CHAPTER IX.

CANON GIRDLESTONE AND THE DEAN OF

LLANDAFF.

ANON GIRDLESTONE attempted, in a letter to

CANON

the Record, to revive the fortunes of the counteraction school. He was, however, too earnest a Christian, and too good a scholar, to seriously contend for the necessity of sin. My letter in reply (a portion of which follows) fairly deals with the main contentions of the Canon.

"I welcome Canon Girdlestone's statement that theoretically there is no necessity for sin in the true Christian; that sin is abnormal; that the apostles urged believers to pray for complete deliverance; and that God is ready to promote the attainment (or, as I would prefer to express it, the obtainment) of such deliverance. This being so, will not Canon Girdlestone and your readers go with me one step further, and agree that every believer should claim in practice that which is declared to be his right in theory, and which God is ready to grant?

"David's prayer, in Psalm xix. 12, is quoted by Canon Girdlestone as, 'Cleanse Thou me from my secret sins;' but the Authorised Version, Revised Version, and

Prayer-book versions are unanimous in rendering the Hebrew word by 'secret faults.' To quote Dr. Steele in Milestone Papers,* David 'expects to fall into errors and unconscious faults, and he prays to be cleansed from them; but he prays to be kept from known and voluntary sins. Since the word translated upright' in verse 13 is in the Hebrew 'perfect,' it is evident that sins are incompatible with David's idea of perfection, while secret or unknown faults are not.

"It gives me great pleasure to quote from Canon Girdlestone's book, The Christian's Pathway of Victory, where he says:

...

"We must not impute unfaithfulness to God . . . we cannot at the same moment be sinful and pleasing. So far as we abide in Christ, and so far as God's seed abides in us, we cannot sin, and cannot be sinful.'

"This is exactly what we are contending for. I am, indeed, glad that, notwithstanding the few remaining points of possible difference, Canon Girdlestone is so much in accord with what so many in the Church of England, and, indeed, in all sections of the Church of Christ, believe to be the truth concerning the privilege of the Spirit-filled believer.

"In conclusion, let me quote another high authority, the Rev. Dr. Vaughan, Dean of Llandaff, who, in the last edition of his work on St. Paul's Conversion and Doctrine, thus writes:

"It was the thirst for holiness which endeared grace to St. Paul. It was because he found in the Cross of Christ a motive,

* London: S. W. Partridge & Co., 8 & 9, Paternoster Row.

CANON GIRDLESTONE AND THE DEAN OF LLANDAFF. 81

and in the Spirit of Christ a power to make him holy, that he loved each with a love so tender, so passionate. Men now talk as if it were a comfort to have a Gospel which made sin less penal-as if the height of human felicity were to be excused from hell-as if the soul, filled with evil thoughts, a very cage of unclean birds, and so continuing, might find rest and salvation in the thought that another had borne for it the requisite number of expiatory millenniums. Was this St. Paul's doctrine?... Read his Epistle to the Romans, and answer. It was because he found that, what law could not do, nor conscience, nor duty, God did in giving Jesus-condemned sin. ... It was for this that Paul embraced and died for the Gospel. Because at last, after long waiting, he had found a charm and a spell potent enough to enthral and to kill the inbred, the indwelling sin.'

"That sums up our case. It is absolutely Scriptural. It offers a deliverance to man and glory to God, which are in accordance with the needs of the one and the just demands of the other. Were this truth more generally proclaimed from the pulpits of our land, it would mean the overthrow of atheism and agnosticism, and the enthronement of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the hearts and lives of millions who now reject Him. May I ask you, Sir, and the readers of the Record, to join with the Pentecostal League in prayer, that the Holy Spirit may reveal this to all the people of God?

"READER HARRIS."

F

CHAPTER X.

PREBENDARY WEBB-PEPLOE'S SOLE

CONTRIBUTION.

REBENDARY WEBB-PEPLOE, the author of the

PREBE

now famous declaration at the Keswick Convention, at last joined in the discussion. Instead, however, of seriously dealing with the subject-matter at issue, he contented himself with a series of inaccurate personal statements as follows:

"No one will, I trust, think worse of Mr. Reader Harris and his friends than that 'Saying they have no sin they deceive themselves.' But when the Christian Church is asked by them to accept a long-exploded heresy as a direct revelation from God, it becomes. necessary to examine the effects which their proposed theory produces, without wishing to condemn or speak uncharitably of its exponents. Every tree is known by its fruits,' and by these, therefore, we may judge Mr. Reader Harris's creed without intending to say one hard word of himself or his friends.

Let the Christian public, then, give their judgment upon the following facts:

"1. Mr. Reader Harris put forward a challenge to myself, and the other speakers of the Keswick Convention, to prove from Scripture the necessity of sin in

the Spirit-filled believer,' on the ground that this was asserted by me in a speech delivered at Keswick last year. While positively declining to enter the lists against Mr. Reader Harris and his friends, when he had connected money (viz., the sum of £100) with his challenge upon so sacred a subject, I yet wrote to him privately, and informed him that the terms of his thesis were, to my mind, self-contradictory; and that, as they certainly never proceeded from my lips, he was not justified in attributing them to me.

66

Surely one might have expected Mr. Reader Harris would apologize, and withdraw this misstatement, but he still thinks it right to attribute his own words to me, even after I have pointed out the mistake that he is making. The Christian public must decide for themselves in what light they think that this action should be regarded.

"2. Mr. Reader Harris made his offer of £100, as he stated, for the benefit of the Keswick Mission Fund, which was greatly in debt.' I wrote at once to Mr. Wilson for the complete balance-sheet of that fund, and forwarded the same to Mr. Reader Harris, thereby proving to him that, instead of being in debt, the fund would have a credit balance of £1600 on December 31, 1895. Did Mr. Reader Harris withdraw and apologize for his misstatement? No; he only replied, throwing blame on the editor of the Keswick Week for not exhibiting the balance for former years, as well as the receipts and expenditure for 1894-5 (in which year there had been an excess of expenditure over the