“M. A. W.” We regret the disappointment in reference to your letter, and fear it must have gone astray. As to your difficulty with respect to Elisha's answer to Naaman, we cannot agree with either of the solutions proposed in your letter of the 12th of December. We could not, for a moment, admit the idea of any “evasion” on the part of the Lord's servant. What object could he have in evading Naaman's difficulty? Then as to his giving his “sanction” to Naaman's frequenting the house of Rimmon, we consider it wholly untenable. He did not tell him to go, for this would be to sanction idolatry. He did not tell him not to go, for this would be placing him under a yoke of legality. He simply says, “Go in peace,” which was casting him back upon the grace which he had already experienced, and the exercise of an enlightened conscience. There were three things which Naaman received in connection with his cleansing, namely, an enlarged heart, an enlightened understanding, and an exercised conscience. His enlarged heart tells itself forth in the words, “'Tike a blessing of thy servant.” His enlightened understanding exhibits itself in his request of two mules' burden of earth to build an altar to the God of Israel. And his exercised conscience is evidenced by his difficulty as to the house of Rimmon. Now it is easy to see that there would have been a lack of moral order in placing such an one under any formal rule; whereas there was most lovely order in casting him upon his responsibility to the One whose grace had so fully met his need. “Go in peace” was the suited utterance for a cleansed leper, and “Go, wash” for a leper uncleansed. So in the New Testament, the sinner is pointed to a Saviour; the saint to his Lord. The two things must never be confounded.