them, nor yet that the standard of perfection should not be applied to the commencement of a religious life. And so they condemn, or seek out reasons for excusing, as they are severally disposed.

The request and the inquiry, which formed part of the interview between Naaman and Elisha, were simply what we might have expected under the circumstances. They were neither absolutely right, nor were they absolutely wrong. They were simply natural on the part of a convert like Naaman. So was the reply of Elisha, and so is the narrative of Scripture; and these details make the whole much more real and life-like to us than it could otherwise have been. It was certainly not in accordance with our more advanced knowledge concerning the spirituality of religion, when Naaman asked for his proposed altar to Jehovah "two mules' burden of earth" from the Land of Israel. But although the proposal accords not with our ideas, and indeed to some may seem to savour of the superstitious, its tolerance, not its approval (for the former, not the latter, was accorded by Elisha), does agree with the practice of St. Paul, who would have the strong bear the infirmities of the weak, and himself would have yielded to the utmost verge of Christian endurance, in order to preserve a brother from offence or stumbling. But did Elisha, by his reply, encourage his convert in superstitious notions and practices? What did he reply, or what indeed could he reply, other than "Go in peace"? Probably, some of us might have judged differently, and been inclined to reason the point with Naaman, till, before we had reached our sixth or seventh argument, the young convert would have become bewildered and confused. Similarly, not a few might have refused to baptize the Ethiopian eunuch, unless he had consented to learn by heart a good many things before re-entering his chariot. What really was most important for Naaman was simply what the prophet said, that he should "Go in peace.”

But supposing, for the moment, that the request of Naaman did savour of the superstitious, Elisha's reply raises

the broader question, so often forced upon us, how far we are warranted in tolerating certain practices, not in themselves sinful, on the ground of bearing with the weak, or how far it is our duty to resist them, as opposed alike to the truth and spirituality of religion. Of the danger of such practices, it is scarcely necessary to speak in our days. In view of this, the question of Christian duty becomes all the more urgent. Our first distinction must here be as to circumstances. A dim grey light precedes the dawn of day; it also precedes the commencement of night. That which may be matter of forbearance in him who is only just beginning the Christian life, or finding the truth (as Luther, and the other early Reformers), would be sinful compliance if tolerated in those who profess to be advanced. Again, if any outward thing becomes part of a system, is put forward, insisted upon, defended and advocated as such, we must not take part in it, but, so far as we can, in consistence with charity, resist it to the uttermost. It is no longer harmless; it will strike deeper, and spread wider; it is the leprosy of superstition. Anything, however indifferent, ceases to be indifferent if absolute value is attached to it, and they who practise it regard it not as indifferent, but as necessary, or most important. Superstition is to place a thing above its proper value, and above ts proper place; it is misplaced religion, the putting a value upon things which they do not possess in themselves. Weakness should be borne with; superstition must be resisted. Any practice, however indifferent in itself, becomes absolutely sinful, when, ceasing to be indifferent, it is made the object of superstition to our neighbour. The same law of love. which demands our tolerance in the one, requires our utmost resistance in the other case, and, more than that law only, our duty also towards the truth, and towards Him Who is the Truth.

But in the case of Naaman, this question could scarcely arise. Naaman spoke under the Old Testament dispensation of types and shadows, when such a request could not have been designated as superstition, whoever had proffered it. Naaman spoke as a young convert, just emerging from heathenism, with a heart full of ardent attachment to the God of Israel. He had renounced the religion of Syria as a lie, and made public avowal of Jehovah as the only God. He purposed, in the midst of Damascus, to rear an altar unto the Lord, and there openly to serve Him. And so thorough was his repugnance to Syrian superstitions, and his attachment to the religion of Israel, that he would not construct even that altar from the earth polluted by idolatry, but would testify to his entire separation therefrom by building it from Israelitish earth. It was, so to speak, an Old Testament mode of showing that he hated even "the garment spotted by the flesh." And if Naaman did "take pleasure in her stones, and favour the dust thereof," do not our grateful memories also cling, with peculiar affection, to the place where we first heard the truth? There was certainly nothing of superstition in what was made matter of request, since it was not urged as necessary for his worship. And if there was aught of weakness in the desire, let us remember, before casting a stone, that while few attain the decision of the Syrian who proposed to rear an altar to Jehovah in the very midst of Damascus, many far surpass him in the weaknesses which attach to their religion. To whatever section of the Church we may belong, have we not our own predilections, one for this, another for that form to which we have been accustomed, or which we have, perhaps, lately adopted? Far be it from us to assert that deep Scriptural truths may not underlie some of these feelings and convictions. Yet, in regard to some of them, after all, may it

N