consider himself as wiser than all the authorities,

and despise both legislators and judges, and act in defiance of the laws. But if he chooses to exercise this right, he will do so at his peril; he must take the consequences, and suffer punishment. Now we may suppose a case to arise in which human laws may be opposed to divine, and that a man, after deep consideration of the case, and being properly qualified for such an inquiry, comes to that conclusion, and chooses to obey God rather than man. We may pity and admire such a man taking the consequences of the exercise of the right of private judgment, and rejoicing, as the Apostles did, "to suffer shame for the name of Jesus." Such a man would commit a legal offence, but not incur moral guilt.

But if a wilful or an ignorant man, without either inquiry, or qualifications to judge, or without any adequate occasion for opposing the law, shall think fit to act upon what he terms his right of private judgment, upon his own interpretation and opinion of the laws; then, independently of the question, whether the law to which he refused obedience were a good or a bad law, whether the legislators and judges were fit or unfit, his guilt would be incurred for the offence, of setting up his private judgment against the authorized enactors and expositors of the law. By God's ordinance the law has a general claim to obedience, to which exceptions are not to be made but in cases sanctioned by His word. If the law were a good law, the absurdity of setting up pri

vate judgment against it would be still more glaring. But if the offender were neither qualified, nor had taken the necessary steps to enable him to form a competent judgment, the offence, in a moral point of view, would remain the same, whether the law were good or bad. To oppose private judgment to the course of social law, would be a legal offence under any circumstances. To do so without very strong grounds, and a well established conviction that it was contrary to the law of God, would add to this legal offence moral guilt. And to do it without any inquiry at all, or without knowledge and qualification for making the examination, would, in a still greater degree, aggravate its sinfulness: and if the offender be punished for his pains, who will not admit that he deserves it, and is a foolish or wicked disturber of the peace of society? It would be the abuse, not the use, of the right of private judgment.

In like manner, if any person shall set up his private notions against those regulations of the Church, which, by her reasonable and scriptural authority to decree rites and ceremonies, provided they be not "contrary to God's word written," she enjoins, that man deserves the censures of the Church, and will also incur the wrath of the Church's Sovereign. A man is not to reduce regulations for the public conduct of any society (civil or religious) to the standard of his caprice. And especially odious and offensive will such a pretence of asserting the right of private judgment be, where it is set up against

the express warrant of Scripture, and God's own word. What can be thought of that man, who shall say, I cannot see why this or that should be so; when God Himself has expressly declared that so it shall be? Such a man will suffer, and will deservedly suffer, for this self-conceit and impiety; God and man will condemn him with a just judgment; his own conscience will, sooner or later, join in the sentence; and in the awful consequences to which his sin will lead, no consolation will present itself; but shame and remorse will echo from the depth of his heart, "THOU FOOL!" the just and awful reproach, which the Holy Spirit has attached to those who lean upon their own wisdom and devices, rather than yield a faithful submission to the counsels and decrees of Divine Wisdom.

The narrative from which the text is taken affords an instructive illustration of these truths, and exhibits a lively picture of the folly of a man's endeavouring to measure the counsels of the Most High by his own limited understanding, and to suppose that nothing is possible because he may not see the manner, and comprehend the reasons, by which God is guided in effecting it.

Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, who had rendered most important services to his master's dominions, and was one of his most distinguished officers, was afflicted with a leprosy, a disease of the most distressing and loathsome character. During some inroads upon the land of

Israel, his troops had brought away captive a little maid, who was taken into Naaman's household, and waited upon his wife. She appears to have felt for his miserable situation, and declared that the means of cure were to be found, if Naaman would but bend himself to ask relief of God, through his appointed servant, and, in faith and humility, submit himself to the prophet's directions, whatsoever they might be. "Would God," said she, "my lord were with the prophet that is in Samaria! for he would cure him of his leprosy." These words were reported to Naaman, who, with the eagerness of one under a most horrible and disgusting disorder, was ready to have recourse to any quarter for a cure. He determined, therefore, to seek this man of God, and applied to his master, the king of Syria, for letters to the king of Israel, that he might be conducted to the prophet, and that the king of Israel might interest himself on his behalf, and command the prophet to cure him. For probably Naaman, and certainly the king of Syria, regarded the prophet's power of cure as belonging merely to the man, and not coming directly from the only God. The king of Syria, therefore, willing to satisfy Naaman, sent a letter to the king of Israel, haughtily commanding him to see that Naaman was cured. The king of Israel, who was in great fear of the king of Syria, and suspected that he wanted to pick a quarrel, and seek a pretence for invading him, was struck with consternation on the

receipt of this letter. But when Elisha, the man of God, had heard that the king of Israel had rent his clothes, he sent to the king, saying, "Wherefore hast thou rent thy clothes? Let him come now to me, and he shall know that there is a prophet in Israel." Here was the beginning of offence to Naaman. Elisha knew that the master whom he served was the King of kings, and seems to have been determined that Naaman should feel that he was so. Naaman was in his own country next to the king, and the highest subject. He was, doubtless, as his exploits showed, a man of great abilities, and of a very high spirit. His station commanded the deepest respect from the people, and the great services he had done the state, had made him the first favourite of the king. Every thing, therefore, in Syria, was, of course, subservient to him; and, in a despotic country, all persons were desirous to anticipate his wishes, to flatter his pride, and to obey him with the utmost reverence, and even servility. He came to Samaria, bearing the king of Syria's mandate to the king of Israel, and with a retinue suitable to his station. He might naturally expect that every thing would be at his beck; that the king of Israel would have instantly sent for the person desired, and that Elisha would hasten trembling to court the moment he should be acquainted with the station and character of the individual who required his aid; and more particularly so as he had brought presents of immense value to reward him,