It is a poor way of meeting the charge "that such teaching is a lowering of God's standard of holiness, joined to spiritual pride," to say, as Mr. Smith does, we did it ourselves once, because " we did not understand that what was claimed was not ' absolute perfection,' but that up to the measure of to-day's consciousness they were kept by faith, and that all the glory was given to Christ equally and in the same way with that of remission of sins." The question' is this, is the being kept by Christ from practical sinning " up to the measure of to-days consciousness," and Christ having all the glory given to Him equally and in the same way with that of remission of sins, is this holiness according to God's standard of holiness? Is this purity according to God's measure of purity?
We affirm it is not. God's standard of holiness is Himself, and therefore, as a matter of aim, we are exhorted, " as He which hath called God is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy," 1 Peter 1:16-6. God's standard of purity is Christ, and because -we are to be like Him in glory when He comes, we read, " every man who hath this hope in -Him (Christ) purifieth himself even as He (Christ) is pure," (1 John 3. Does Mr. Smith mean to say He is actually as holy as God is, and as pure as Christ. If he does not, and we know He does not, spiritual pride does not go this length with him, though it does in some we have met with who hold similar views, why does he talk of " God's standard of holiness " and then speak of not "claiming absolute," but only something " up to the measure of to-day's consciousness "? Why does he not say, We don't pretend to have a holiness and purity up to the measure of God's standard of holiness and purity, but merely something up to the measure of our to-day's consciousness of holiness and purity.
But the book we are occupied with comes forward to teach " God's way of holiness," " a way taught in the Bible," " a way in Christ," " a way hid from mere intellect, and revealed by the Spirit to the soul hungering for righteousness," and we affirm, Scripture being- the test, that it does not teach God's way of holiness, nor a way taught by the Bible, nor a way in Christ, nor a way revealed by the Spirit, but a way peculiar to Mr. Smith, which does grievously lower God's standard of holiness, and that does induce " spiritual pride," while at the same time it sadly misleads souls who are seeking to find their way out of the experience of the seventh of Romans.
We would press it, as earnestly as Mr. Smith does, that the seventh of Romans is not proper Christian experience, and that those in it are, as to the state of their souls, under law and not under Christ,- or "in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free." But deliverance from the seventh of Romans, and the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, is neither holiness nor purity, in the way in which these two things are presented to us in Scripture.
Holiness is either the believer's standing before God in the perfection of all that Christ has done for him, and is for him before God, or it is the work of the Holy Ghost in him daily making him practically holy, and which implies holiness unattained to perfectly in practice. Purity is either what the believer will he in glory with Christ when actually like Him, or the process of purifying by the way because he is not yet pure as Christ is.
To talk then of our being " holy, and pure, and conformed to the image of Jesus Christ," as a present condition, which is to be attained by one simple act of faith is utterly to mislead souls, both as to their own state and as to Christ Himself. Christ was " holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners," as much in nature as in practice. Are we, even when " up to the measure of today's consciousness," we are kept from actual transgression, whether of thought or action? Christ had no sin in him. Have we none in us; even when it is not active? Scripture says, "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is riot in us," 1 John 1:88If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1:8). In the light of such Scripture, where is Mr. Smith's "inward purity," and present " conformity to Jesus Christ "?
Mr. Smith's doctrine is not in Scripture. It dishonors Christ by lowering Him down to the level of our to-day's consciousness as to not sinning, while it puffs the person who believes in it up in a fancied conformity to Christ, which does not really exist, and to which he supposes he has attained over his fellow believers, even though it be by faith, and Christ gets all the glory of it.
We desire to repeat here, that we believe in freedom from the power of sin, and that the flesh, though in us, is not to be the source of one thought or feeling, much less of word or action. That the believer should ever be "filled with the Spirit," walking in the unclouded light of God's presence, with Christ ever dwelling in his heart by faith, so that he is filled with divine peace and joy, and has nothing on his conscience to trouble him in God's presence. In our next we shall give some instances of how sadly Mr. Smith misapplies Scripture, and thus loses, to his reader its true and blessed import; but in doing this we would say, that our aim is edification and not criticism.
('Continued from page 70.)