Part First -- Be Perfect

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, What reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matt. 5:43-48).

I once heard Dr. Daniel Steele preach from this 48th verse and he prefaced his sermon by saying, "This, is the greatest text in the Bible."

How shall it be read? Does it mean to be a simple and forceful command, or a simple and forceful promise? -- "Be ye therefore perfect," or "Ye shall therefore be perfect."

The tense is a simple future. The passage is read both ways. Some prefer the command, and some the promise. I like both. If perfection is commanded, then it is promised; if promised, it is of importance enough to be commanded. I confess that, for myself, I want to be assured that I may have perfection, and I may need command to urge me to it.

There occurred in a meeting last week something I am not used to. I have a few times in my life heard that it obtained among the holiness people and frequently hear that they are accused of it, but never before came so near to it myself. A woman who seems to have a responsible intelligence claimed an absolute perfection for herself and seemed to demand that, as a standard for all others. Then an estimable preacher said that when he preached the other Sunday on Christian Perfection that one of his hearers said, "I do not agree with your definition; I believe in an absolute perfection; and, I am absolutely perfect."

I did not at the time consider those things worth notice farther than what I gave them which was this: I said, "a Texas steer getting its tongue around a bunch of green grass and a big pig-weed, would release the pig-weed and chew and swallow the grass. We ought to have as much sense as a Texas steer so that when grass and pig-weed are in a meeting served for our eating, we can eat the grass and go home."

I thought that that would be enough. But it seems that it was not, for some came to me after the service with inquiries that indicated that I did not get both heads out the barrel so that people could see clear through. I concluded that it would be of profit, if not for some good people really necessary, if I would give a talk or two on this matter.

Perfection, Scriptural

The scriptures recognize a perfection. Perfection, of some kind is taught there. The word, in some form is of frequent use. "Perfection, perfect, perfectness, perfecting, perfected and perfectly," are words used over one hundred times. Considering this, and the nature of their meaning, it at least indicates that it is a matter of immense importance. And, whatever these words carry as to their meaning, they are used approvingly. God, is favorable to perfection. He, endorses it.

God cannot inspire men to dislike what he likes.

Men, dislike the idea of perfection.

This dislike, therefore, comes from another quarter than from God; whatever that quarter is, it is not from him.

Why this dislike of perfection? Why is the church so set against it?

I say "the church." This question belongs there. It does not have the notice of others; the world knows nothing, as it would care less, of this doctrine. It is a church affair.

For this dislike, the perfection-people are not a little responsible. The blame, to no little extent, must rest there; and it is not unbecoming for us, ourselves, to look seriously into the face of this question. Christleib, at the world's congress of religions in Chicago some years since gave currency to the expression, "The church is the world's Bible." That truth, the Bible has been saying all the while. If the world has an incorrect idea of the true religion, from the living of the church, how about the church's idea of perfection from the living of us who advocate and profess it?

I am making no charges here to you, or of you; I am asking questions. If this is a judgment day to any, it is a good time to have it. Job said, "What shall I do when God riseth up, and when he visiteth, what shall I answer him?" i. e., if he could not bear the suggestions of his own conscience and living, what about when God called him to account? John says, "If our heart condemn us, God is greater and knoweth all things."

Why do men dislike this idea of perfection? (1) Because of their own imperfection. It is common and easy, if not natural for a man to make a standard out of his own thinking and living. His own beliefs and unbeliefs he may make the straight-edge to which he brings all others.

One of you brethren was saying last week here that when you told a fellow that you had lived with your wife so many years and neither had spoken a cross word to the other all that time, he said, "You lie!"

Reasons

There is philosophy in that answer; it has method.

That man respected this minister whom we are quoting. He did not mean to insult him. He did not mean to say what he said and yet said it with haste and emphasis. As this minister said of him, "He just exploded." What prompted him to say it? just this: His own faulty life. His own relation to his home was the standard by which he judged this minister and judges others, and not coming up to where this minister lived, he could not see that the preacher could reach it. Exactly so.

You have heard about the young and earnest preacher (especially earnest on this question) who was discoursing eloquently against holiness in his own pulpit of a Sunday morning. After his people had congratulated him, a humble and unlettered member, but one in whom all saw true piety, shook his hand and said, "Brother, ye say there ain't no holiness, but the next time ye preach that sermon ye better say, not as ye knows of, fer I'se had it lo! these twenty years."

Then again (2) The imperfections of those of us who profess this grace are so glaring, in the estimation of the church generally, that they are led to think there is no such thing as perfection.

Every person who thinks about perfection has his standard as to what perfection is. He defines it for himself. To that standard he brings us all. That we do not come up to it goes without. saying. So, if the people who represent perfection and advocate it do not have it, who does? simply no one. This, is the conclusion of the church in general, especially the ministry.

Again (3) The idea of perfection so condemns the general church that they do not think of it with favor. The contrast between people who live godly lives and those in the church who are worldly is so striking, that the latter cordially dislike the former. If one be a consistent observer of the Sabbath and next door to him is a member of the same church who takes the Sunday paper, uses his Sunday afternoons for pleasure, etc. he does not enjoy the rebuke that the life of this good man gives his living. So, while the ordinary church member may be forced to think and say that his neighbor is a good man, he will likely say, "but he is a crank on religion," and he says it out of self-defense. His neighbor's living rebukes him.

But another and more serious reason for this attitude concerning perfection is (4) the distressing, deplorable and disastrous outward sins of those in the holiness ranks betrayed into them; those who stand for the doctrine and experience, and claim it in head and heart.

To mention this will bring upon me stern rebuke from certain, and possibly several quarters; but this is no matter with a serious man; indeed, is not worth a second thought. It certainly is an exceedingly unpleasant duty. And duty, I regard it.

Paul speaks of certain who "held the truth in unrighteousness." His teaching is that certain men which he had in mind, had a right definition of truth in their thinking and teaching, but who did not practice it in their lives; on the other hand were ungodly and unrighteous, and he declared that divine wrath was revealed from heaven against such.

Paul further asserts that the ministry of the church need to give exceeding care lest it be "blamed." These are to commend themselves "as the ministers of God" in some thirty particulars which he mentions, among which is "pureness."

The Roman Catholics teach that to be perfect means to withdraw from society to the nunnery or monastery, take the vow of poverty, chastity and obedience to superiors, and there and thus live out of touch with the world. This has brought perfection into disrepute. The Oneida people, so called, but who called themselves the community of perfectionists, taught and practiced free-love and complex marriages. This disgraced, of course, the idea of perfection. But among the genuine holiness people the devil has wrought greater and more glaring sins if possible.

The most contemptible man I ever knew, personally, -- the lowest, meanest, dirtiest wretch, -- was one who preached perfection, claimed it for himself, insisted on it for others and practiced the opposite when in earnestness and apparent sincerity was thus engaged as Christ's minister. No language known to me is sufficient to paint the blackness and rottenness of his life. It was so unnatural as to be unmentionable; to my own sex I should never think of describing his filth. And, when this hypocrite was faced with these things, he, with the air of innocent composure denied it all -- lied -- and within a few hours confessed the whole and asked that he might be permitted to continue in the holiness ministry (and, it would not be uncharitable to say, continue his wicked conduct which even the devil ought to upbraid him for); and not till he had been threatened, by men who would have done it, with exposure country wide, did he withdraw his dirty self from the ministry of holiness.

This instance I would not mention were it an isolated case. They are not common, thank God! but this has not been the only one among us. Then the instances of the violation of the law of purity among the sexes, and the breaking down of business integrity, make the situation so glaring and gruesome as to demand that we treat with some considerable patience those who do not hurry to join our forces.

What Shall Be Done

That holiness -- perfection -- entire sanctification-has been poorly presented, as to teaching and badly represented as to living, at times, there can be no question. But how about other truths of the scriptures? are they not poorly presented and badly represented? and, if the same treatment of neglect and denial were accorded them, because of these facts, what would become of all religion? One of our sane men says, "Abuse of truth can never disprove truth itself; indeed it confirms, since the very abuse is but a caricature of that which is the true, and concedes its existence. To get away from the abuse of right things we would have to go out of the world, for even the world itself is a standing perversion of that which was good and true in the beginning."

"We cannot afford to give up what is right and true because of abuses. If so, we would give up the church, for around the true idea of the church innumerable abuses have gathered; we would give up the divine religion of the Bible, for there have always been fanatical and hypocritical abuses of that religion; we would give up prayer, for hardly anything is more abused than true prayer; we would give up faith, for the doctrine of faith so true and good in itself has furnished the pretended inspiration for all classes of misguided zealots, visionaries and charlatans; and truth, if liability to abuse be a reason for rejecting it, then we never could have trusted the Savior, for in his very own words we have a warning against the coming of false Christs; we could never have received the Atonement, for that truth has afforded cover for antinomianism, universalism, restorationism and many like heresies, and the precious blood that gives it its saving virtue is made a superstitious travesty in the transubstantiation of the mass."

"Perfect." Shall we neglect and despise the truth because of this particular word? Jesus used it, and He, evidently guards it. Dr. Steele said, "The lifeblood of Jesus is in his words. Cut them and they bleed. Neglect them and you neglect Him." What does Jesus himself say, "Whosoever ... shall be ashamed of me and of my words ... of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed."

I am not done, but I will close. Whatever view we entertain of perfection, let us encourage ourselves and all about us to be as good as they want to be and can be. A prominent Methodist minister here in Boston said in the preacher's meeting the other day, when the meeting was rather cordially opposing the idea of sanctification, "My idea brethren is, that it is best for me to encourage my members to be as good as they wish to be or can be. This is my course." And he was not a holiness man. But he, it would seem had some sense.

But, whether others encourage us in these particulars, let us encourage ourselves.

Perfection of Man

Considering the use of the terms denoting perfection in the Bible and what they mean, indicate that the idea deserves more than passing notice, and more than the Church is giving it.

And, a different notice than is usually given it even when the pulpit and pew give it any; for that notice is, usually, to slur and silence it.

Bible perfection, is a perfection of man. It is a human perfection. The question does not concern angels, or Adam, who is not on the scene now, or 'God's perfection, but that of man. Man, has a three-fold selfhood -- he is hand, head and heart. The scriptures say, "spirit and soul and body."

By hand, I mean of course, the body. Perfection -- the perfection of the scriptures is not that of the body. Bodily, humanity is imperfect, not only, but, so far as we can judge, must remain so through this life.

Whatever view you or any entertain of the healing of the body as a present privilege, no person teaches that it means recovery from all physical defect.

Paul speaks of "our uncomely parts" and of "our comely parts." And the figure has to do with the literal body -- feet, hands, ears, eyes, etc. While no member of the body is useless, and can be dispensed with and no loss be suffered, still it is true that some members are more "comely" -- attractive-than others. It is frequent that one speaks of a person's eye as beautiful, and of the hand as lovely -- "What a beautiful eye he has, and what a lovely hand that young woman has," -- but you seldom hear those remarks about people's ears. Yet the ears might be well-nigh perfect.

It is not seldom that we speak of one's foot, as a comely -- a pretty foot -- but, it is a foot, as Paul would say, that is honored by having attention of being covered in order that it may have "comeliness." The normal -- the usual eye, needs no covering; but how sure it is that the normal foot does. A little child's foot is perfect. Its toes are shapely and joints are perfect in size; but no adult's foot is. The foot has to bear the weight of the body and thus is subjected to the hard service that other members are not called to perform, and cannot do this and maintain the softness and perfection that the child's foot has.

Whose ears are mates? Yours may he but more people's ears are not of equal size, are not on straight, are not of the proper size than otherwise. Eyes, are not mates, frequently. Hands, almost never are after adulthood is reached. If you are left-handed, or right-handed one hand is bigger than the other. Your fingers are not of proper length. Often the little finger is longer than its next one, which is a deformity, or the fore-finger projects further toward the sun-rising than its nearest neighbor, which is a defect. The thumb isn't the right shape; in a word, the hands are imperfect.

How about the teeth? Whose mouth has perfect teeth. Hardly anything about us so denotes the physical break-down of the race as our teeth.

Imperfect in Body

What am I saying? this: The body is imperfect and must remain so. There is one redemption for which we must wait, viz. -- "the redemption of the body."

However pronounced any of us may be in our beliefs concerning the privilege of divine healing, or healing of any sort whether divine or human, does it mean a releasing us from these infirmities we have mentioned? Do any mean to say that there is recovery so that the short finger will be longer and the longer one shorter? that the imperfect teeth as to number will be supplied, or the poor ones made good? that the mis-mated ears will become alike and the eyes mates? Certainly not! No person who would be an accredited teacher by the people of his faith in the main, would for a moment claim this.

And this is not saying that the body cannot be improved and is not, often, by reason of the acceptance of the Christian faith, for "godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is" as well as of the life "that is to come," but it is saying that the common infirmities of the body will be with us unto the end. Perfection then, is not of the body.

And Not of the Head

Mind -- intellect -- is not perfect. By intellect we mean, in a word, knowledge. Who has perfect knowledge? only One. Perfect knowledge means an understanding of all knowable things. Who besides God has it? Of course the question answers itself.

But some person with a commendable zeal but non-covetable understanding calls attention to an utterance by the apostle John which is, "But ye have a unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things." And further. "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you:" as suggesting a contradiction of the statement that we have made. This hardly needs an answer: certainly no discussion. John is writing about "the truth" -about "antichrist" -- about essentials concerning salvation. Concerning what is essential truth who are antichrists ye know; ye need to have no man teach you as to the fact that he who opposes Christ and the blood is antichrist. Speaking of ecclesiastical persecution and that of the world as well Christ himself said, "And these things will they do unto you, (the church and the world alike) because they have not known the Father, nor me." That a real heart-knowledge of salvation makes one to know better than to do these things. Experience illuminates. It is light.

Not only does no one know everything, none know all about anything. This is a day of specialists. All knowledge tends to specialism. Take the study and practice of medicine, for instance. Why such specialism in this department of science? because, there is so much to know. The most pronounced infidel-doctor will at once agree with the statement of the scriptures when they say, we "are fearfully and wonderfully made."

This fact accounts for the man in the great city who devotes his time and skill to the eye, another to the ear, the nose, the throat, lungs, stomach, heart, etc., etc.

The perfection of the scriptures then, is not of knowledge.

Not of Conduct

Hence, it is not a perfection of conduct -- of moral behavior. I mean to say that the perfection that the Bible demands does not consist in always doing the right thing.

What is the condition, or are the conditions of right doing?

1. A standard of right.

2. A knowledge of that standard.

3. Compliance with it.

Relative to every moral act there is always a standard of right. Not every act of our lives is a moral act, but many, not in themselves directly involving the question of morals, may become that to a given individual. For instance: A proposition is made to a good man to go into a mining scheme. A copper mine exists in a certain state and is, evidently, a good property. That is, "evidently" to these promoters. They are sincere and honest men. Mr. A. is presented with this proposal: He is to sell stock in a given territory. He need furnish no capital.

The inducements are many, as generally obtains, and desirable. The par value of the stock is within reach of people of moderate means, it will pay a large interest and rapidly increase in value. This good man A. induces his friends and many others to buy. He sells a lot of it. He is successful. And, more is the pity! for it proves worthless. The whole thing fails and all lose who went in and some lose all they had and more than they had, for they borrowed, the project was so "sound." No dishonesty was intended upon the part of any one.

The scheme in itself involved no moral quality. It was neither good or bad. Mining, as a business is a legitimate industry, whether it is of copper, gold, lead or coal, and morals enter where the question of method of doing business comes in, and the motive.

In the case of Mr. A. we are here citing, did the moral question come in? Well, look at the results of this affair, or some of them. In the case of many who lost they blamed him for "getting them into it." They say "he should have known better;" that "he feathered his own nest," was "in league with tricky men," etc., etc. "Pretty kind of a Christian he is!" and the moral damage is considerable, and Mr. A. never will overcome the effect of that in certain lives, and himself never will rise above its detriment to his own life, in so far as he never will be what otherwise he might have been.

As to the property question he lost all he had so that restitution is out of the question.

Had Mr. A. foreseen all this would he have done it? Certainly not. What then does it prove was the standard for his action -- what should he have done? Nothing. Could God have told him what to do he could have and would have been saved from this course. In other words, what required right action relative to this business enterprise apart from what Mr. A. had? He had a disposition to do right, and he chose the right as he understood it; what more was needful was a knowledge of what the right was, or the standard, or the "law" as the scriptures would put it. Could he have ascertained what the divine mind would be in the matter? Certainly. Was he not then guilty, or decidedly a blunderer for not doing it? Not, necessarily, a blunderer, and certainly not guilty.

Acts

Our life is made up of individual acts. While we do not think of it exactly in this way, yet in the nature of things this is true. If every individual act of life could be scrutinized and analyzed as some acts are, then perfection of acts would certainly be much nearer reached if not quite reached.

Our acts are major and minor; i. e. they are those things that arrest our attention and those that do not, so much. If one thinks of getting married he would more likely give it consideration and serious thought than he would give to what he should eat for his today's dinner. If he was as serious and religious as he should be relative to marriage, he could get and should get the divine mind concerning it. And indeed, in the common matter of eating a dinner, it might be so vital as to affect his health and possibly cause his death, by reason of certain illness which was upon him; or relative to what he should eat might involve a moral question as Paul discusses with the Corinthians.

Rev. Geo. Muller of Bristol, England, was one of the most striking characters in Christian circles in the last century. Judging him by the results of his life, his work was strikingly in evidence of remarkable power and influence in prayer.

Mr. Muller was entertained, by an acquaintance of mine, a few days in his home. One morning my friend said to him, "Would you not like to take a buggy ride?" and Mr. Muller said, "I will see." After a time he came around and said he would go. On that ride reference was made to this I am citing and Mr. Muller said to this friend, "If I have made a mistake in twenty years, I do not know it." Mark you now! I am not saying that Mr. Muller had not made a mistake in twenty years, or saying I think he had not, (what he said to my friend about it, may have been a decided mistake) I am simply saying what he said. Before you conclude, however, that his statement was so extravagant that it could not have been either true or wise, stop and consider this: I remember in my reading about his great work of Orphanage-fame, that at one time when he thought he needed a new and larger building, that he took the matter to God and asked for the money to build it. It came. After it had come, Mr. Muller prayed eleven months over the matter as to whether he should build, so fearful was he of making a mistake.

And, Mr. Muller was not what would be styled a holiness man, so none need fire him at us as an example of a holiness fanatic; that he was a holy man, none have reason to question.

Thinking now of all the acts that make up our lives, can life be reduced to such exactness that the mind of God can be gotten in all its details? I suppose that a rational answer would be, probably not. I cannot, however, consent to give this answer without reserving the right to say more about it later.

Illustrations

To look at the lives of Jesus and of Paul, we, it would seem, have illustrations of the answer I have given. Jesus lived a human life. An every-day-like life. He was a boy among boys, a youth among youths, a man among men. He was subject to both human and divine law. He lived in this practical, human world of ours for three and thirty years, and died. How, in relation to God and divine law did He live? Perfectly. He lived without sin; without sinning once.

See Paul, the great Apostle to the Gentiles, the great mind of the New Testament and the master-writer of the great epistles. View his life from the beginning of its Christian part to its close and no recorded living is comparable to his; in suffering, patience, self-denial, labor, faith and everything that goes to make up Christianhood, where is Paul's equal? How did he live?

Think of a straight line. A line absolutely straight. Not a line straighter than some other line, but so perfect in straightness that it could not be improved. Let that line stand for God's law. A perfect law. Not a law more perfect than some other law, merely, but a law so perfect that it could not be more so.

Think now of these two men -- Jesus and Paul -- walking alongside this law. All the Thou shalts, and the Thou shalt-nots of divine law emphasized in their lives, pointing to them.

Sin?

What is sin? "Sin," John says, "'is the transgression of the law." Trans-gression (transgradi; trans, over; gradi, to step), means to step over the law. To cross over it. To violate it.

What was the relation of Jesus to this law for the whole of His life as to walking by its prohibitions and requirements? Did He step over at any point? The question is its own answer. Never! Why not? Because of His light and of His love -- His knowledge and His purpose. He knew what the requirement was, always; knew which way the law pointed, ever; and, He had a perfect heart to choose it.

I want, now, to suppose that Paul had as true a heart as Jesus. This I most certainly believe. If he did, it was not that he had it by the same method; for Jesus had His by nature, while Paul had his by super-nature. His was a gift from Him who only could give.

Jesus can give that kind of a heart. "As He is, so are we in this world." Every man that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself, even as he is pure."

As now Paul comes to walk by and before the divine standard of a perfect law, he more or less often crosses it -- steps over it -- violates it. Why? Because he did not have a perfect heart? No, but because he did not have a perfect head; he did not always see where the law pointed and what it required.

To observe Paul's living is to see a perfection of living not common -- indeed, see what is scarce among men -- but not a living equal to that of Jesus Christ in all particulars. And, for the reason we have given.

But when we suggest that Paul's living was imperfect, we (I certainly), will be unable to point to a given place where it was not. Still, the logic of the situation forces me to this finding. When Paul himself teaches that "sin is not imputed when there is no law," he is saying for all mankind and must include himself.

Under what head do such violations of law come which we have mentioned were in Paul's life?

Mistakes

What is a mistake? and how does it differ from sin?

A mistake, is a miss-take. It is a miss in taking, -- a not taking, at all, or a taking amiss, or wrongly. It is something un-right; it is wrong.

But a mistake does not take on the seriousness that sin does. The wrongness of it was not meant; in sin, the wrongness is meant. The difference is vital. Mr. Jones says, "I saw Mr. Fowler smoking a cigar yesterday and I was sorry. I did not think he would do that." Mr. Smith says, "I saw Mr. Fowler smoking a cigar yesterday, and I was glad; it is just what I thought he would do behind the scenes."

Now, what were the facts? Neither saw me smoking a cigar yesterday, or any other day, for the reason that I did not do it.

Every person has his double. Both these men said the thing that was not true. Did they lie? One did; the other did not. One thought the man he saw smoking was Mr. Fowler; the other knew it was not; one intended to tell the truth; the other intended to tell an untruth. The difference was in the intention.

Where now must we place the violations of the law that Paul committed? Under the head of mistakes.

All, more or less often, are doing that which is a violation of strict law. They are wrong acts. Why are not such people condemned by conscience and God?

Years ago there lived in Amherst, New Hampshire, an elect woman by the name of Richardson. Quite a remarkable woman for both natural gifts and spiritual grace. Her home was, what in the older times used to be styled a "Methodist Tavern."

A minister was sent to the Methodist church of that country village by the name of Ruland. They had a baby in their family. As the parsonage was not ready for the minister, they went to Mrs. Richardson's home for a few days. This baby was taken ill, with something like colic. Mrs. Richardson had bought a few days before of a medicine "peddler," as was the custom in the country in those days, some medicines, among Which was rhubarb (as she supposed). She gave the baby a small dose, which evidently proved harmful and it caused its death in a few hours. But, it was not rhubarb, at all, but laudanum* she had given. This the peddler had sold her for rhubarb.

This woman had killed the baby. Was she arrested by the civil authorities? No. Was she blamed, even, by the neighbors? No. Did Mrs. Ruland blame her? No. Did she blame herself? No. That she was full of sorrow, regret and even distress goes without saying, as were the good neighbors, and of course the mother of the babe, but blame -- censure -- was not laid against her. Intention

Why not? Because of the evident intention of this godly woman; she thought and wanted to help and save the child.

Intention, is everything in determining virtue or vice. A poor and worthy man in the community has been long ill and is suffering for the common comforts of life as is his whole family. One man gives him five dollars because he pities him and out of his heart wants to help; another man gives him the same amount because he wants the credit for it as he is running for a town office and hopes by it to get votes. In one case, the gift is commendable; in the other, condemnable. Why? Because of the intention of these two men. Intention, is everything.

Just here is the place for large charity toward those who oppose us and the truth we love so much. People sometimes, are as sincere in their opposition to truth, for a time, as we are in its support. I am saying "for a time." Paul tells us that he verily thought that he "ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth" and did them. Others may; but like Paul, if sincere they will have more and sufficient light to see error; and if they do not like the Apostle yield to it, even then he tells us that "the servant of the Lord should be gentle toward all, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."

Not only are the real violations of law such as mistakes not condemnable, either by conscience or God, their intention which protects them is a ground of commendation and reward.

One is not judged by what he does, but by what he intended to do. This obtains in human and divine courts. Jesus says distinctly, "He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward." What is this teaching other than intention and the treatment that intention tins? that if one thought a person was a prophet, or a righteous man and treated him as such, he is rewarded for it though the man proved a scamp. When God settles life's affairs, He will reward Mrs. Richardson for what she meant to do -- not for her mistake in killing the child, but for her purpose to save it.

But this must not make one indifferent about his acts. And, if one is serious, it will not.

Improvement in Conduct

Conduct, with the most of us can be improved. And should be. Certainly it should be if it can be, and in many cases it needs to be. Perfect conduct can be more nearly reached than it is, or with many is thought to be possible. Christ says that we may by "good works, glorify our Father which is in heaven," and the writer to the Hebrews presents a standard for good works which comes near to perfection, if not quite there. "Make you perfect in every good work."

Right is right wherever it is; a good work is a good work by whomever done. "He that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous." While good works never can merit one's salvation, none can evidence that they have salvation without good works; one wrong act by a good man, so harms his reputation with a good cause that all should look to our acts with great concern. Woe to our reputation for good character and to our religion as of great saving value, when our moral conduct has widely to be apologized for!

Not altogether what a person does is to be considered, but what was the purpose in the doing of it. It is this that determines the moral quality of an act both before the civil and divine law.

Not only so, but right intention not only preserves one from condemnation; it is the ground for divine reward. And yet, conduct must be guarded and all serious people will deplore their mistakes so really and deeply that they will watch against their repetition and seek by all means to perfect their moral behavior.

* lau·da·num (lôd"n-_m) n. A tincture of opium, formerly used as a drug. -- American Heritage Dictionary