Part Second -- Bible Perfection

Let us now come directly to the question.

What is Bible perfection? It is Christian perfection.

And that does not answer the question, quite. Christian perfection is not a question of unessentials. By un-essentials I mean that not necessary to salvation in this life and the next. Whatever you and I must be or have, in order to possess present salvation and its future, is an essential; whatever is not, is un-essential.

But this is not saying that what is not essential is not of interest, or of importance. They may be both. Often are.

Certain things are allowed by all intelligent persons to be secondary importance; but these same persons lift them into the place of primary things, seemingly. Who would claim that the mode of water baptism was of primary importance? and yet in a certain large holiness camp meeting in New England certain good men insisted that the brook be "dammed up" so that there could be baptism by immersion. And this every year for many years.

Not only this, but the candidates for baptism need to be considered here in order to get the full force of what I am saying. Who were they? Sinners converted? Not necessarily or generally; but when people got sanctified who had been baptized in infancy or some mode other than immersion, they were urged now "to be baptized," which was saying that nothing was baptism but this.

Please now do not misunderstand me. I am not objecting to immersion. Were the same thing true relative to any other form of baptism -- had they wanted a service to sprinkle, or pour people -- the situation would be the same; it is a bringing into too great prominence a comparatively indifferent matter; certainly one not essential to salvation.

Let us get our bearings: Christian perfection not only does not have to do with the mode of baptism, it does not involve the question of water baptism at all. One can have Christian perfection who is baptized, and one can have it who is not.

Christian perfection is not non-life insurance. I apologize for introducing a matter of this nature into so serious and spiritual a discussion. As Paul said, "ye have compelled me." So frequently do excellent people emphasize that they "are not insured, could not be and would not so deny" their faith, that one would think that the matter of life insurance was an essential part of Christian perfection.

The for, or against, life insurance I am not discussing; I am simply saying that people have Christian perfection who are insured, and people have it who are not insured. It is not then vital to the question.

Dress, Church and Other Un-Essentials

Christian perfection does not consist in the dress question* ... however, [that] the grace of Christian perfection modifies the matter of the apparel of both men and women I judge no one questions.

Christian perfection does not necessarily involve the church question. People belong to churches, or I better say, have membership in churches who do not know what those churches teach, or stand for in particular. I asked a man who evidently was a serious and good man, what church his membership was in, and he said he was a Presbyterian. I said, "What branch of Presbyterianism?" and he replied, "I do not know." I did not wonder so ninth, when I remembered how many branches there were. And, I think that this was really to be commended in this man. Something was of larger moment than mere connection with a church or denomination; and, it was a right relation to Christ.

When I am here saying "church," of course, I mean the church of our Lord Jesus Christ and not so-called churches that reject him.

While I hold, as I suppose you people do, that a Christian should have a church connection somewhere, still it is quite possible for one to enjoy the experience of Christian perfection and have no such relation, though these are probably rare.

That one can be a Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Adventist, Nazarene, Episcopalian, etc., etc., or even a Campbellite, or a Lutheran, and have Christian perfection would seem to go without saying; and yet certain good people give such prominence to the church question as to almost teach that they thought otherwise, and that one should belong to their fold to be just "clear in the experience."

It is no wonder that good people like the Friends, or Quakers, should repudiate formal church membership and its sacraments, when we consider the stress laid on the mere forms of these, by which so many are deceived unto their destruction. While the Friends reject water baptism, and the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, they are, many of them, the most devoted followers of Christ and consistent professors of Christian perfection.

This leads me to say that it is, in my judgment, an unwise thing, and discourteous also, to introduce in a meeting where all classes of Christians share its privileges and responsibilities, matters that are distinctively denominational. For instance, such as I have noted in that baptism service at the camp meeting; a Love-Feast service, or communion service and the like; why not? because it is an interdenominational meeting and distinctively denominational matters should not come to the front to divide and distress. Why not have a feet-washing service when some in the meeting would like that? Think that over.

Nor Physical Healing

And Christian perfection is not a question of Divine Healing.

It becomes necessary for me to constantly explain myself. When discussing a question like this one and its connections, it is thought that I am antagonizing the question I raise, like this of Healing, unless I carefully and constantly say, this I am not doing. The privilege of having our bodies healed is a decided one with me; but, it is not vital to Christian perfection.

And I want to say a word more. I regard a "healing service" -- I mean public healing service to which people are called as to any service -- an unwise and improper thing in a mixed and miscellaneous camp meeting or convention. And, I will give two reasons for my conviction.

(1) It divides and distresses people who should not be divided and distressed. For what is this meeting held? for the purpose of salvation. Here, the meeting, as to its interdenominational character, is in harmony. It agrees on holiness and on its advocacy. But good people and holiness people of this meeting are not agreed relative to the question of physical healing. That question would divide them, and to press it would distress them. One has as much right as the other to object to prominence given to healing, as the other has that prominence be given it. There you are. Mark you I am talking about prominence given it. I am not saying or thinking that healing should have no mention. I am not saying that if God has healed a person it should not be confessed, I certainly would say that it should be, and that if one wanted healing he may ask that prayer be offered in his behalf, and he be anointed if this is his request. I am simply saying that the prominence of specific preaching or public anointing should not be given in a meeting of a mutual character. This whole matter can have proper and profitable attention without the offense from publicity.

Christian perfection is not a millennium question. The interesting question and important one of the second coming of our Lord, is not an essential one to this experience. I mean to say that whether one hold that His coming is literal, or spiritual; whether it is near or remote; whether it is pre-millennial or post-millennial is not vital to Christian perfection. I mean to say, that one may have perfect love in its most spiritual sense and hold either view, or no view, at all. Is not that so? then, it is as I am saying not a vital matter -- a matter necessary to spirituality, for that is what "'vital" in this connection means.

The position I have taken on Divine Healing is the one that sharply is related to this matter of the Lord's return, so far as its relation to the Millennium is concerned; whether it is "pre," or "post." That the Lord will come, I think should be decidedly and determinably declared and its ponderous motive presented, but the mooted matter of how or when, left in the background. Surely, one has much right in a mutual meeting to present one side as one has to present the ,other; let this be done, and the meeting is ruined for salvation purposes.

Perfection of Intention

Christian perfection is a perfection of intention.

Intention, includes design and decision, -- a plan and a choice to make the plan one's own. In order for intention to be perfect the nature back of it must be pure. As sure as a bottle having in it salt water and fresh will send forth mixed liquid, so sure is it that a nature having two opposite qualities will be influenced by both. James presents this at length and conclusively in the third chapter of his epistle and settles for us the question by declaring that "the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy." Nature, he teaches, like a "fountain" does not "send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter;" but, from the "same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be." Natural conditions do not do this; they are a unit; super-natural conditions should not; they should be a unit.

What one word expresses the nature of a gospel-recovered soul? Holiness! What one word expresses the nature of holiness? Love!

God, is twice defined in the scriptures. "God is light" and "God is love." That God is justice, is truth, is power, is wisdom, is might, the word does not say, but He is light and He is love.

For what do light and love stand? for holiness and the expression of holiness. Holiness is the quality of His nature and love the manifestation of that nature.

Holiness in man is the quality of his recovered selfhood. This was the quality of his nature when God started the race, and this is the quality to which God recovers it. Sin de-natured man; grace re-natures him, "the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."

Perfect Love

Christian perfection is Perfect Love. It may better be said, perfect loving.

The Scriptures divide love. There is love and there is perfect love. And, the one is not the other. Love is not, necessarily perfect love, and perfect love is not mere love. John says, "Herein is our love made perfect," or is love with us made perfect ... He that feareth is not "made perfect in love." He does not say, has no love, but, is not yet "made perfect in love." Surely, John makes that plain enough.

Loving, is love's evidence. Love is the state of the nature, but loving is its act. The difference is the difference between wind and air. Wind is air, but air is not wind. Wind is air in motion. Air is always in motion, but not always in the same degree, or to the degree of wind. It never is or can be unqualifiedly still. So with love. Love is too strong a sentiment or a something to be non-moving. Love, loves. It is lov-ing. It is at it.

Practically, love seems to have no passive voice. It does not admit of being acted upon. It is ever acting.

This is exceedingly noticeable in the Scriptures. The famous and familiar John 3:16 illustrates here, "God so loved the world, that he gave.'" See? the giving evidenced the love, and the Gift, the "'so" of the love, or the degree of it. John, in his epistle says on this point, "Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us .... But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.'"

It is striking to notice how widely this obtains in the Scriptures; that where love with God is mentioned it is in connection with its out-going -- its manifestations; and that this is the requirement that God emphasizes with man, that love must be active and evident. Love, cannot be seen, but its love-work can.

Perfect love and perfect service are required and possible. This love is required because possible and possible because required. And a perfect service, so far as intention is concerned, for the same reasons.

Perfect Sinners

Perfect love and perfect service are the commonest experiences in the world of sin about us. Of course I am now speaking of sinful love and service. There are two loves; a divine-love and a devil-love. If the devil and the world can produce perfect sinners, Christ and the church should be able to produce perfect saints. They both can and do. The Scripture says that the devil has sinned "from the beginning." Since his sinning began, he has never broken his record as a sinner. At least thousands of years have witnessed his sinning without a break! What is that but perfect love in and for sin and a perfect sin-service?

Every sinner about you is a perfect sinner. What is a perfect sinner? not one who sins more than another in number of sins committed, and in the nature of them, but one who never does other than sin. One who never breaks with sin's master or fails to do his bidding. One who chooses sin and has a nature that prompts and approves of sin. The sinners about you never have chosen Christ and his service once. What is that if not perfection? it is; it denotes that the disposition is to do the will of the wrong, and the choice also. That makes a perfect sinner.

Christ can so perfect his people. Christ can transform man's nature and possess it, that it will be disposed to do the will of God at all times.

To whom do such statements and experiences seem extravagant? To those who have no experience of them. One who does not love, not only does not know its delight, but thinks that love is silliness and softness.

Those of us who were fortunate enough to know Dr. Daniel Steele not only knew a saint and a scholar, but one who would not be likely to be given to much gush. He dedicates one of his books to his wife and in these words:-

"To Harriette Binney

In maidenhood my mate,
In womanhood my wife,
In gentleness my joy,
In council my guide,
In industry my thrift,
In trouble my cheer,
In ministry my help,
In love my bliss.

this volume, written (luring our pleasant pastorate in Lynn is gratefully inscribed."

Mr. Spurgeon -- Charles H. Spurgeon of London -- was a very eminent minister of the Baptist persuasion. No minister of his time was more and more favorably known in the world. His wife was an invalid for years. During one of the times when she was away to a sanatorium he wrote her in these words:

"Over the space that parts us, my wife,
I'll cast me a bridge of song;
Our hearts shall meet, O joy of my life,
On its arch unseen, but strong.

"The wooer his new love's name may wear
Engraved on a precious stone;
But in my heart thine image I wear,
That heart has long been thine own.

"The glowing colors on surface laid,
Wash out in a shower of rain;
Thou need'st not be of rivers afraid,
For my love is dyed ingrain.

"And as every drop of Garda's lake
Is tinged with sapphire's blue,
So all the powers of my mind partake
Of joy at the thought of you.

"All earth-born love must sleep in the grave,
To its native dust return;
What God hath kindled shall death outbrave
And in heaven itself shall burn.

"Beyond and above the wedlock tie
Our union to Christ we feel,
Uniting bonds which were made on high
Shall hold us when earth shall reel.

"Though he who chose us all worlds before
Must reign in our hearts alone,
We fondly believe that we shall adore
Together before his throne."

With whom are such things sickening sentiment? The answer is simple enough and it is this: -- With those who have had no experience in true love, or it better be said, with those who have had the opposite experience.

Love is loyalty. Loyalty is a striking evidence and accompaniment of love. We have only to look at the soldier to see this and industrial and business life as well illustrate it. You can find people not a few who have been in business together for a life-time, who have never had a fuss. They have not always seen everything alike, but they have agreed to disagree and be agreeable about it. Now, or contention is that God can do that much for his people; that if on the plane of the mere natural and human men can be true to one another, in the sphere of the supernatural and divine they can, and be true to God as well.

Perfection Possible

The perfection we are outlining is possible because:

(1) It is implied in the Scriptures; language is robbed of meaning if the possibility of being perfect is not in the words God uses in his book. "Behold, God will not cast away a perfect man." "He destroyeth the perfect and the wicked." "Mark the perfect man." "That they may shoot in secret at the perfect." "The perfect shall remain." "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect."

"We speak wisdom among them that are perfect."
"This also we wish, even your perfection."
"Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?"

"For the perfecting of the saints."
"Till we all come ..... unto a perfect man."
"That we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus."
"That ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God."

(2) The perfection we are emphasizing is possible because it is commanded.

God said to all Israel, "Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God." Jesus said, "Be ye therefore perfect." Paul said to the most unpromising people to whom he wrote, "Finally, brethren .... Be perfect."

(3) Perfection is possible because it is confessed by people who had it. David said, "He maketh my way perfect." Paul allowed he had this perfection, as did others. -- "Let us therefore, as many as be perfect."

(4) Perfection is possible because God presents examples of it.

God called the devil's attention to Job's perfection. "Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect man?" and God did this twice. God says in the most direct and unmistakable manner just this: "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil."

Now, let it be noted that if Job, or any one else ever had perfection then there is such a thing. You and I may not have it, or think we have never been in the neighborhood of any one who has had it; but if it has been had -- then it has been had; if had, then there has been such a thing under the sun.

Skeptics have always made capital out of the imperfections of the people in the Scriptures whom God pronounced perfect. And those who are cordial in their dislike of holiness have done the same thing. Abraham is chosen for attack. "A pretty kind of a perfect man," they say, "he lied twice and was rebuked by a heathen for it."

I do not propose to say all that may be said in vindication of this man of God. As to his lies, I allow that he told them. God, nowhere, calls Abraham a perfect man though he told him to be "perfect." None can read the life of this "Friend of God" and fail to see that, in the main, he had Bible perfection.

The case of David is paraded. It well may be if a point against character is sought. "David was a nice example to be a man after God's own heart." That David was a venturesome and villainous sinner in the matter which God himself mentions against him, cannot for a moment be questioned; but in the main, he was strikingly a man of God, though nowhere called "perfect."

Noah -- poor Noah -- comes in for the licks -- "and he got drunk." How many times did this godly man get under the influence of liquor? It will do for the objector to think of this question. Does the Bible say, "And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine and was drunken" and got drunk every week the rest of his life?

What were the facts? Noah's drunkenness was an accident. He knew nothing of the nature of the wine which he drank. He never repeated the act. It may do to think of that fact. And further: When God speaks of three men who could influence him if any could, he includes Noah with Daniel and Job. (See Ezek. 14:14).

God gives many object lessons of perfection in people, whom he does not call "perfect" so far as that word is concerned, but who are, and he intends them as examples of it. See the case of Enoch, for instance. The Bible says that he walked with God for three hundred years after he began to have a family; that he "begat sons and daughters" and lived with them all that time and had the "testimony that he pleased God." Enoch was no recluse, but a practical family-man. He walked with God. Which way did God go? Enoch went the way God was going. "How can two walk together except they be agreed?" Think of him!

How about Joseph? -- Joseph the patriarch. How about Daniel? How about Samuel? where do these men break down? can you point to the instance?

What about Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist? How about John himself? What of Mary the Virgin? And Joseph her husband? Simeon? Anna the prophetess? Paul the apostle? Where is there evidence of a moral lapse in any of these characters? while, on the other hand the evidence of perfection is marked.

It is fortunate for the Christian Church that where in any defect in character or conduct Bible characters appear, the facts are brought out: for the reason if all of God's saints had the character and conduct that some had, the church would despair because of their own failures. Enough imperfections are mentioned to keep us from discouragement; and enough perfections to stimulate good living.

Perfection and Conduct

While Bible perfection does not consist in perfect moral conduct, there can be no perfection apart from moral conduct.

There is a sect known as the Plymouth Brethren. They flourish particularly in England, though they have societies in this country. One of the emphatic features of their doctrines is nonforfeitable justification. Once one is justified, and he never can be unjustified. This is emphatic. He never can be. Once a child, always a child, None can lose their child-relation. Once converted, always converted.

These people make large account of "state" and "standing" -- or, to be more exact, standing and state. One's standing is his relation to Christ; his state, is what he is in his own character. If one has been converted he has a standing in Christ sure and eternal and no conduct or character can effect it. He may be as corrupt as Herod as to character, or as perverse in conduct as Judas, but this does not harm his standing, for God sees him in Christ -- Christ's robe is about him.

This savors of the old Calvinism which said, "Once in grace, always in grace." But, it is a perversion of that doctrine, and much more dangerous. The old Calvinist never taught the doctrine of "assurance." He said that one could not know that his sins were forgiven. That his holding out to the end, or not doing this, was the evidence.

This, it will at once be seen, protects the situation.

On the other hand, the Plymouth doctrine gives prominence to the matter of "assurance" and teaches that one may and should and does know if born of God.

"Free from the law, O happy condition," which we all used to sing so lustily, is the great Shibboleth of this people. Paul's "not under law, but under grace," is their key. The mischief is not in the fact, but in their interpretation of the fact. Of course we are free from the law, but in what sense? free, in that it has no claims upon us at all? that we have nothing to do with it? By no manner of means!

Condition of life and rule of life are two different things. The law or its keeping is no condition of life, but it is the rule of life. The law has no power to save, but does have power to serve; it cannot grant life, but it can guide life; it cannot propel, but it can protect. The familiar illustration is this: The track and the train. The track furnishes no power to propel the train, but it guides the train. If an engineer ignores the track at a given switch, he will ditch the train.

Apart from conduct, there can be no proving of character. Words, are cheap as are they many; it takes works to make them convincing. None can see your motives, but they can see your movements; none can see your affections, but they can see your affiliations; none can see your heart, but they can see your hand; none can see the inner man, but they can see the outer man.

Here, the scriptures are tremendously emphatic. Peter declares, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." "Having your conversation honest among Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evil doers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation."

"Who" asks James, "is a wise man among you. and endued with knowledge? let him show out of a good conversation (behavior) his works with meekness and wisdom."

Carefulness

Paul in admonishing the young man Titus says, "This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works.'" And, "In all things showing thyself a pattern in good works: .... that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you." Peter again, speaking to the "elders" urges that they be "examples to the flock."

James, treats this matter at length, and discusses it. With him it was important enough for him to do this. To read his epistle at the second chapter beginning with the fourteenth verse is to see his treatment of it. He stresses the word "say." "What though a man say he hath faith and have not works? can faith, (that kind of a faith) save him?" ... "faith if it hath not works is dead, being alone.'" No bird can fly with one wing. Works, are a wing, "show me my faith without thy works, and I will show you my faith by my works." ... Faith without works is dead.

But here, there is no open question. That there should be good moral behavior we will all allow, at once. At least so it seems. Certainly so it should be.

And more than this, we all I judge, would claim and contend for the exercise of care that conduct be not open to suspicion.

We certainly would teach that character conditions conduct. That if one do right he needs to be right; that the inside man controls the outside man.

We are sure also that the experience of holiness elevates the conduct of all who receive the grace. While one to be justified and maintain that relation must walk in all light given, it is still true that holiness increases light, and in this sense makes conduct better than any former experience exhibits.

While all this is conceded, it must be seen that it is held by us in theory, far too often, than in practice. There are grave faults with us. We are not conducting ourselves as we should, in cases far too frequent. Moral deportment is decidedly and detrimentally and disastrously lacking in not a few quarters. This condition is not the rule with us thank God! but the exception must be written in the plural for they are many more than one, more than occasional. When heads are counted the number is distressingly large of those whose conduct is not in harmony with holiness, and not in harmony with the ordinary ethics of community and the world.

Personal and Positional

Our opinion of wrong doing goes not a little way toward determining what should be the proper course to take in a given instance of a person going astray. Here is a case of gross immorality. The party confesses the wrong and we will allow what we are all glad to allow, that there are genuine sorrow and repentance. That that person should be forgiven, received into our fellowship, sympathized with, aided in all legitimate ways I judge we would not question -- this would be the feeling of us all.

But this is personal place and not positional place -- it is a restoring one to former confidence in our feelings and personal attentions, but not necessarily, to official place.

Suppose one had been a servant in the home. While there had been guilty of immoral conduct with one of your sons. Would confession, genuine sorrow and repentance be sufficient for you to restore that party to her place in your family? would it be considered a proper thing to do by you, or for you to do, by your neighbors?

Mark you now: You do forgive. In the sincerity of the person's confession you do believe, and in their real restoration to God. You would feed her if in need; you would clothe her if required; you would protect her person from assault or her reputation; would you, could you, or should you place her back in your service? That is for you to say.

Here is a Sunday School Superintendent who is a holiness man. He is known as such. The schools so understand it. They respect him and his profession. He falls into open and gross sin. The church and Sunday School know it, as do the community. Should he be restored to his position, though he is to your personal favor?

Here is a holiness preacher -- pastor or evangelist. The condition of falling and restoration to the favor of God and to your favor are the same: should he be restored to position?

Our views of these serious questions of course determine our conduct, and our conduct and decisions in these matters effect the influence of holiness in the community. A cashier of a bank proving faithless would, I suppose, in no case be restored to his position though the directors believed in his determination not to repeat these acts. A clerk in a business house who should steal from that house, would, I suppose, never be returned to his former responsibility.

If my attention is called to the humane consideration that the renowned Mr. Ford is giving ex-criminals and ex-wrongdoers of various kinds as illustrations of exceptions to the position I am taking, I have this to say: I see nothing in that estimable man's course that contradicts my position. Just let me further say, when a man who defrauds Mr. Ford and is given that same chance to defraud again, then I will admit that there is an instance against my position. But, not till then.

But you say, "holiness people should forgive as none others do." It is not a question of forgiveness. "They should believe in people as others do not." It is not a question of believing in people. "But they should treat them with consideration of a different order than others." It is not a question of treatment, in general: it is a question of restoration to position. Should the maid in the kitchen who has been in immoral relations with your son be given back the place even though she is penitent? If we will keep that illustration in mind, it will help the holiness people determine the proper course in other matters.

Appearance of Evil

Paul exhorts that we "abstain from all appearance of evil." And we say so. You do. I do.

All of us do. But our "say" -- our exhortation -- may be for the other fellow and not for ourselves. Do we abstain from the appearance of evil? We mean to? Does the idea grip us? Do we look at it, for ourselves, with emphasis? Do we excuse ourselves if we fail? "I do not care what people think if I am right. But you are not all right, my friend, with that spirit. You ought to care. There is not protection for you or the cause if you do not care. Masses of many have been ruined by that don't-care spirit. This is not a question of principle, but a question of one's having his own way. No one has right to a course that imperils another. No one has a right, to his own rights, when it endangers a weaker brother.

Was not this Paul's preaching and practice? "And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for who Christ died? ... Wherefore, if meat maketh my brother to offend," (what, has not a person a right to eat what he wishes? Paul would say, No! for himself and he did say no relative to these indifferent questions), "I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."

But to be particular: I heard a good brother preach the other day to holiness people. He was a holiness man. Speaking of how an insurance agent bothered him by constantly coming to his office to have him get insured, he said, "I grabbed him by the collar and threw him out of the office." That is all he said about that.

What did that man mean? Did he do that literally, or was it a figure of speech denoting that he told him never to come again? I do not know. That is what the good preacher said, and the supposition is that he meant what he said, that he laid hold of him and ejected him!

That remark startled me. It distressed me. It, I thought, did others who heard it. It would seem to me that he should have said more about it and vindicated himself, or allowed his haste, or something, and not left it where he did. Was it avoiding the appearance of evil temper and world-act?

Nearly 30 years ago I was in a holiness camp meeting in New England, where were two of the most prominent holiness leaders in the country. I was young in the work. As I came to know afterwards, the best of feeling did not exist between these men. The sacred question was before the meeting as to the Holy Spirit's guidance. One of these men was leading the meeting and the other was on the platform. The leader referred to the position this brother held on the question, which was not his, and turning partly around to him, he said, "But I don't care what he thinks about it," and the brother replied, "And I do not care what you think about it."

That hurt me. It impressed me as being unholy. I have never gotten over it. I do not want to remember it. Had those men told me that they felt all right when they said that, I should have believed them, though I greatly fear that neither could have said that he did; at any rate, putting the best construction on it, it was not avoiding the "appearance of evil." How those good men could have gone on in that meeting without a public confession of a wrong there, at least in appearance, I never could see. I do not want to see, for it would be wanting not to see the right, and wanting not to see the right would be sin.

Some of us were getting our baggage checked in a railroad station in the Southwest, when one of our good brethren had occasion to disagree with another, and he expressed it in such a strenuous manner that the [other] brother starting [i. e., was taken a-back] almost as in physical fear. I believed, and believe now, that it was a nervous exclamation that had no element of sin in it; but it was not avoiding the "appearance of evil." Of this, can we be too careful?

Divisions and Diversity

And does not this question of "appearance" have to do with the matter of divisions -- the divisions among the holiness people?

The church, as the body of Christ, is spoken of as one of the mysteries of the gospel. Paul says, "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." The word "church" is inclusive. It takes up into itself all God's people. Some people, both small people and great people, forget to remember this. Nevertheless, the church is more than a denomination, or several denominations; it is all Christian peoples whether massed in companies, organizations, churches, sects, denominations or as separate individuals. All are the church. No one person is more the church than another. There is no superiority or inferiority for all are one in Christ Jesus.

The figure Paul uses denoting the relation that Christians hold to each other is both wonderful for its simplicity and sufficiency; that of the body in its various members -- the foot, hand, ear, and eye. To keep in mind this figure is to see at once the inconsistency and, indeed, the insanity of schism in the body. The idea of the hand falling out with the foot, or the eye with the ear! and saying in Paul's language, "I have no need of you."

We preach unity. Do we have it? We declare that this is a conspicuous evidence of entire sanctification, or Christian perfection. Are we illustrating this grace, in this particular? Are we coming up to the help of our Lord in showing that we are "one," as he prays his church may be? Are we helping or hindering him at this point?

But when I say "unity" I am not saying uniformity. These words are different and express altogether different things. Unity means one; uniformity means one form.

There is also a difference between diversity and division. Diversity would be defined as a state of being different; division is a state of being divided. The scriptures commend diversity, but they condemn division.

We are apt to think that unity means that we must be all of one church, or organization -one form, -- when there may be genuine unity with many forms. Divisions in this connection mean factions, disunions, etc., while diversity means variety.

A simple suggestion, I think, would determine whether we or any one's spirit is that of division or otherwise: The real heart attitude toward the other fellow, or the other church, or the other denomination before God in prayer. Alone, with God, can, we say, "Lord, if thou hast but one blessing; if thou hast but one success to give; if thou hast but one to manifestly favor; give these to the other and pass me by."

Perfection does unite! It gives heart oneness! And a oneness that will be so outward and evident that it will force the conviction that it is a something that is genuine and seen nowhere else! The hand will not say to the foot, I have no need of you, or the eye to the ear, I have no need of you, but all will dwell together in the body of Christ in the unity of the spirit and in the bonds of peace!

"Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy.

"To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen."

* A genuine experience of Christian Perfection "modifies the matter of apparel" much more than many who profess the experience care to admit. The wearing of gold, pearls, jewelry, all sorts of proud and worldly, outward adornment, and immodest apparel -- in plain contradiction to God's Word commanding that such not be worn -- belie the testimony of those who have long professed two works of grace. -- DVM]