Holiness Movement

 

Holiness Movement in America 1839-1858

 

            Timothy Merritt, a Methodist Episcopal pastor, became the first editor of the Guide to Holiness in 1839. The first issues emphasized the need for special promotion of holiness, and a connection with the Wesleyan revival in England.^[1]These emphases would become central to the holiness revival throughout the century.

            One individual who gave concrete expression to Merritt’s concern in the Guide was Luther Lee. Lee’s purpose was to defend the view of the Methodist Episcopal Church on sanctification. His biblical base was Mark 12:30, which spoke of loving God with all the heart and the neighbor as oneself, and I John 4:17-18, which spoke of perfect love. On this basis, he defined sanctification as conformity to the image of God, and therefore, a state of entire renewal. It was a state of perfect love, having the whole person renewed and brought under its influence, so that love, as the ruling passion, controls the entire person.^[2] The next section of his article distinguished between justification, regeneration, and sanctification. Justification and regeneration occurred at the same moment, the first changing one’s relation with God, and the second changing the person from sinfulness to holiness. Yet, there was still a degree of depravity remaining in the soul that was removed in sanctification. Support for this view was seen in II Corinthians 7:1, which encourages perfection of holiness, and I Thessalonians 5:23, which includes a prayer for God to sanctify. Additional support was found in Christian experience, in which this crisis after conversion was seen as the moral way of God dealing with people. Final support was discovered in the sermons of Wesley, such as “On Sin in Believer,” “Scripture Way of salvation,” “New Birth,” and “On God’s Vineyard.”^[3] As will be seen, Lee is heavily indebted to his theological formulations of Joh Wesley regarding holiness.

            Another writer about holiness who had a slightly different approach that Lee was Henry W. Adams, who wrote a series of articles on Christian holiness from 1846-7. In his first article, he considered the common objections raised against the doctrine. He declared the doctrine did not intend to teach: 1) freedom from ignorance, errors, or all moral infirmities; 2) freedom from temptation; 3) incompatibility with the Lord’s Prayer, “Forgive us our debts”; 4) the blood of Jesus was no longer necessary; 5) impossibility of growing in grace; 6) no one had attained this state since Adam;; 7) incompatibility with the union of the soul and body; 8) certain passages of Scripture deny such a possibility.^[4] After removing these objection, Adam went on to discuss the obligation for Christians to be holy. For biblical support he went to 1) the positive command of God contained in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, combined with Mark 12:30, to love God with all one’s heart. 2) passages that required the practice of holiness in this life as a prerequisite for heaven, such as Hebrews 12:13. 3). Matthew 5:8, which makes a high state of grace essential for the full enjoyment of God. 4) II Corinthians 7:1, which exhorts Christians to complete holiness in this life. 5) I Thessalonians 5:23, a prayer for Christians to enjoy this blessing. 6) I John 3:8 and Hebrews 2:14-15 which express the purpose for the coming of Christ.^[5] His next article distinguished between justification, regeneration, and sanctification. Here Adams parallels the explanation of Lee. Justification was what Christ did for us. Regeneration was, first, a new moral creation effected by the Spirit, then it was an infusion of spiritual life, and lastly, it implanted new graces in the person. The two works of justification and regeneration occurred together. He used Wesley, Watson, Dwight, and Fisk for support.^[6] His final article defined the steps involved in the moment when one became holy. First, entire self-consecration to God was necessary, for it dealt with the depravity of the soul. Then God would cleanse the person from all unrighteousness. Third, there was the crowning step of Christian holiness – the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This baptism was defined as an infusion of divine life, dominion over sin, heavenly boldness, divine love, exaltation of Christ, casting down self, and lifting the soul above the world. Then he distinguished between three dispensations – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The latter was the present dispensation. In this context the baptism with the Spirit gave power and perfected the work of holiness.^[7]

            Lee and Adams offered slightly varied explanations of holiness. The key difference was that Adams gave three elements that occurred at entire sanctification: one’s own act of consecration, God’s act of cleansing, and the Spirit’s act of baptism. Thus, already there was a recognized variety of expressions used to explain the experience of holiness. As will be seen, differences may also be found within the English revival itself. This diversity will increase as the study progresses. The main question would be whether Lee and Adams disagreed as to the content of the experience they were describing. Both emphasized the moral aspect of having sin removed. Both talked about this experience occurring after justification. Both talked about the victory of love over sin in the believer. Adams did add the element jof dispensations and power. Thus, there appeared to be substantial agreement though conceptual modifications did occur. 

            The Guide revealed theological controversy at an early point. A convention held at Rochester, NY, in July 6-8, 1841, gave this definition of holiness: Entire sanctification in this life is attainable, in such a sense as to be the object of pursuit, with a rational expectation of attaining it.^[8] Later, the Presbyterian synod of New York and New Jersey rejected all forms of perfectionism, including the above definition. Two ministers, Harry Belden and William Hill, desired a moderate stance, but the synod stood firmly opposed. Most importantly, the controversy was between Methodist and non-Methodist traditions. Another significant point was that the Methodist understanding of sanctification was already making inroads into non-Methodist churches. The Presbyterian synod urged “progressive sanctification,” by which they meant a degree of piety that was in degrees perfectly attainable and should be an object of pursuit. They were clearly making some concessions to the Methodist understanding. This point should be amplified by reference to the teaching on sanctification of Charles Finney and Asa Mahan, neither being Methodist by background, though essentially Methodist in doctrine. Mahan’s work, Scripture Doctrine of Christian Perfection, gave a clear account of his views. His controversy with Leon Woods would be an instructive study. In addition, Mahan’s philosophical adherence to Scottish realism introduces another dynamic into the holiness tradition. The purposes of this paper must be adhered jot, however, though the author admits this element should be considered closely.

            The year 1853 marked the beginning of a shift to the second phase. An editorial entitled, “Our Feast of Tabernacles,” note that some people within the Methodist Episcopal Church had rejected the doctrine of entire sanctification. They admitted this may have been the result of abuse by its adherents. Nevertheless, “…Painful as is the admission, we cannot avoid the conviction that, in our own beloved communion, there are some who discard Mr. Wesley’s views on this subject altogether, while others vainly imagine that a justified state will allow the idols to which they cling with such tenacity. But truth must and will prevail. A brighter day is dawning on the church.^[9] The editor of this paper was now H. V. Degen. Clearly, this editorial reflected his own views of the denominational situation. The editorial also showed that a disagreement was arising in the church over the understanding of entire sanctification. The controversy about the doctrine was no longer restricted to non-Methodist traditions. Finally, the editorial revealed strong concern for maintaining a truly “Wesleyan” understanding of entire sanctification.

            Degen’s understanding of sanctification might best be seen in an editorial he wrote later in the year entitled, “Regeneration and Entire Sanctification.” He began by rejecting the view that conversion must be perfect because it is a work of God. His basis for believing this was divided into three sections. First, Scripture implied the opposite in its distinction between childhood and adulthood. Justification was pardon, not perfection. Second, scripture taught the opposite in passages that urged perfection upon believers and where the graces of the perfected are contrasted with those who are not perfected. Third, experience of holy people argued that an experience after conversion was necessary. Jonathan Edwards, Edward Payson, and Hester Ann Rogers were cited as examples. He concluded by noticing three objections to his view. One was an objection to the term “second blessing,” which he agreed was to be rejected. Perfection must be seen as a completion of the one blessing of conversion. Another objection was that it denied growth, which he rejected by saying it promoted growth. Finally, the objection that the converted soul was jeopardized as to his salvation was rejected by affirming their salvation, while at the same time urging them on to perfection.^[10] As can be seen, Degen’s explanation of sanctification closely paralleled that of Luther Lee. The Wesleyan character of the distinction made between conversion and entire sanctification, and the biblical base used, as well as the appeal to experience, as firmly rooted in the Wesleyan tradition. In the view of Degen, this understanding was meeting with opposition in the Methodist Episcopal Church.

            The strong emphasis on Wesley was combined with an admiration for mysticism. In 1848 and article by “E. M. B.,” “The Relation of Quietude and Energy,” declared that there could be no energy of action without quietness of spirit. The author pointed to Fenelon as an example of holiness, though he admitted Fenelon was not accepted by some. Madame Guyon was also rejected by some because she was a Romanist, a visionary, or fanatic, by which was meant a mystic. However, the author accepted her as a witness to holiness within the darkness of Catholicism.^[11] The influences of mysticism came through the writings of Thomas Upham, a professor of moral and mental philosophy. In fact, his influence has been neglected. His name would appear frequently when later holiness people referred to the beginnings of the movement. The references in the Guide to certain mystics were through his influence. Many books by Upham were respected, such as Principles of the Interior or Hidden Life, Life of Faith, A Treatise on Divine Union, as well as his lives of Madame Guyon and Fenelon. The belief of the author is that his influence was so significant that he deserves intensive study to clearly understand the persistent references to mystical writers in the holiness revival. In this study it is enough to say that his emphasis on union of the soul with God maintained its influence, no matter what changes the revival sent through subsequently.

            The basic structure of the understanding of holiness within the first phase was determined by the theological framework of Joh Wesley. Therefore, it would be best to briefly outline the position of Wesley himself. There have been various positions taken regarding what he actually taught about entire sanctification. The author was admittedly limited in what he could do on this point. The explanation that follows will rely on lectures by his professor, dr. Allan Coppedge, interpreting one of the accepted works on this question, Wesley and Sanctification, by Harald Lindstrom.

            Wesley’s understanding of humanity fell within the categories of Reformed theology. The natural person, that is, humanity without the grace of God, was extremely far gone from the original righteousness of Adam and eve. Humanity was created in the image of God, which he divided into three aspects: the natural image, or the will; the political image, or rule over creation; and the moral image, or love being the guiding principle of all actions. The Fall was brought about by a misuse of the will, and total corruption was the result. Humanity was now infected with sin, which brought about corruption within each person and guilt before God. Wesley’s emphasis was on the psychological effects of sin, what sin did to one’s self-awareness. Humanity was born with a tendency to sin, as well as being affected by sin in the totality of human experience.

            Wesley clearly presented the order of salvation. The first stage was prevenient grace. This was grace given to every person by God to draw people to God. The second stage was repentance and its fruits, by which Wesley meant a conviction of one’s sin and a desire to do good. This was not conversion, but the first step toward it. The third stage was justifying faith. Wesley used strongly personal terms to describe this experience. He rejected a purely intellectual concept of the affirmation of certain doctrines and instead insisted that faith is when one had a sure trust and confidence in Christ, that he died for the individual, had forgiven sin, and was accepted by God. Justification was pardon from sin with adoption and reconciliation occurring at the same time. The redeemed person was no longer separated from God, for the guilt was removed. Concurrent with justification was regeneration, or new birth, which was the subjective application, or new birth, which was the subjective application of justification. The image of God was recreated to give power over sin. The fourth stage was the witness of Spirit that one has indeed a child of God. He went to Romans 8 for the biblical basis and saw two aspects of this witness. There was a direct witness of the Spirit of God to one’s own spirit that he was a child of God. There was also an indirect witness of the conscience that bore witness that one was manifesting the marks of a Christian, especially the fruits of the Spirit.

            These four stages represented the process of conversion, or initial sanctification. The next stages represent the process toward entire sanctification. The fifth stage was progressive sanctification, which began at conversion. One had power over sin, grew in grace, and may have thought experienced full purification. However, the believer would soon become aware of an inward struggle between the flesh and the Spirit. Thus, one became aware of the depths of one’s own sinfulness. This was the beginning of the sixth stage, the second repentance. The believer would become steadily aware of the conflict and do acts of piety to help one remove it. During this period there was growth in holiness, by which Wesley meant love toward God and humanity. This process was brought to a climax in the seventh stage, which was entire sanctification. In this experience the person was cleansed from self-will, the tendency to sin, or original sin. The person was thereby made free from the conflict within and enabled to jlove God and neighbor purely and entirely. One was conformed to the iamge of God, and would take on the mind that was in Christ. The eighth stage was the witness of the Spirit that God had indeed performed this work of grace\, along the same pattern as the witness to conversion. The ninth stage was progressive sanctification, in which a person grew in ever increasing intensity. The problem of infirmity, as part of the general condition of humanity after the Fall, caused the person in this stage to make bad judgments, or have wrong emotions, and so on. But the source from which all one’s actions arose was a pure love for God and humanity. Thus, growth and victory over infirmities wre infinitely more realizable. The tenth and final stage was glorification, in which the infirmities were removed, but where there was yet unending growth through eternity.^[12]

            Wesley’s biblical basis was found in three types of scriptures. One group promised that God would deliver the individual from all sin, such as Psalms 130:8, which speaks of Israel being redeemed from all sin; Ezekiel 36:25,29, which speaks of God cleansing the people form their filthiness, idols, and uncleanness; Deuteronomy 30:6, whre God circumcises the heart to love God with all the heart and soul; and II Corinthians, where Paul encourages the people to cleanse themselves from all filthiness. The New Testament claims these promises found their fulfillment under the new covenant. This was the meaning of I John 3:8, which claims Christ appeared to destroy the works of the devil; Ephesians 5:25-27, where Paul says Christ gave himself for the church in order to make it a glorious church, without spot or wrinkle or blemish; and Romans 8:3-4, where Paul says the law was fulfilled by those who walk in the Spirit. ^[13]

            The second class of scriptures was found in prayers for entire sanctification, which would be a mockery if it were not possible. For example, in Matthew 6:13 the Lord’s Prayer contains a petition to deliver the person from evil; John 17:20-23, Jesus prays that his disciples would be perfect in one; Ephesians 3:14, where Paul prays they would be filled with the fullness of God, and I Thessalonians 5:23, where Paul prays the God of peace would sanctify them entirely. The third class of scriptures was the various commands for perfection, especially in Matthew 5:48, where Jesus tells the people to be perfect, even as their Father in heaven is perfect; and Matthew 22:37, where Jesus tells them to love God with all their heart, all their soul, and all their mind.^[14]

            Finally, Wesley often distinguished his concept of perfection from absolute perfection and from Adamic perfection. The first applied only to God. The second applied only to Adam who had to obey the law perfectly. Thus, he could say the only perfection that was scriptural was by degrees, what allowed for growth.^[15]

            There were the aspects of Wesley that were especially pertinent for this study. Wesley was also strongly influenced by the liturgical aspects of Anglicanism. He was a scholar in his own right, having wide knowledge of the biblical languages, early church fathers, Catholic and English mystics, and the Reformation. His emphasis on perfection, or holiness, should be seen in this light. His fresh insight was that perfection of the will was possible in this life. This insight became the raw material out jof which Methodism in America was to find its reason for existence, as well as cause for great conflict. 

            Another English Methodist by the name of John Fletcher must also be noted. Fletcher, becoming part of the Methodist revival in 1756-7, soon became close friends with both John and Charles Wesley. In fact, he had been chosen by John to be his successor as head of the revival, but he unfortunately died at an early age. He came upon an understanding of Christian perfection that he suggested John Wesley should incorporate into his own understanding. The suggestion was to use terms referring to the Holy Spirit, such as baptism, fullness, and receiving, as part of the language of entire sanctification. Wesley rejected this terminology in two letters to Joseph Benson. On December 28, 1770, Wesley told Benson that to call entire sanctification a matter of receiving the Holy Ghost is neither scriptural nor proper, for all believers received the Spirit at their conversion. On marcy 9, 1771, Welsey’s letter to Benson showed a concern for the unity of the revival. This wuse of terminology may cause dissension. In addition, fletcher also tried to enlist Charles Wesley’s support. There as good reason to suspect he would be successful because of the Pentecostal nature of many of the hymns of Charles. 

            Fletcher’s proposal was that the language of the Spirit needed to be incorporated into the Wesleyan understanding of Christian perfection. He set this forth in section 19 of his last Check to Antinomianism. It is addressed to those who accepted Wesley’s concept of perfection and were earnestly desiring it, but had an imperfect grasp of what it meant. First, they must accept precept and promise in scripture as their foundation for seeking this perfection.^[16] He went on to quote extensively from both Old and New Testaments as to the content of perfection, much of them in the same vein as the already noted passages cited by Wesley. The promises of circumcision, cleansing, clean water, Spirit, and emphasis on a new heart, were all accomplished in the Christian dispensation.^[17] After referring to the Spirit as the promise of the Father, he said, “This promise, when it is received in its fullness … is pure love and unmixed holiness.”^[18] The great manifestation of the Spirit at Pentecost was the fulfillment of the Lord’s Prayer in John 17:17-23 for the oneness of the church and for their perfection.^[19] His conclusion was that:

Upon the whole, it is I think undeniable, from the four first chapters of the Acts, that a particular power of the Spirit is bestowed upon believers, under the gospel of Christ; that this power, through faith on our part, can operate the most sudden and surprising change in our souls; and that, when our faith shall full embracy this promise of full sanctification, or of a complete circumcision of the heart in the Spirit, the Holy Ghost, who kindled so much love on the day of Pentecost, that all the primitive believers loved, or seemed to love, each other perfectly will not fail to help us to “love one another” without sinful self-seeking; and as soon as we do so, “God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.”^[20]

 

Fletcher then asked how many baptisms were necessary to cleanse a soul from sin and bring perfection in love. His answer was that it would vary from person to person: “If one powerful baptism of the Spirit seals you unto the day of redemption and cleanses you from all moral filthiness, so much the better. If two or more are necessary, the Lord can repeat them.”^[21] The content of perfection was what must be applied to the heart, and that meant the pure love of God and humanity shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost given unto us, and to be filled with the meek and lowly mind that was in Christ.^[22]

            Fletcher was suggesting a new way of expressing holiness by using the languae of the Spirit. Wesley did not develop this concept. In fact, he had reservations about his suggestions. The result was that the Methodist tradition had two dynamics from the very beginning. The effects of tis fact can be seen in the two articles by Lee and Adams at the beginning. Wesley and Fletcher both had strong influences on the theological development of early American Methodism. For obvious reasons, Wesley’s conceptuality prevailed, at the same time, if a movement were to arise that emphasized the Spirit, the Methodists would be thoroughly prepared for it, both in the respect Fletcher maintained and in the hymns of Charles Wesley. If the situation were right, they would welcome it with open arms.

            In conclusion, the first phase of the holiness movement was largely dominated by the theological formulations of early English Methodism, especially Wesley and Fletcher. This fact was illustrated from the writings of Lee, Adams, and degen. The unique emphasis of Wesley was that perfection was attainable in this life., that the moment when perfection occurred was part of a process in the order of salvation, and that the content of perfection was love to God and humanity. Other theological emphases were subsidiary to this Wesleyan framework. Mysticism through Upham played an important role that was felt throughout the history of the revival. The revivalism of Finney was greatly respected in the course of the revival. The Scottish Realism of Upham and Mahan also had a large, though largely tacit, influence on the theological formulations of the holiness movement, these wlements were the basic ingredients that shaped the theological understanding of the beginnings of the holiness movement, as expressed in the Guide.

The Evangelical revival of 1858 had a dramatic effect on the holiness movement of the nineteenth century. This revival came out of prayer meetings in Hamilton, Ontario, rapidly spreading to New York City, and then to the North and West, and to the South as far as Tennessee. From America it spread to Europe, especially to England. This revival was characterized by extensive lay leadership, lack of machinery to spread the revival, and ecumenicity.^[23]

            The influence of the revival on the holiness people may be seen in the great outpouring of experiences of the Spirit. Phoebe Palmer, one of the leaders of the revival, wrote a book called, Promise of the Father, in 1859. H. V. Degen, in commenting on the book, called the revival a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit and an expression of Pentecostal showers. Then he commented on the content of the book, which encouraged women preachers. “Surely we are living in the latter part of the last days, when God pours out his Spirit not only upon his sons, but his daughters also are permitted to share largely in the gift of prophecy.” If this were honored, “We doubt not but a Pentecostal flame would be kindled, which would result in the salvation of tens of thousands.”^[24]

            Jesse Peck claimed the church had been in darkness until 1857. Then lay people and ministers began praying for a great revival and an “outpouring of the Holy Spirit.”^[25] After tracts were printed, there was a great “manifestation of grace” in 1858. Thus, “The infidelity of the times gave way before the burning power of truth.”^[26] Sinners fell in the streets to pray for salvation. Sectarianism was destroyed. He saw it as a deep work of the Holy Spirit that had already spread throughout the world.^[27] An editorial in May 1860 concurred with Peck, saying the revival had as its essential elements the influence of the Holy Spirit and the basic condition of the cooperation of God’s people.^[28]

            Amos Norton Craft wrote an article in 1865 entitled ”Holiness a Millennial Theme.” He made the point that Wesley completed the Reformation. The latter emphasized justification by faith, whereas Wesley emphasized the witness of the Spirit and experimental religion. The reformation being complete in this sense, it must now be completed in the experience of the church. “Hence, I say that holiness is the doctrine that shall usher in the millennium.”^[29] The millennium would occur when the piety of the church allows it. Therefore, “God is ever ready to subdue sin, hence, the day of millennial glory shall dawn, when a sanctified church shall bring all their consecrated powers to bear upon the one great object of the world’s conversion.”

            These passages indicate that the evangelical revival injected a spirit of optimism, a strong emphasis on experiences of the Spirit, a sense of break with the past because of the newness of the revival, a sense or continuity with Wesley, a strong ecumenical concern, and an emphasis on the coming of the last days. The character of the holiness aspect of the revival in the Guide will now be examined more fully.

            For revival to spread, people must sense the need for revival. That is, people must sense a lack in the times as well as in the church and in personal experience. This feeling provided the seed for revival in 1858 that “the times” were such as to indicate error was making great advances. Though the machinery of the church was vast, he asked if it could meet the urgent need of the present, which was the salvation of souls. “And now everything favors the triumph of the cross,” but only if every department of the church is committed to conversion.”^[30] “W. S. T.” added that many Christians recognized they were living below their privileges.^[31] D. Nash, in an article in 1864 entitled, “The Great Want of the Church,” said the church was deficient of the Holy Spirit. What was necessary now was a “living baptism of hallowed fire.”^[32]”M.D.W., in 1868, said the church needed power to overthrow iniquity, dethrone infidels who undermine religion and weaken faith in the Bible, and counteract formality and worldliness.^[33] Later in the same year, he said only the primitive power of the Holy Spirit could break the educated minister and make such a one filled with power.^[34] In 1873, D. Nash wrote another article, “The Revival the Church Needs,” in which he admitted the membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church was converted, but that they lacked spiritual power. As evidence, he pointed to reduction of attendance at prayer meetings and class meetings, as well as sermons and prayers that did not change the lives of people.^[35]

            The stress on the need for revival and power necessitated a criticism of the present reality. Thus, though writers varied in the types of criticism, as well as the strength of these criticisms, they would invariably imply some criticism of the present. For the phenomenon this essay is now focusing on, that meant a criticism of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Revivalists criticized the church at several points. As to church organization, they rejected formalism, an undue emphasis on education, a focus on the middle-class while rejecting the poor, extravagant church buildings and non-attendance at class meetings and prayer meetings. As far as the spread of the revival was concerned, they rejected the concept that promotion of holiness was either schismatic or sectarian, and that special meetings for holiness were not legitimate. As to theology, the revivalists rejected the biblical criticism of the day, as well as any departure from orthodoxy and especially emphasized the concept of perfection as preached by Wesley.

            Most of the aspects of church organization that were criticized by holiness revivalists have already been noted. Formalism was one of the most consistent criticisms of the revivalists. In their attitude toward wealth, Phoebe Palmer shoed the central concern of the revivalists when she said that a church building should not be extravagant because the money could be better used for those who have no church.^[36] In 1873, she quoted from a letter by John Wesley of August 6, 1768 to support her contention that Methodism was wrong in becoming too fashionable for the poor.^[37] The holiness revivalists of this period were clearly having difficulty with the way the Methodist Episcopal Church was developing ecclesiastically. 

            The second area where there was conflict was in the way to spread the revival. The denomination was afraid there would be a schismatic tendency crated by new organizations to spread the revival. The revivalists were convinced that holiness organizations that were not tied to a denomination were signs that holiness promotion was becoming a part of all denominations. Jesse Peck emphasized that sectarianism was destroyed by the revival. The fluidity of terminology was another indication of such ecumenicity. Thus, “E.E.R.” suggested terms like, fullness of God, being complete in Christ, sanctification by faith, and higher Christian life, were all synonymous.^[38] An editorial by H. V. Degen in 1860 claimed that A. A. Phelps and William Boardman were correct, though not complete. This editorial concluded by stressing the universal character of the holiness revival, cutting across both denominational and national lines.^[39]

            The issue of the way to spread the revival was closely allied with the question of making holiness a specialty, by which was meant holding special meetings or creating special organizations for the spread of holiness. In 1860, H. V. Degen was calling for holiness to be a specialty to make the doctrine clear and give it its rightful place as the central concept of Christianity.^[40] These sentiments were shared later by Phoebe Palmer when she said, “With too many sincere people it (holiness) has been regarded rather as a doctrine of a sect, than as the all-crowning doctrine of the Christian dispensation.”^[41] The intent of the holiness revivalists of this period was to make “holiness” the property of all denominations. They refused to be limited to any one church, even if it happened to be the denomination incipiently organized by John Wesley himself. In doing so, they believed they were fulfilling the vision of Wesley. Their purpose was that all denominational barriers would crumble with the proper understanding of this doctrine: “Holiness! Power from on high, empowering all the Lord’s redeemed family to live right, and bring a ransomed world back to the world’s Redeemer.”^[42]

            The revivalistic interpretation of Wesley continued along the same lines as that of the previous phase. It eventually became the center of theological conflict between Methodism and the holiness movement. The distinction between justification and sanctification was clearly maintained. G. H. Blakesles in 1860 said the two could not occur concurrently because that view was opposed to the scripture when it exhorted Christians to go on to perfection; it was also opposed to Methodist authorities since they were in line with scripture, and finally, it was contrary to the experience of believers.^[43]Whedon, in an article in August 1860, made these comments on Wesley. First, entire sanctification did not remove a person from the human condition. Second, experience was used to define the work. Third, feelings were not enough, for one must have the witness of the Spirit. Fourth, regeneration and entire sanctification were distinguished. Finally, a person attained this blessing by having a deep conviction of depravity, followed by entire devotion to God, and with simple and direct faith, expecting it every moment. ^[44] in the same line, William Wesley Totherch made a clear distinction between justification of God’s grace act of pardon, and sanctification as God’s grace which renewed the whole person in the image of God.^[45] William I. Gill said Wesley used the term “Christian perfection” to mean giving up heart and life to God. Entire consecration and entire sanctification were seen as co-instantaneous, perfection not going beyond that of motive or intention. Growth would always be necessary.^[46] John A. Wood described the steps necessary to attain entire sanctification in Wesleyan terms. First, there must be a clear understanding of what one was seeking, which was freedom from sin, purity, renewal of the soul in God’s image, so that the source of one’s life was pure. Second, one needed to have a firm resolution to seek this blessing until it was obtained. Third, it was necessary to feel the need for it by repentance, self-abasement, and an ardent desire for holiness. Fourth, one needed to make an entire consecration of oneself to Christ. Sanctification would immediately follow. Faith was the immediate condition of holiness. That is, faith that God had promised it, faith that what he promised he was able to perform, faith that God was willing to do it now, and faith that God had indeed performed the work.^[47]

            The revivalist interpretation of Wesley was the context out of which two major controversies arose. One issue was how soon after justification one expected to be entirely sanctified. An article by H. H. Beegle was a good example of this conflict. He began by saying he was considering the question of why Christians expect justification in a few days, but sanctification in many years. Then he stated the proposition he hoped to defend: “believers ought to obtain the blessing of perfect love, in as short a space of time, as they expect penitents to obtain the blessing of pardon.”^[48] He went on to give reasons why a person would not receive entire sanctification as soon as justification, which would have its source in unwillingness:

to bear the cross

to seek earnestly

to seek definitely

to consecrate fully

to trust Christ completely.^[49]

 

Beegle’s view was that the only obstruction to holiness was a person’s will, which was the result of revivalistic methodology. The respected book by John A. Wood, Perfect Love, concurred with this position, and then used Wesley as support, primarily from his journal and his letters.^[50] Finally, William I. Gill suggested most people in the Methodist Episcopal Church believed perfection was the fruit of a lengthy process of ripening. His objection was that naturalism and gradualism ignored God. He then appealed to Wesley’s Journal for support in his contention that one should expect entire sanctification at once and suddenly.^[51] Thus, the “battle lines” were drawn. Revivalists urged converts to expect entire sanctification at the beginning of Christian experience. This was because holiness was now made the object of revivalistic promotion, just as conversion had been previously. Indeed, the similarity between the experiences of conversion and holiness were urged as justification for this approach. On the other hand, most people in the church appeared to believe that one should seek entire sanctification but not expect it to occur until after a lengthy process of ripening.

            A second major area of conflict was when, where, and how one should give testimony to the work of the entire sanctification. “W.S.T.” suggested there was some division even among friends of the doctrine. He took his side with those who said it should be confessed even before unbelievers. He also said there must be humility in testimony.^[52]Another person lamented that so few in the church who had experienced entire sanctification have testified to the experience, which may be the major reason there was less power in the church there should be.^[53] John Wood said Wesley did not oppose testimony to holiness.^[54] He also said one must testify tto retain the blessing, that one should use scriptural terms in doing so, and that one must be humble and stay away from pride. He admitted there was no record of Wesley’s own testimony, but offered these considerations: 1) Wesley said many things that were not handed down; 2) if he did not testify he was inconsistent because he urged others to testify; 3) his journal did not record personal experiences.^[55] William I. Gill disagreed, suggesting Wesley both explicitly and implicitly testified to his experience. However, the passages he uses were clearly twisted to arrive at this conclusion. He did agree that Wesley would be inconsistent if he urged others to testify but did not testify himself.^[56] Gill pointed to many of his journal entries that indicated Wesley’s joy over those who did testify.^[57] The revivalists conceived themselves to be true to Wesley on the issue of urging people to testify to the point of making it a necessity for the continued experience of entire sanctification. This testimony must be given in humility and with discretion as to the nature of the audience. On the other side were many members of the church who feared such emphasis on testimony might lead to spiritual pride and that it was contrary to Wesley’s own lack of testimony to entire sanctification.

            The theological conflicts described above were important in considering the nature of the relationship between the revivalists and the organization of the relationship between the revivalists and the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church. As to the content of entire sanctification, there appeared to be little controversy. Wesley’s distinctions and definitions were common to both. The tensions created by immediacy and testimony, however, plagued their relationship from the beginning, but especially after 1858. The tension might be expressed in the context of revivalism. Wesley’s revivalistic expression was oriented to the conversion experience, while his preaching on holiness was confined to the nurture of those in the Societies he formed. For the revivalists, however, holiness was taken from this context and made the object of revivalistic promotion. In this way, entire sanctification was expected toward the beginning of Christian experience. Wesley’s theological explanation of holiness was maintained, but the expectations for achieving it had heightened. In this context, it was natural to encourage testimony of what God had done in their lives. Revivalism had a strong emphasis on personal experience, and testimonies were part of this concern. 

            Before the theological influence of altar terminology can be examined, the sociological and cultural tensions must be mentioned. Some of these conflicts are seen in other contexts. However, they were also part of the cultural tension that existed between the revivalists and the church. One such conflict was over slavery. A southerner wrote to the Guide in 1861, saying that after she was entirely sanctified, she was led to free her slaves.^[58] Phoebe Palmer wrote a letter to the Guide in June 1863 from England, in which she said that the great sin of America has been her complicity with slavery. The great sin of England is intemperance.^[59] The revivalists firmly rejected costly clothing, in line with Wesley’s instruction in the matter.^[60] They criticized the church for leaving poor sections of cities, thereby becoming too fashionable for the poor.^[61] H. W. Beecher declared there was no purpose or earnestness in singing when he visited a fashionable church.^[62] The result of all this was that the sociological difference increased the tensions between the church and the revivalists. Ministers were becoming better educated, better paid, more widely read, while churches were becoming more formal, losing some of ther earnestness, and there was general acceptance of slavery. The gap was therefore widened by revivalistic concern for the wealth, education, and formalism that they felt were strangling the spirit out of Methodism.

Altar Terminology and Phoebe Palmer

            There can be little question that the more traditional Wesleyan definition of holiness was able to exist with altar terminology, often in the same person. Thus, the impression should not be given that altar terminology could be divorced from Wesley entirely. Yet, there was a difference that was recognized even by leaders in the movement. Altar terminology, then, did not go uncriticized. A. A. Phelps thought there was a tendency to stand still by an effort to induce seekers of holiness to believe themselves saved without the inward consciousness of it written by the finger of God on the heart – to believe they are cleansed, ‘on the strength of the naked promise of God,’ without respect to the living attestation of the Spirit of the fact, that we are constrained to give this point, the direct witness of the Spirit, unusual prominence. He urged that one never be persuaded that one is entirely sanctified till God, the Holy Spirit, announces the blessed fact, in terms so clear that one cannot mistake their origin.^[63] Phelps clearly feared what Wesley called enthusiasm, the danger of claiming a spiritual experience that one did not have. He felt this was a problem with Palmer’s formulation of holiness. Whether or not this fear was justified is a matter for debate. The wide-spread use of this terminology, however, cannot be denied.

            J. E. Joyner gave a brief rendition of altar terminology and combined it with mystical expressions. Sanctification was defined as consecration on the person’s part, and acceptance on God’s part. Consecration was resigning one’s own will to God, which included everything a person possessed. The person placed everything on the altar, and then pledged oneself to perfectly perform his/her part of the covenant. Then the person looked to God for strength to perform it. God would then accept the sacrifice of self and save the person from indwelling sin. The soul was filled with love, and the Spirit given as a testimony that the offering was accepted. The union between the soul and God was now complete. The graces of the divine Spirit have now reached a state of maturity, which the soul is conscious of nothing contrary to perfect humility and perfect love. The result of the mysterious unity of our nature with God was that growth could occur unimpeded by pride, self-will, and anger. ^[64] Joyner had combined elements of Wesley, altar terminology, and the mysticism of Thomas Upham. He did not see these as being incompatible. 

            Phoebe Palmer described her views well in an article on December 1869. She defined holiness as a state of the soul in which all the powers of the body and mind are consciously given up to God. It was also a work in which we must most emphatically be workers together with God. Though holiness was received by faith, and not by the law, yet it is impossible to exercise that faith that brings the blessing, until we are willing ot bring the sacrifice of the body, soul, and spirit and leave it there.^[65]

            The biblical base for this position was found, first, in passages that commanded holiness, an understanding that she shares with most revivalists. Another biblical base was discovered in the combination of Matthew 23:19 with Exodus 29: 37-8, which say that whatever touches the altar is holy. For Palmer, Christ was the altar. The individual’s responsibility was to place everything on that altar, and by virtue of the altar upon which the offer was laid, becoming holy and acceptable.^[66]

            Stress must be placed on the phrase “by virtue of the altar,” for her constant emphasis was to have naked faith in a naked promise. By this, she meant that one could rest in the knowledge that God accepted this offering. Feelings were not to be expected when one was sanctified. She encouraged people to remember that the just shall live by faith, not ecstasies. They were to resolve that they will not make feelings, as they may vary by the way God sees most for your good to try your faith, as a standard for your faith. True faith will produce feeling, but it may at first be little other than solid satisfaction arising from an implicit reliance on God.^[67] Thus, the witness of the Spirit was knowledge that the individual had offered up all one has to God, and that God had promised to accept the offering, based on Romans 12:1-2. She was also clearly fighting the idea that one’s experience of holiness was dependent upon one’s emotion. Rather, one must cling to the promises of God, even if emotion appeared to contradict the promise. The distinction Wesley made between the direct and indirect witness was dissolved. In addition, holiness was seen as two elements that were logically distinguishable, but not temporally distinguishable. The first step was offering of one’s self ot God, the second was God accepting the offering. This distinction was common in the holiness revival. Its purpose was to facilitate revival preaching by making holiness attainable in simple, clearly defined steps.

            A place where Phoebe Palmer has received criticism is tht her altar terminology did not allow for spiritual growth after entire sanctification. Though as a revivalist she emphasized a crisis experience, she did not exclude the importance of growth. Thus, she said holiness was a condition of the person who had ceaselessly presented the self as a living sacrifice, the soul thereby being steadily bent to know nothing among people, save Christ and him crucified. The summit of Christian experience will never be reached and growth in love, knowledge, light, and power must never end were recurring emphases. She also used the term “symmetrical holiness” to refer to the harmony and unity of individual character, which is achieved in the perfect consistency and agreement between the various elements of the character possessing it. ^[68] Finally, she perceived that holiness was a continual act of self-denial, of bearing the cross, the cross being the only way for growth and discipleship.^[69]

            One of the phenomena of this period described previously was the spread of the experience of the Spirit after the 1858 revival. Phoebe Palmer welcomed this new emphasis. Though she continued to use her own altar terminology to explain what holiness was and how to attain it, she began to use the language of the Spirit to express what was going on in the revival. As early as 1859, she wrote a book, Promise of the Father: A Neglected Specialty of the Last Days. In it, she defended the right of women to preach based on Acts 2, in which the Holy Spirit was poured out on both men and women. In describing a camp meeting, she referred to urging others to receive the full baptism of the Holy Ghost, and that it is the baptism of the holy Ghost that is the great want of the church. In one of her explanations as to how to attain sanctification, the last step was that the faith exercised in entire sanctification would bring power, even if the emotion was not present. In reporting another camp meeting in 1868, she used power, baptism, fire, and the Holy Spirit to explain what was happening. She called holiness the all-crowning doctrine of the Christian dispensation. At other times, she applied the experiences of the Spirit to holiness. She referred to her own experience as the momorable baptism of the Spirit, in July 26, 1837. She also regarded the condition for the baptism of fire as being full surrender to Christ. Phoebe Palmer saw no contradiction between her altar terminology, which appeared as early as the 1840s, and the new language of the evangelical revival. She adopted the language of the Spirit freely, and incorporated it into her description of religious experience, while her theologizing about holiness remained tied to her altar terminology.^[70]

            Palmer never clearly stated the social implications of holiness in direct terms. However, she did drop hints of her perspective in bits and pieces. On the issue of women’s rights, she denied that they had the right to preach until after the 1858 revival, when she wrote Promise of the Father. She declared herself in opposition to novels and amusements, such as the theater, even if they were by Christians.^[71] She was opposed to extravagant church buildings because there were too many places where people could not afford churches.^[72] She believed one must testify to the experience of entire sanctification.^[73] She also aligned herself against slavery, declaring that the great sin of America has been its complicity with slavery.^[74] The Five Points Mission for the poor in New York City was probably the greatest single expression of her social concern. These expressions of social concern were very significant for Palmer but were not related to her altar terminology.

            The implication of holiness is one’s life was worked out more along personal than social lines. This can be illustrated by the shift in the covers of the Guide from the editorship of Mr. and Mrs. French to Phoebe Palmer. The French’s had four circles on the cover. The upper left circle was split in two. One side showed a teacher instructing children, the other side had a person visiting the sick. Deuteronomy 6:7, which commands the Hebrews to teach their children God’s law, was used for support. The circle in the upper right showed a group of people of devout women was also significant. These were not her exclusive concerns, for evangelism was very important as well. However, the covers of the French’s and Palmer represented a shift of emphasis from a true concern for society as well as personal holiness, to a more privatized faith. This did not mean Palmer had no concern for social issues, for she opposes slavery, supported women’s rights, and was active in the temperance movement. She was also concerned about how the church utilized its resources in reference to extravagance. However, these concerns were not directly tied to the doctrine of oliness in the way prayer, Bible study, and church attendance were.

            Phoebe Palmer’s influence was widespread during this period. The focus here has been on her formulation of holiness, which spread throughout the revival through her Tuesday Meeting and camp meeting engagements. Charles Jones indicated how wide her influence was when he said that while the holiness movement always regarded John Wesley asits great authority, the movement owed many of its distinctive ideas and practices to Phoebe Palmer. The confidante of powerful people in the church, she permanently modified American Methodist teaching through them. Taken over by Methodist camp meeting promoters, Mrs. Palmer’s ideas were to pervade all future Methodist debate concerning holiness. Attractive to Methodist church leaders at mid-century, her perfectionism was to create division by the end of the century.^[75]

            In conclusion, the period of 1858-78 was marked by several distinctive features. The revival of 1858 brought great optimism about the progress of the work of God. Along with this came a strong emphasis on experience of the Spirit. The revivalists were prepared to accept this terminology because their heritage included such emphases, especially through Fletcher and Charles Wesley. At the same time, Phoebe Palmer had already introduced her altar terminology. This explanation of holiness was oriented to the revivalists mileau of camp meetings for the promotion of holiness. She later accepted the experiences of the Spirit as a major way to explain what was happening in the revival. However, when she explained the content of holiness, she remained committed to her altar terminology. Other writers of the period would explain holiness in more traditional Wesleyan categories. These various explanations of holiness were seen as being consistent with each other, and both were seen to be consistent with the new emphasis on experiences of the Spirit. The fact that there was this shift to an emphasis on the Spirit has been clearly shown. The importance of it can be seen by a reference from Bishop Janes. 

I understand such persons when in describing this experience, they refer only to Christ, to speak to Him as our ‘great High Priest” by whose atonement and intercession we receive the Holy Spirit who transforms us, ‘By the renewing of our minds, that we may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.’ Still, the usefulness of their testimonies will be greatly enhanced, but the distinctness with which they state this operation of the Holy Spirit in their sanctification.^[76]

 

The revivalists became deeply concerned over the state of the church. It was too formal, too educated, too wealthy, and lacking spiritual life. The optimism about the revival, combined with this negative attitude toward the spiritual life of the church, led to a strong emphasis on reviving the church, but which was meant calling the church back to a time when it was more spiritual and pushing it forward to new heights of spiritual commitment. To the revivalists, the church was more concerned about numbers, money, and education, than it was about people. Revivalists were also concerned about possible theological shifts from Wesley, which was an additional sign that the church was in decline. They saw themselves as the defender of the Wesleyan understanding of perfection. The result was growing conflict with the church. These characteristics of the revival became intensified by the emphasis on a theology of the spirit and the expectation for Pentecost.

THE THIRD PHASE: THE DEVELOPING THEOLOGY OF THE SPIRIT 1878-1908

Asa Mahan wrote a book in 1870 called The Baptism of the Holy Ghost. This book gained a broad hearing among holiness revivalists. It prepared the way for developing a theology of the Holy Spirit, in that the language of the Spirit was now being incorporated into the doctrinal expression of holiness. Henry Belden appeared to be a forerunner of this development within the Guide when he wrote an article in July 1874, called “Frequent Baptisms of the Holy Ghost.” He defined baptism of the Spirit as an refreshing along the stages of the Christian life. Thus, the baptism was temporary, and was given only to those seeking it. He then shared a rather unique concern. Those who had experienced purity, he cautioned, would be dead without further baptisms. Clearly, eh was referring to the emotion of joy and happiness, a sense of aliveness. Later, he also said the purpose of this baptism was to become more like Christ and bear fruit, not simply personal happiness.^[77] The indication that a major change eventually took place may be seen when the article by Belden was reprinted in the Christian Witness on September 26, 1895. The editors commented that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is once for all and is never repeated. He suggested the use of another word than baptism, such as renewals or refreshings.^[78]

The revivalists soon began to call for a theology of the Spirit. The most significant contribution to this endeavor in the Guide was by George Hughes. He began a series of articles in January 1878 called, “The Glorious Dispensation of the Spirit.” He opened by declaring that this glorious dispensation of the Spirit is fully opened. The full-orbed revelation of divine truth and mercy throws its radiant light upon humanity. He stated his purpose in the series was the exploration of the nature of the Holy Spirit, his relations, and his mode of administration. He declared this subject had not been discussed enough by the Christian world. The result had been that the compass of our spiritual vision is entirely too limited, our grasp of faith weak, and our religious activities entirely too circumscribed.^[79] Hughes continued to be optimistic about the progress of the revival yet, he declared the subject of the nature of the Holy Spirit had not been discussed enough. This assertion would not be true if he meant it as a revivalist expression but would be true if he meant it theologically. Thus, Hughes himself implies the division between experiences of the Spirit and a theology of the Spirit. He also implied that an understanding of the nature of the Spirit would bring stronger faith and more freedom to develop new ministries for the present age. The spread of the revival would be enhanced by this new emphasis.

The final article in the series by Hughes was also significant. Hughes began by making some general comments about the baptism of the Holy Spirit. First, he declared this baptism to be the crowning office of the Spirit. He defined the baptism as the conscious filling of the soul, or rather, the entire being, with the presence and power of the Holy Ghost. The Spirit revealed to the person’s consciousness that he or she was filled with the Spirit. There may be great emotion, and there may be stillness. In either case, the person would ask for no more emotion, for the person has received the one who blesses. Net, he showed how the Spirit gave three distinct revelations to the individual. One was conviction of sin, two was regeneration and justification, and three was the baptism of fire and power. The latter revelation usually occurred after conversion and was identical with other expressions that the revival had used, such as entire sanctification, entire holiness, the higher life, and the baptism with the Holy Ghost. He used the biblical imagery of John the Baptist, waiting at Jerusalem, and Pentecost, as a type for these three stages. He concluded the article by showing five ways in which this baptism was proven to the consciousness of the individua: fellowship with the trinity, new light on the Bible, removal of inhibitions to witness, attractiveness of life, and immense joy. On the last way, he said that without such joy the danger was intellectualism.^[80]

Some general considerations of what Hughes was suggesting the above articles would be appropriate. He remained true top Wesley in his emphasis on the necessity of a direct and indirect witness of the Spirit. He also showed some ambivalence about Palmer’s concerns along these lines. He conceded that this baptism must not necessarily be accompanied by emotion, but at the same time emotion would be manifest to avoid intellectualism. In addition, he showed himself to be ecumenical in the sense that he perceived himself as adding to already established terminology. There was the suggestion that Pentecost was the basic pattern for the entirely sanctified. This led him to think of the newly converted person as waiting for Pentecost, which was to be expected soon, with a consequent tendency to play down the conversion experience. Finally, the emphasis on the effects of this baptism was clearly inward, toward personal ethics and oriented to devotional life and evangelism. 

This emphasis on the role of the Spirit continued to be developed throughout the century. In an editorial in 1880 Hughes made the claim that we have long believed and taught that all disciples of our Lord, under the present dispensation of power, may and must receive the baptism of fire. That it is an endowment of power available to all by an act of faith, and a gift of believing power that must be obtained by all who would be true to the duties of their heavenly calling.^[81] This claim could be substantiated only by identifying the baptism with entire sanctification, for, as has already been shown, this language was rare in the Guide before 1858, and was not incorporated into theology until later.

In January 1882, F. G. Hibbard submitted a sermon an spiritual gifts in which he declared that the non-miraculous gifts were natural abilities that become consecrated to God, and must be placed above the miraculous gifts.^[82] This article was interesting because he was apparently concerned that some people in the revival were emphasizing miraculous gift too much. In addition, the sermon showed continued interest in developing an understanding of the w3ork of the Spirit. This concern for an over-emphasis on the miraculous may have been legitimate. Mrs. Mahan authored an article in the Guide entitled, “Holiness and Healing.” She urged a connection between holiness, or baptism with the Holy Spirit, and faith healing. The truer the holiness anyone possesses, just so much more will there be manifested the healing power of the Holy Spirit.^[83] She then noticed that the revivals in Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway had healing as a prominent characteristic. She concluded by saying that we hail the new baptism of the Holy Spirit, and enduement of power for service and faith-healing, as well as salvation from all sin, as Pentecost come again.^[84] Though this emphasis on healing was far from common in the Guide, it does show that some people in the revival were going in this direction.

W. H. Poole continued the effort to understand the work of the Spirit in an article entitled, “the Gift of the Holy Ghost.” He explained the order of salvation as being pardon, purity, and power. The converted were reconciled to God, but were still distant. The Spirit brought God to dwell in them.^[85] James Harris suggested that the dispensation of Christ could not have been completed without Pentecost.^[86] Clearly, this was the result of theologizing about the three dispensations of Father (law), Son (Gospels), and Spirit (acts to present).

Finally, in an editorial in 1886 entitled, “honor the holy Ghost,” Hughes declared that the Spirit does not receive the honor to which the Spirit is justly entitled. We should think more about the Holy Spirit familiarizing ourselves with the names, character, and offices of the Spirit. We should enjoy close and blessed fellowship with the Spirit. We should pray and testify in the Holy Spirit. We should undertake nothing without the aid of the Spirit. In trouble and sorrow, we should seek the counsel and support from the Spirit. The Spirit is the Comforter. If the church understood as it should that this is the dispensation of the Holy Spirit, it would be mighty.^[87]

Other evidence for the increased theologizing on the Spirit was the appearance of many books reviewed in the Guide about the Spirit. Besides the one by Mahan, there was Octavius Winslow, The Inquirer Directed to the Work of the Spirit; W. B. Poole, Ripe Grapes, or the Fruit of the Spirit; Dougan Clark, The Offices of the Holy Spirit, and The Holy Ghost Dispensation; L. B. Dunn, The Holy Spirit in His relations to the Work of Entire Sanctification.

The significance of the emphasis on theologizing about the Spirit was not lost on the participants themselves. The above passages have showed how the holiness revivalists recognized a break with the past. The emphasis they placed on the lack of thinking that had been done on the Spirit, as well as their desire to fill this lack, was evidence enough for this. In 1900 an editorial called the present emphasis on the Spirit a peculiarity of the times.^[88] The emphasis on the Spirit was seen as the distinguishing mark of the revival. Of course, the holiness revivalists did not reject their Methodist heritage. Rather, they were conscious that they were involved in doing something new that they believed was consistent with their tradition. In the process, modification of that tradition was inevitable.

At this point note of a further shift among the revivalists must be taken. As the end of the century grew near, there was an increasing expectation of a worldwide Pentecost, which meant a general worldwide revival. In 1888 Gideon Draper wrote an article entitled “Pentecost and Evangelization,” in which he claimed the church had the resources to accomplish a general revival, penetrating Islam and other religions, in the Holy Spirit. This would be the needed “general Pentecost.” The believer has the right to look for the miraculous and is guilty if he or she does not.^[89] An editorial by Hughes showed how strong this desire had become. The article was entitled, “Pentecost Expected,” and commended camp meetings. The summer of 1889 should bring a full-orbed Pentecost to a multitude of Christian hearts. Then he made the bold assertion that the Jerusalem Pentecost is undoubtedly intended to be duplicated.^[90] Another editorial claimed that Pentecost is the central and all comprehending thought of the New Testament dispensation.^[91] An editorial entitled, “The Great Century Pentecost,” said that we have been pleading in successive numbers of the Guide, for such a manifestation of the power of God as to the worthy of the period, worthy of this high dispensation, to commemorate the outgoing of this illustrious and unparalleled nineteenth century.^[92] In a supplement to the 1900 edition of the Guide,Hughes declared he would maintain the Pentecostal emphasis and continue examining the offices of the Spirit. He concluded by saying that we cannot afford, in the new century year, to have any but burning pages.^[93] This expectation for a worldwide, Pentecostal revival was so strong that in July 1901 I. E. Page wrote of a revival begun in Great Britain, asking if this was the beginning of the great revival that they had longed for.^[94]

Further evidence for this shift may be seen in the books that gained popularity in the Guide. S. A. Keen, Pentecostal Papers: Pentecostal Wine from Bible Grapes; Seth Cook Reese, The Ideal Pentecostal Church, and Fire from Heaven; T. Waugh, The Power of Pentecost; Electric Shocks From Pentecostal Batteries; Martin Wells Knapp, Flashes From Lightening Bolts; Charles J. Fowler, Back to Pentecost. On top of it all, The Guide to Holiness and Revival Miscellany changed its title to The Guide to Holiness and Revival Miscellany Changed its title to The Guide to Holiness and Pentecostal Life. Some of the divisions of the paper were called, “The Pentecostal Pulpit,” “Pentecostal Bible Hour,” “Pentecostal Blessing,” “Pentecostal Church,” and “The Fire.” By 1900 the Guide determined to change the format of the magazine every three months to encourage freshness. 

The consciousness of the revivalists that their emphasis on a theology of the Spirit was new, combined with their firm expectation of a Pentecostal revival, was in line with the general optimism generated by the revival during the second phase. This optimism became intensified during the third phase. In 1889 Hughes wrote two editorials. One, “A Bright Transition,” declared that everything awaited the consummation, such as the stoning blood of Jesus, the Bible, and the almighty energy of the Holy Spirit, the sovereign of the dispensation that now is.^[95] The second editorial was, “Reigning with Christ,” in which he referred to the future reign of Christ and that Christians would reign with him. Now the prelude to that glorious heavenly dominion, is a spiritual reign with Christ on earth. Christ reigned within, but he not only reigns triumphant within, but he makes us reign triumphantly without. In Christ, and through him, we are more than conquerors. We tread down the world beneath our feet.^[96] The fact that thi optimism already was widespread was shown by the ninth resolution adopted at a holiness convention in August 1882. Since this was the dispensation of the Holy Spirit, which gave power to the latter-day glory for success, revivalists should be encouraged in their work.^[97]

This optimism about the possibilities of the growth of the revival was combined with a pessimism about the state of the world. A good example was an editorial by Hughes in 1878 in which he related his reflections on a pre-millennial conference. He called those in attendance brothers, thereby recognizing a basic unity with them. He then referred to a talk by Dr. Goodwin of Chicago, who called the second coming, that which is sweetest in the gospel. The comment by Hughes was that he thought the center of the gospel wa pardon and salvation, and we cannot regard without concern an effort to make a chronological mystery sweeter than redeeming love. He did not like the tendency to either overlook or fail to apprehend the glories of the present dispensation. He concluded by admitting the end waw near, and that the church needed a spirit of wwork for the souls of people. Happily, we are authorized to believe that this work prepares for the second coming of Christ.^[98] Though Hughes rejected pre-millennialism because he waw it as inconsistent with his own postmillennial tendencies, many people in the revival were becoming influenced by a pessimistic attitude toward the world around them. As will be seen, Hughes and the holiness revivalists shared the pre-millennial concern for the degeneration going on around them.

The criticism of the present condition of the world was unmistakable evidence of encroaching pessimism. William Reddy wrote an article in August 1889 called, “The Old Paths.” The gospel was the old path, while he rejected progressive theology, science, and philosophy. He suggested it was all progressive degeneracy, and concluded that the tendency to deterioration, and a decline from the higher to the lower plans, especially in morals and religion. The history of all ages shows an alternation of rise and fall of revival and declines, of advances and retrogression, of success and defeat.^[99] The author saw that the world was in great trouble, which only Pentecost could resolve. Hughes re-enforced this view in an editorial of the same year, called, “The Trumpet Call.” He gave support to the revival efforts of Moody and agreed with Moody that there was a crisis period for the country now, and that the very existence of the United States was threatened unless there were a general revival.^[100]

A second area of pessimism in the view of the holiness revivalists was the tendency of some adherents to become involved in fanaticism and error. This tendency was recognized early, even in the first phase. This concern now became intensified. A holiness convention of August 1882 listed four errors into which those involved in the revival were most likely to fall. First was holding to the theory of perfect love but neglecting its practice. Second was an unwillingness to endure opposition. Third was exalting non-essentials over essential truths. Fourth was wrongly interpreting being led by the Spirit to mean beyond the Bible.^[101] Some people involved in the revival had clearly fallen into extremism. An editorial of 1886 by Hughes emphasized the last error given above, saying these people hurt their cause. Then the writer made the interesting comment that there is but one step from the highest experience in divine grace and the rankest fanaticism.^[102] Hughes recognized those whom he considered fanatics were close enough to his own position to cause it harm. J. R. Jacques wrote that young ministers must beware of extravagant perfectionism. The errors he mentioned were that the holy were infallible, making no mistakes or errors; that one was governed by impressions, not reason or the Bible; that one should expect perpetual joy, and that one should divine the church.^[103] The revivalists recognized that some people who were part of their revival had been led astray by certain kinds of errors. The revival, when viewed historically, was not monolithic. The holiness revivalists were part of a diversified historical movement.

Another major error the revivalists were concerned about was the relationship between entire sanctification and the baptism of the Spirit. Dougan Clark, in October 1889 recorded that some people testified to being sanctified first and baptized later. Others claimed both occurred at the same time. Clark believed the two works were in such a relation to each other that whoever had one also had the other. He then suggested that those who testified to the contrary were dead to sin, but not yet alive to God.^[104] An editorial in February 1898 took an even stronger stand. It was impossible to be sanctified without also having the fire. Thus, entire sanctification, heart purity, perfect love, holiness, and Christian perfection, exist resplendently in a soul filled with the Holy Spirit.^[105] As a result, some people involved in the revival were testifying to three works of grace, the third work being a baptism of the Spirit that gave power. The strong tiies of the holiness revivalists to their Methodist tradition did not allow them to go in that direction. Rather, they brought the content of the baptism experience within the total experience of entire sanctification.

A third concern of the holiness revivalists was the condition of the Methodist Episcopal Church. An editorial in 1885 claimed tht the church was decling spiritually. The most obvious sign was the pulpit, where ministers were being educated by schools that were not permeated with the Spirit. A second piece of evidence was that the laity demanded artistic worship and architecture, ritualism, music, floral decorations, and craved wordly amusements like fairs, festivals, and dramas.^[106] Daniel Steele wrote two interesting articles lin 1885 on the educational issue, which were titled, “The Holy Spirit the Conservator of Orthodoxy.” His claim was that detailed doctrinal statements could not preserve orthodoxy. What was needed was piety, the universal baptism of the Spirit.^[107] An editorial in 1889 commented on why the church had not been making more progress. The desire of the people was to give us a pulpit on fire, not with eloquence or logic, or science, but, red-hot with the Holy Spirit first.^[108] The focus of the criticism was that lack of power in the pulpit was brought about by education. Hughes went on to say in the same issue to suggest there were unfriendly signs, such as formalism and worldliness.^[109] Several bishops shared these concerns. Bishop Fostor said there were some ministers who did not believe the teachings of the church.^[110]in 1900 a bishop claimed that many Methodists did not have a present experience with Christ.^[111] Hughes wrote an editorial 1888 that shared some of these concerns. He was distressed, saying that there was much that was discouraging in the churches. He longed for the church to measure up to the standard of Christ, the spiritual leaven of holiness is working in all evangelical denominations, and the time is not for distant, we hope, when the moral aspects of Zion will be wondrously changed.^[112] Hughes combined a pessimism about the present situation in the church with an optimism about the hope for a revival that would sweep away many difficulties.

In conclusion, the revivalists had three concerns that led them to be pessimistic. They saw degeneration of the world order, a fracturing of the revival, and a deterioration in the spirituality of the church as cause for alarm. These negative factors were combined with the positive pull of the twentieth century and the optimism about the progress of the revival. The tendency was to see the great revival as coming just before the return of Christ, thereby preparing the world for his coming. This Pentecostal revival would remove the negative factors described above. All hope was seen to reside within the context of a revival of holiness throughout all denominations and the world, while everything outside the revival was seen as being in degeneration.

The desire of the holiness revivalists was that their message wouild reach other denominations. Holiness was to be the basis for unity between churches. Hughes declared in an editorial that the doctrine of holiness was no longer confined to Methodism.^[113] The report of the Holiness convention in 1882 declared that entire sanctification was the property of the whole church.^[114] Another assembly meeting in 1885 stated that the ecumenical character of the revival was the basis for associations that were separate from the church.^[115]this concern to be ecumenical may also be suggested in the terminology. Thus, M. Annesley said in 1878 he preferred terms like sanctification, purity of heart, perfect love, and oneness with Christ, but discouraged the use of the term second blessing.^[116] G. Burrows, a Presbyterian, declared he did nto like the trem perfection, but preferred the term filled with the Spirit.^[117] Of Coruse, the Guide had long used the term perfection, but the editors were willing to accept other terms than the standard Mathodist expressions. N. Burns, in 1882, said the term “blessing of holiness” was the most common term in testimonies. Synonymous terms were: entire sanctification, the blessing of perfect love, Crhistian perfection, the higher life, and the rest of faith. Then he made the significant comment that those who would limit such testimonial expressions to scriptural words were too narrow.^[118]This was interesting because Wesley himself tended toward scriptural words. 

The point is that there was a deep concern on the part of the revivalists to be broad enough in their terminology to relate to other traditions. As has already been shown, this ecumenical emphasis was the motivating force behind the spread of non-denominational organizations. These assemblies must be seen as part of a wider phenomenon. As Hughes admitted in 1885, holiness assemblies were no different in principle than assemblies for Sabbath schools and temperance.^[119] Hughes also pointed to the needs for the holiness cause that demanded public attention, for a protracted crisis was forced upon them.^[120] The holiness associations now existed not only for fellowship but also because of controversy.

A final issue that threatened the revivals intended ecumenicity was that of sectarianism, which was concerned with the tendency of some to leave the institutional church. The revivalists were adamantly opposed to such attitudes. In 1880 Hughes declared that holiness was not schismatic, declaring that the processes of grace are working out this grand ideal of the Christ-spirit, and life, holiness, as it advances, will contribute to the sublime consummation. Holiness is not schismatic and has no fellowship with division and strife. Its beautiful province is in the church to purify, transform, and beautify it, hastening the answer to the prayer of the Redeemer. At home and abroad, in church and state, holiness people must show that they are followers of the Prince of Peace.^[121] At a Holiness convention of 1882 it was stated that followers after holiness must remain in their respective churches.^[122] In July 1885 another such assembly said followers of holiness must be part of an organized church, because holiness conserves and builds, not disintegrates and destroys. However, if a person were oppressed solely for professing holiness, one should look elsewhere.^[123] The assembly experienced some debate over “comeoutism,” which was firmly rejected.^[124] In 1885 Hughes said in an editorial that he would not indulge in controversies, and he would respect the ministers of the church, while not questioning their motivation.^[125] In another editorial he declared that unity was increased by holiness, since holiness the great unifier. He encouraged all to push on the work, and let the people be one in spirit if not in ecclesiastical organization.^[126]

There continued to be modifications of the formation of the doctrine of holiness by revivalist. A classical approach was taken by John Summerfield, who wrote a sermon in 1882 called “Christian Perfection.” His text was Hebrews 6:1. The perfection mentioned was not absolute, but relative to fallen humanity. It could only be a perfection of degrees, essential conformity to the purpose for which one was created. Not a perfection of knowledge, but a perfection of love. He defined perfection as the harmony of the whole person with the abounding principle of love.^[127] Though traditional Wesleyan definitions like these continued, some changes began to take place when the revivalists begin to formulate their doctrine of holiness in the context of conventions that sought to formulate the accepted definitions of holiness among the adherents of the holiness movement.

The 1882 holiness convention at Round Lake defined entire sanctification as involving the utter destruction of the carnal mind, instantaneously wrought and attested by the Holy Spirit on the sole condition of faith, the possession of the full image of Christ and the complete indwelling of the Holy Spirit.^[128] The convention went on to stress that those who profess this work must search themselves constantly.

Another assembly was held in July 1885, in which they accepted a declaration of principles. The first principle was to define justification as pardon from sin, the new birth or spiritual awakening, and adoption to which the Holy Spirit was witness. The second principle defined entire sanctification as that magnificent work wrought after justification by the Holy Spirit, upon the sole condition of faith in the infinite efficacy of Christ’s all-cleansing blood, soul and spirit, and of all earthly possessions to God. This work has three distinct elements. First, the entire extinction of the carnal mind, the total eradication of the birth principle of sin. Second, the communication of perfect love to the soul that washed from all moral defilement. Third, the abiding indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter. This work of grace also had a direct witness associated with it. The second witness was intricately connected with the first, and thus all who were converted should be exhorted immediately to go to perfection. ^[129]

These conventions expanded the element of crisis. This emphasis was the result of two key factors. One was the revivalist promotion of holiness. Revivalist preaching emphasized the moment and a decision for what was being preached. These definitions were designed to enhance the revivalist preaching of holiness. In addition, these definitions were forged in the context of conflict. The revivalists needed to defend what they perceived to be the Wesleyan position, and they needed a standard of judgment for orthodoxy. These two forces led to a hardening of definitions and terminology. The tendency was to describe justification in such a way that the need for entire sanctification would be clearly seen. This was part of the immediacy controversy. The nature of the relationship between justification and sanctification was the result of the revivalist concern to place the second crisis early in Christian experience. 

An editorial in April 1888 showd this concern of the revivalists to distinguish between justification and sanctification. The article stated it was not their intention to depreciate justification. The entirely sanctified person was cleansed from inward impurity, was pwerfected in the Christian graces in nature, but not in degree, and was filled with the Holy Spirit. Justification, on the other hand, was a mixed moral state. He had the graces of the Spirit, but not purely.^[130]This point was elaborated further in an editorial in August 1889. Justification was pardon from sin. Regeneration was enjoyed when the soul was made alive to God and had power over sin. Adoption into the family of God then occurred. All of these occur in one moment. Thus, justification is indescribably gllrious. Yet, believers still had original sin, which meant they had a mixed moral condition. There was still a tendency to sin that caused bondage, creating the need for further cleansing. Entire sanctification was defined as the entire eradication of inward carnality. Later, it was defined as the perfecting of all the graces of the Spirit, with love as the central grace, so that they exist free from alloy or antagonisms. Thus existing, there is chance for subsequent growth and development to an infinite degree.^[131] The revivalists were not deliberately degrading justification. Rather, the controversies over the nature of entire sanctification led them to emphasize the inadequate condition of the converted. This point will be amplified when we discuss the Mudge controversy.

The ethical concerns of the revivalists were also significant for the theological development of the holiness revival. The revivalists continued the same concerns they had in the first two periods, however, so little time will be spent here. They continued their dedicated support for women preachers, going so fas to say this was one of the two reasons why the revival had advanced.^[132] The Holiness Convention of 1885 affirmed that holy character patterned after the Sermon on the Mount and I Corinthians 13 was necessary. The quiet graces, like humility, meekness, gentleness, kindness, patience, should be earnestly sought. The believer should separate himself from worldly relationships. He also should adopt a lifestyle of simplicity and plainness in dress, home, business, and every part of life.^[133] Hughes felt so strongly on the necessary ethical impact of holiness that he wrote an editorial in 1888 condemning an error that entire sanctification was only inward, and thus had no effect on the believer’s life. He agreed it was a thorough inward work, but it also brings to perfection in nature rather than degree all the graces of the Spirit.^[134] The concerns for worldliness and formalism in the church have already been mentioned in another connection. Thus, slight change can be detected in this area. The ethical concerns remained oriented to personal concerns. This would be expected, for revivalism by its nature tends to individualism.

In conclusion, the revivalists were caught between continuity and discontinuity with their tradition. The experiences of the Spirit in their midst, consequent theologizing about the Spirit, and the final expectation for Pentecost, were new elements that they sought to incorporate into their tradition. They saw themselves as in the process of ding something significantly new, the emphasis on the Spirit being the unique quality that they had to offer. In embracing this new element of the Spirit, they did so because they perceived it to be consistent with their tradition, though not identical with it. At the same time, their tradition modified their acceptance of the Spirit. The best example was their refusal to accept three works of grace. They also maintained a strong emphasis on the nature of entire sanctification as love to God and humanity, thereby continuing the strong ethical foundation that Wesley laid. 

An editorial in 1878, entitled, “What Hath God Wrought,” gave a history of the holiness movement. In it, Hughes gave the same basic points already mentioned in this essay. First, he declared holiness was not a new doctrine, but was taught in Scripture and there were examples within Catholicism. Even here he recognized the influence of mysticism, especially Guyon and Fenelon. Then he emphasized the role of Wesley and early American bishops who brought holiness into clearer focus. Until 1836, therefore, holiness was a Methodist doctrine. In that year the non-Methodist Finney and Mahan proclaimed holiness. Thomas Upham joined them. Timothy Merritt began the Guide in 1839. The influence of the revival spread through the Palmers, as well as by Bishops Hamline and Janes. The National Association for the Promotion of Holiness, founded in 1867, was a continuation of the revival. Now, the doctrine could not be called a Methodist teaching. It had spread to all denominations, and had spread even to leaders of Europe, especially Emperor William of Germany.^[135] The revivalists were conditioned by their Methodist tradition but were also involved in incorporating the newness of the 1858 revival. They knew this would take them beyond the Methodist denomination. In fact, this was seen as the triumph of holiness.

HOLINESS MOVEMENT AND THE MUDGE CONTROVERSY 

            We need to remember that the great commission of early Methodists in America was to spread Scriptural holiness throughout the land.^[136] However, by the middle 1880s, many people within the Methodist Episcopal Church felt the denomination had lost it holiness movement. The Guide to Holiness was first published in 1839 with the explicit purpose of making the promotion of holiness a specialty. Holiness needed to be lifted before Christians in an intentional way. Names like Timothy Merritt, Jesse Lee, Phoebe Palmer, George Hughes, as well as bishops like Randolph S. Foster, Edmund S. Janes, and Leonidas L. Hamline, were strongly associated with the Holiness Movement. As the movement began to develop organizations outside Methodist structures, the leadership of the denomination began to warn of schism. At a theological level, toward the end of the 1800s there was an increasing interest in the work of Holy Spirit. These new organizational and theological currents within the Holiness Movement, along with theological shifts in Methodism, created a perfect setting for tension. This potential came to a climax in the James Mudge Controversy.

            James Mudge was born in 1844 to a family strongly influenced by English Methodism. His family was personally close to Jesse Lee, one of the most influential early holiness writers. His mother was a close friend of Phoebe Palmer, one of the best-known writers and evangelists in the Holiness movement. Mudge could remember that as a child, the books of Phoebe Palmer and the Guide to Holiness were always present in the home. He heard holiness preaching every Sunday, he attended holiness camp meetings, and he rad holiness literature. So, at the age of 16, while listening to a Congregational minister, he experienced what he then called entire sanctification or being cleansed from all sin.

            Mudge was not writing as an isolated critic of the Holiness Movement. Nor did he write as an abstract analysist of the revival. He was deeply influenced by the spirituality of the Holiness Movement. The difference between himself and those involved in the revival was that he could not apply his understanding of holiness teaching to his own spiritual life. Lewis R. Dunn, a holiness writer, could say that heard many good reports about him. The experience of Mudge with the holiness of revival shaped his understanding of its teaching. One must not think this decision was easy for Mudge. He was breaking with his family and close friends. Yet, when he went to a Methodist college, he discovered many of the students shared his disillusionment with holiness teaching. These early experiences shaped the way in which Mudge looked at the issue of holiness.

            By the end of the 1800s Mudge had been a Methodist pastor, missionary, and editor. In 1895 he authored a book that created extensive controversy between Methodist leadership and participants of the holiness movement. The title of the book was Growth in Holiness Toward Perfection, or Progressive Sanctification. The title gave away the focus of the book. Mudge would emphasize holiness as a growth process, while the Holiness Movement would emphasize the attainment of holiness in a crisis experience after conversion. The debate between these two forces became intense.

As Mudge relates his teen experience, one is reminded of how easily a young person may adopt words to describe an experience without understanding the meaning of those words. In the same way, it was not long after this crisis experience that he had feelings of pride, ambition, discontent, and selfishness. In his understanding of holiness teaching, after the crisis experience these feelings should no longer be present. He had to make a choice. He also discovered this was the experience of many others. He became convinced there was continual need for further consecrations that deepen, extend, and perfect the previous work. Sanctification was entire only to the point of the light given. Though every year since his full consecration had been marked by growth, there were times of special refreshing, such as 1873, 1882, and 1887. But none of these experiences meant absolute perfection, by which he meant a condition in which the self-life was dead. His experience was that a little of self always showed itself, and there this need for further consecration.^[137]

            In another account of his life Mudge reported that he called his experience at 16 Christian perfection, entire sanctification, and the being cleansed from all sin. He had long since ceased using these terms because they gave offense to many, though he admitted there may be an understanding of these terms that was appropriate. He then explained his teenage experience. It was simply that apprehension of Jesus to be my all-sufficient power for every occasion that naturally comes upon a consecration increased in thoroughness and made complete up to the measure of light as that granted. It marked a new beginning in the religious life and opened the way at once for an indefinite but rapid increase in knowledge and faith, in self-crucifixion, and in the acquisition of divine love. It put an end to the old stumbling and the old hesitation and set the soul forward on a keen hunt for the best things made possible by atoning blood. It was not the end of sanctification, as at that time I supposed. It was not the beginning. It was an immensely important stage in the process, since it settled the point that all known duty was to be promptly done and all known sin resolutely refrained from. What had happened since? Self had steadily decreased and Christ had increased, faith had gained growing dominion, and love had steadily gained possession of him.^[138]

Was his experience an illusion? He could not believe that. Was the interpretation of his experience wrong? Mudge came to answer this question affirmatively. His holiness teachers were wrong.

Mudge concluded the chapter on his experience by relating significant works for growth in holiness. His list included Fenelon, Francis of Sales, Thomas a Kempis, Scupoli, Rodreguez, Jeremiah Taylor, Rutherford, John Wesley, Faber, T. C. Upham, and Dean Goulburn. It should be noted that most of these works were respected by holiness revivalists as well. Unlike the leadership of the holiness of revival, who accepted the concepts and applied them to their lives, Mudge represented one who grew up with the holiness revival as a teen and had to break with them because he could incorporate what he understood the holiness people to teach into his life. This understanding of the spiritual experience of Mudge will enlighten the context out of which he authored this book.

Chapter One was called, “Preliminary.” The Mudge controversy reflected a tension between relating to philosophical shifts on the one hand and the holding to traditional formulations on the other. Mudge contended that the Methodist tradition was unclear. He referred to theologians like Jonathan Fletcher, Adam Clark, Richard Watson, George Peck, Randolph Foster, Daniel Steele, Miner Raymond, and John Miley, all of which were ambiguous in their terminology concerning the nature of sin and holiness. Wesley did not understand the nature of sin or holiness, so he should be improved upon, or better, transcended. Thus, Mudge readily admitted he departed from Wesley, for Methodist theology needed to be reshaped considering modern thought. Mudge desired to relate Methodism to the emerging wholistic view of human personality as well as the emphasis on process. The need he perceives was for a restructuring of Methodist thought in the light of modern thought. In contrast, the Holiness Movement held on to Wesley as being both biblical and clear in his thoughts on holiness.

            The effects of the view held by Mudge of the Methodist tradition became crystalized when he discussed the nature of sin and holiness. This can be seen from the background of what John Wesley taught about these subjects. For Wesley, the sin of Adam has three results. First is the tendency to selfishness. Every person is infected with the desire to act in selfish ways. Second is the actual act of selfishness, or self-will, thereby placing one’s own will in priority over the will of God. The third result of the sin of Adam is what Wesley called infirmities. These are various physical, mental, and emotional problems that are present in the world in which we live. These distinctions are important because there was need for much growth after the second crisis, for one needed continual conquering of infirmities. They are also errors of judgment, mistakes, and other acts that affect people every day. Therefore, sin for Wesley could refer to the tendency toward self-will, the act of self-will, or infirmities. Though this may be confusing at times, the distinctions are clear.

            Wesley’s view of holiness is related to his understanding of the nature of sin. Wesley operated with a three-fold distinction of the effects of original sin. Sin was an act of self-will, the tendency to selfishness, and infirmities. As soon as a person is converted, he will no longer commit intentional acts of self-will. The believer desires the will of God, not one’s own will. However, as one grows in grace, one discovers a tendency toward selfishness in the heart. At this point, the believer is being led to entire sanctification, the removal of this tendency toward selfishness. Once the believer experiences this crisis, the believer would still have to battle with infirmities, which would always be with the believer. Yet, the believer can now testify to the love of God with all the heart. At this point, Mudge disagreed with Wesley while the Holiness Movement stayed with him. Wesley would teach that while infirmities remained, the believer would continue growing in grace to overcome them. Thus, the Holiness leadership was aware of the theological shift Mudge was making. He classified sin with infirmities, a judgment repeated often. He had a Calvinist view of sin. Some drew an analogy between Mudge and Count Zinzendorf. 

            Mudge could not accept the distinctions of Wesley, a fact that was at the heart of the controversy. For Mudge, the term sin should refer only to the selfish intention contained in an act. The converted person did not commit acts of sin in this sense. At this point, Wesley, the Holiness Movement, and Mudge agreed. However, Mudge also suggested that the term depravity should be sued to cover both the selfish desire and infirmities. The tendency to self-will could not be removed, as Wesley had said, but only suppressed. At this point, the Holiness Movement attacked Mudge vigorously. His view of sin was non-Wesleyan, a contention that was correct. They called for his removal from the Methodist ministry. When this did not happen, the gap between the Holiness Movement and the Methodist leadership was unbridgeable.

            Another area of controversy was the language used to describe holiness. Mudge claimed that the biblical terms like regeneration, holiness, and sanctification all referred to the same experience. He defined holiness as the condition of human nature wherein the love of God rules. He rejected terms like cleansing and eradication because they led to confusion. He preferred the terms of empowering, for it suggested power over the rebel of sin rather than the removal of the rebel. The term perfection meant mature, established, and adult in the Bible. This experience could not occur at the beginning of Christian life, but only after a lengthy process. Every converted person was perfected in the lower sense of not committing acts of sin, but no one would achieve the higher type of perfection until death, when depravity was removed. Finally, Mudge contended that the term of baptism with the Spirit in the New Testament referred to conversion. Other times, such anointing, earnest, indwelling, filled, gift of, falling upon, poured out, or descending upon, were synonyms with baptism all believers were baptized at conversion. Pentecost was the unique experience of the inauguration of a dispensation. It was not intended to be repeated. The record of the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19 and Cornelius in 10-11, 15 were those who were not yet part of the Christian dispensation. He cited Wesley for support in his journal entry for October 29, 1762 and his letters to Joseph Benson in 1770. The holiness people adopted traditional Methodist terminology like holy, entire sanctification, and cleansing. Some holiness groups used second blessing, though there was debate within the movement over the use of the term. They also adapted the emphasis in the latter part of the 1800s on the work of the Holy Spirit to Methodist theology. Thus, they could only refer to the experience of entire sanctification, but they could also refer to being baptized or filled with the Holy Spirit. In one sense, then, the Holiness Movement altered the Methodist tradition, though from distinct perspective from that of Mudge. They pointed to the contrast between the disciples before Pentecost and after Pentecost as the contrast between the justified and the sanctified. They also applied the Cornelius incident in Acts 10-11 to the second crisis after conversion. Such exegesis is highly questionable. While the revivalist situation at the end of the century shaped the Holiness Movement, Mudge had become influenced by emerging philosophical trends.

            For Mudge, the Holiness Movement wrongly interpreted the Bible, just as Wesley had done. Classical Methodist terminology relating to a crisis after conversion was biblically related by Mudge to conversion. Perfection meant maturity. The terms relating to the Holy Spirit all refer to conversion. Thus, there was no biblical basis for using the terms as Wesley, and through him the Holiness Movement, were using them.

            These theological issues directly influenced the way the two sides interpreted Christian experience. The Holiness Movement viewed conversion and entire sanctification as two critical moments in a person’s walk with God. Mudge viewed Christian experience as growth and maturity in the love of God, periodically punctuated by special moments of intense growth. His own experience at 16 was a special awareness of the love of God, but in no sense could it be described as perfection. For the Holiness Movement, the root of sin was removed; for Mudge sin was a rebel that was suppressed. The battle cries became growth or crisis. 

            Mudge charged the Holiness Movement with depreciating justification to make room for a second blessing. This was done by reserving terms like holy, perfect, and baptism with the Spirit only for those who had a second crisis. When these terms were applied properly to the converted person, the justified state is lifted to its proper place. Lowrey reversed the charge by saying that Mudge made the converted state so high there was no room for a second work. In contrast, the Holiness Movement responded that they had a high view of the justified state because it was necessary preparation for the second work. They knew of no one within the movement who belittled conversion. The tendency of the Holiness Movement was to separate themselves as the only ones who were holy, thereby putting the converted person on unsure footing as to salvation. He conceded that many people in the church were living below their privileges and that crisis experience akin to conversion may be necessary. Yet, depravity remained. He stressed that spiritual growth could occur only as one grew by faith. 

            Another point of contention was over the special means of promoting holiness. For Mudge, the Holiness Movement had special meetings, leaders, and literature. Making holiness a specialty implied that what the church did elsewhere was not holy. A proper understanding of the church would make one see that the church was a holiness league in all it did. Mudge agreed that the Holiness Movement had become schismatic. Methodist leaders agreed with this criticism. As of yet, however, no churches existed, so the leaders could justly ask where the churches were. 

            As with most church fights, it did get personal. Attacks against the character of the opposition were abundant. Mudge said participants in the Holiness Movement were censorious, dishing out harsh judgments against anyone who disagreed with  them. He charged that there was a lack of Christian character among those who professed the second blessing. Galbraith claimed these criticisms were justified and given in a gracious spirit. Even Bishop Granberry agreed that the participants often were not loving. Too many professed the theory while neglecting the appropriation of the content of the experience. In response, some said Mudge lacked integrity because he denied his ordination vows and should have resigned. The M. E. Church was denying its heritage by not firing Mudge. 

Methodist leadership responded to this section of the work of Mudge in a positive way. 

Bishop J. C. Granberry cautioned that Mudge had not deal fairly with Methodist authors in trying to show their inconsistency. He admitted that many neglected the appropriation of the content of the experience of entire sanctification, which was humility, modesty, gentleness, meekness, and so on. He was convinced there was a more advanced state for believers, but that even that persons in that advanced state had faults. He admitted that the process of purification and transformation into the image of our Lord is sometimes slow and other times rapid. Yet, there was general agreement that Methodist theology needed restructuring, and that the book by Mudge was a significant contribution to that endeavor.^[139] William Kelley the editor of the Methodist Review, said it was a breakthrough in understanding sanctification and a significant contribution to the restructuring of Methodist theology as it considers the philosophical shifts of the 1800s. However, he claimed that Mudge was fundamentally orthodox and that he agrees with the general Methodist consensus as to substance of doctrine and that his attacks on the holiness movement were justified.^[140] John Galbraith went as far as to praise Mudge for having the courage to break with tradition by seeing through the ambiguities of Methodism and Wesley. His criticism of the holiness was justified and given in a gracious spirit^[141] The point is that much of the Methodist leadership reflected favorably upon the interpretation of the ambiguity of the Methodist tradition as presented by Mudge.

These writers claimed Mudge was consistent with Methodist authorities, but that he was also going toward a restructuring of Methodist theology in light of modern trends. It was seen as a theological enterprise. Though Granberry cautioned that Mudge was too critical, he still accepted the idea that a restructuring of Methodist theology was necessary. Another positive concern was Mudge’s criticism of the holiness people. Mudge’s comments in this regard were said to be in a gracious spirit and justified. The censoriousness and schismatic tendencies were especially emphasized. Finally, Granberry stressed the need for balance in Christian experience. Some may be perfected quickly after conversion; others may require long periods of time. The point was that growth and progress were seen as being more significant than crisis and attainment.

Holiness revivalists had a negative response to Mudge and his book that one can classify into personal, ecclesiastical, and theological responses. The focal point of much theological disagreement was the nature of sin and depravity. The core of this disagreement was that Mudge had made self-will a part of depravity that is part of being human. 

Ottis Cole commented that Mudge identified being finite with depravity.^[142]

Mudge classified sin with infirmities.^[143]

            Asbury Lowrey lamented that Mudge had become a critic of Wesley and those who followed him. Thereby elevating the present over the past and overthrowing our ancestral ideas about holiness. This was a standard reaction by leaders of the Holiness Movement.^[144] John Wood commented that the view of Methodist theologians as being confused led to the desire to revolutionize Methodist teaching. He denied such a revolution was necessary.^[145] Lewis R. Dunn drew an analogy between Mudge and Count Zinzendorf of day of Wesley. In this view, the converted person was said to be holy and perfect. Thus, Mudge did not recognize that original sin remained after conversion.^[146]

            The revivalists agreed with Bishop Granberry that Mudge placed too much emphasis on sin as a voluntary act, thereby neglecting sin as a condition.^[147]

            Theologically, holiness revivalists wanted to maintain Wesley’s distinctions of sin as act, sin as self-will, and infirmities. In this way, justification would remove acts of sin, while entire sanctification would remove self-will. Growth would center in the steady conquering of infirmities. Mudge, on the other hand, was influenced by the developmental model. For him, sin should refer only to deliberate acts of self-will and disobedience to God, which would be removed at justification. The positions were agreed on this point. However, Mudge did not grant the distinction between self-will and infirmities. Both were considered under the term depravity, which would never be eliminated in the present life. Of course, the revivalists would agree if he were referring only to infirmities, but when self-will was included.

            The rest of the theological disagreements focus on the direct charges Mudge made against the holiness people. 

One major criticism by Mudge was the holiness people denied the importance of justification to make room for a second blessing. He charged them with having a low view of justification, and thereby expecting this second crisis early in Christian experience. The response of the revivalists was to deny the charge. One editorial said the charge was evidence that the one making it was either dishonest of or had not read their literature. Holiness people had a high view of justification, which was shown by their belief that a solid foundation was necessary for a second work, that the converted would not commit acts of sin, that those who did not accept a second blessing do accept worldliness, and they did not simply have people sign cards to show one was converted.^[148] Dunn objected that he had never heard the phrase “merely justified,” nor did he know of anyone who belittled the converted condition.^[149] Finally, the charge was reversed by Lowrey against Mudge, that he had made the converted state so high that there was no room for a second work.^[150]

            A second criticism by Mudge was that a second blessing tended to decrease responsibility for growth. It attained so much that it was not practical to anyone who was sensitive to his own spiritual growth. Temptations still arose from within. There was a constant suppression of a rebel within. No blessing after justification could remove this struggle. The result of belief in a second blessing was to make some Christians holy, and other unholy, thereby creating a tendency to pride. John Wood responded that the holiness people had always said entire sanctification encouraged growth by removing self-will. He denied that there was the highest attainment of Christian experience by faith, because there was need for growth after the blessing of sanctification.^[151] Dunn added that he knew of no one in the revival who would claim there was no more room for growth. Most who had attained this blessing continued pressing toward the mark.^[152]

            A third criticism by Mudge was that the revivalists twist Scripture to conform to their own pre-conceived notions. “Holy” and “regenerate” referred to the same experience in the Bible but were separated by the second blessing people. “Perfect” meant maturity, not a point beyond which one could not go. The term “baptism with the Holy Spirit” was synonymous with other terms in the Bible, such as dwelling, seal, receiving, filling, and so on. Thus, it should not be used to refer to a second crisis. All Christians shared in this experience of the Spirit. Wood defended both baptism with the Holy Spirit and Pentecostal baptism by saying that Mudge’s exegesis was faulty. He pointed to the experience of the disciples and the Cornelius account as support for applying these terms to a second crisis.^[153] Dunn agreed that many of the trms used in reference to the Spirit were synonymous, but there is a larger and fuller and more distinctively conscious experience of the Holy Spirit than the justified and regenerated soul enjoys. The experience of the disciples was used as support, in that they were Christians before Pentecost, but after Pentecost they had new power.^[154] The other basis for scriptural support referred to above have already been mentioned and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that the holiness people rejected the exegesis of Mudge of biblical texts that had come to be used regularly by them.

            Mudge did not limit his criticisms to theology. The extended them to an understanding of the church. He rejected the concept of special promotion for holiness. The whole church promoted holiness, not just these groups. These special organizations were also schismatic in tendency, and encouraged criticism of the Methodist Episcopal Church, even in claiming those without a second blessing would not reach heaven. The rest of the church was considered apostate. Wood responded by denying that special promotion of holiness accomplished any of these results. He knew of no one lwho said the rest of the church was apostate. He also said holiness people always believed the justified would attain heaven.^[155]Dunn asked that if special promotions were schismatic, where were the churches? There were many meetings that promote special concerns, and one of these should be condemned.^[156]

            Another criticism by Mudge was that the testimonies of those who claimed a second blessing were misguided. They claimed too much for any experience. The experience they had was a rededication to God after a period of backsliding. Therms he to which he objected were phrases like living without sin, being perfectly holy, and being perfect. Wood challenged Mudge to find anyone who used such terms as part of their testimony. He also wondered if Mudge could claim to know their experience better than they do themselves.^[157] Dunn added that the reason some find such testimonies offensive was because they take offense at the work of God.^[158]

            These criticisms of Mudge were returned with criticisms by the holiness revivalists against Mudge. These attacks were both theological and personal. The theological criticism was that Mudge departed from Methodist. Cole said he preferred the practical account of Wesley to the theory of Mudge.^[159] C. Munger said Mudge felt free to write against Methodist authors.^[160] Wood disagreed with Mudge that Methodist writers had been confusing. Mudge did not try to clarify Methodism, but rather openly and unhesitatingly disagreed with it.^[161] Lowrey lamented that Mudge had put himself on record as a critic of Wesley and his co-thinkers ancient and modern.^[162] Dunn agreed that Mudge had rejected Wesley and the standard Methodist authors.^[163]

            This concern for maintaining the Wesleyan foundation of the Methodist Episcopal Church brought the revivalists to a criticism of the present state of the church, as well as a criticism of Mudge personally. For example, John Parker claimed Mudge had denied Methodism, denied his vows to the church, and no longer had any integrity. Thus, no one is of sufficient importance to remain in the M. E. Church and the allowed to antagonize her doctrines and thereby weaken the motives of her best types of spiritual life and usefulness.^[164] Dunn agreed by saying that the ordination vows of the church should be taken seriously. While Mudge accepted them once, he did so no longer.^[165] Parker concluded his article by criticizing the church by saying that we are gaining what we are seeking, numbers, institutions, and machinery. We are educating the pulpit away from the common people and the pew but we have lost our early simplicity, godly enthusiasm, class meetings, love feasts, watch nights, camp meetings, because we have lost the experience that made them necessary.^[166]

            C. Munger concurred with the judgment of Parker when he said that Mudge had exalted the present over the past, concluding that these people who are using the columns of Zion’s Herald and the press of the Methodist Book Concern to propagate this damnable stuff, are the very people who were clothed with the powers and privileges of Methodist ministers upon their public declarations that they examined the Methodist doctrines, believed they were taught in the scriptures, and would maintain them. Surely, we have fallen upon perilous times.^[167]

            The theological issue in the Mudge controversy should be clear. The nature of sin was a major difference of opinion. As was said earlier, the revivalists wanted to maintain Wesley’s distinctions of sin as act, sin as self-will, and infirmities. Mudge refused to grant this division, combining the latter two under the concept of depravity. In this sense, Mudge was a departure from the more traditional Wesleyan distinctions. A second theological controversy was the relationship between justification and entire sanctification. Mudge denied any temporal distinction, while the revivalists insisted on the separation between the two works of grace. A third disagreement was the holiness interpretation of scripture. Mudge charged scripture was distorted to pre-conceived notions. The revivalists appealed to Wesley’s use of scripture when understanding perfection, sanctification, or holiness, and to a typological interpretation of Acts.

            The ecclesial issues were also clearly defined. Mudge saw the church as a promoter of holiness in everything it did. Creating organizations outside the institutional church was schismatic. It led to separation of the holy from others in the church. The revivalists responded by asking; where was holiness preached in the church? These organizations were needed both to proclaim holiness clearly and to make it available to all denominations rather than just Methodism.

            In a controversy of this nature, personal attacks often overshadow the theological issues involved. Mudge set up this dimension with his charge that the revivalists claimed too much in their testimonies, were censorious in their attitude toward others, lacked love to those who disagreed with them, and were schismatic. The revivalists responded by saying Mudge had rejected his ordination vows and therefore should resign. When he did not, his integrity was challenged. It was unfortunate the controversy degenerated to this level. However, controversy in the church is rarely limited to the intellectual. In this case, Mudge and the revivalists share responsibility.

            Another issue this controversy revealed was the importance of the philosophical shifts going on in America at large and particularly Methodism. This element was more implicit than the other issues. The reaction of wood to a comment made by Mudge is a good example. Mudge had said spiritual perfection was not compatible with the imperfection of the body and mind. Wood” response was that according to this oen cannot be made perfect in live if one had a blind eye, broken leg, or a sick body.^[168] This reveals that even someone of the stature of Wood did not perceive the philosophical issues involved. The point has already been made that the revivalists were implicitly dependent on Scottish Realism, primarily through the influence of Mahan and Upham. By the end of the century, Methodism was becoming influenced by developmental thought. This view stated that humanity must be seen wholistically and in the context of the growth of the total personality. One element within the individual, such as the will, could not be isolated from the rest of the person and be perfected. Consequently, holiness underwent alteration when the developmental model was used. In addition, many teachers were going to Germany for their education, becoming acquainted with the higher criticism of the Bible and modern philosophy. The result for the purposes of this study was that the philosophical shifts affected how the theological issues were framed. This was especially true in the understanding of the nature of sin.

            Finally, the Mudge controversy also raised a serious historical question. The reader may have had a challenging time understanding the criticisms by Mudge in light of the evidence about the holiness revival presented in this paper. The criticisms of Mudge that the holiness people were schismatic and censorious might seem especially stranger. Tjis author would suggest that the primary reason for this fact may be contained in the diverse elements that comprise the revival. This paper hs limited itself to that aspect of the revival that would be presented by the Guide. The Mudge controversy suggests other components must be investigated to gain a complete picture of the theological character of the holiness revival. The result of these theological, philosophical, ecclesial, and personal conflicts was that the revivalists and the church parted ways. The division had become too wide. Many people in Methodism wanted ot re-interpret Wesley, make Methodism relevant to modern thought, and wanted to move beyond their revivalist heritage. The holiness revivalists, on the other hand, saw no need to re-interpret Wesley, and tried to maintain a pure revivalism. These forces were found to be inconsistent with each other.

            In conclusion for the third phase, several facts emerge. Within the revival itself, there was a growing emphasis on developing a theology of the Spirit. As the 20^th Century arrived, there was an increasing expectation for a Pentecostal revival that would remove worldliness, skepticism, and sin, and thereby prepare the world for the coming of Christ. As the revival related to denominational structures, especially that of Methodism, its criticism intensified. There criticism focused in the church’s acceptance of worldliness, such as amusements, novels, and theater, the increased education of the clergy that appeared to decrease their spirituality, the removal of the church from a focus on th personal to a focus on the institutional, and the movement of the church to bthe middle class and urban culture, neglecting the poor and rural areas. Theological criticisms centered on the gradual rejection of Wesley as the one who most clearly defined holiness, their emphasis being on the crisis experience after conversion. An implicit philosophical shift from Scottish Realism to developmentalism was found to be essential in understanding the nature of the theological tensions between Methodism and the revivalists. The revivalists were quick to accept newness when it would advance the revival. However, modern thought wa rejecged because it was perceived as a threat to revival. There was, then, a negative attitude toard what the revivalists saw as an epression of the degeneration of the orld. Only the Pentecostal revival would stop this degeneration, a revival built on Wesleyan thought, not modern thought. Yet, it wa Wesley with a difference. Wesley emphasized entire sanctification in the context of the small group meetings, and thereby saw it as part of discipleship. The holiness revivalists made entire sanctification part of the revivalist preaching for evangelical decision, which necessitated placing the experience at the beginning of the Christian walk.^[169] These cultural, theological, ecclesial, and philosophical elements appeared to be the major points of tension that led to the break between revivalism and Methodism.

The leadership of Methodism and the leadership of the Holiness Movement were at odds as to the nature of the Methodist tradition. The leaders of Methodism felt their heritage had an ambiguous theological framework and that it needed restructuring as it considers modern thought. The Holiness Movement said the tradition was clear, biblical, and not in need of change. Thus, two approaches of the tradition were at the root of the conflict.

CONCLUSION

The evidence presented in this paper is intended to offer some basis for determining the theological shifts that occurred in the holiness movement of the nineteenth century. The three phases that have been identified should not be seen as isolated from each other. Rather, each phase is incorporated into the next phase, in a kind of synthetical movement in the Hegelian fashion. Yet, this movement accomplishes something new that did not exist before, it might be good to review this movement.

The first phase was dominated by the theological framework established in the early English Methodist revival. This fact was established using Luther Lee, Henry Adams, and H. V. Degen as representatives of how the holiness movement explained entire sanctification. These men were seen to be using the theological structure established by early English Methodism. Especially Joh Wesley and John Fletcher. Largely because of Wesley’s status as founder of the Methodist revival, tis formualtions were preferred over Fletcher. However, Fletcher’s theological influence on erly methodism should be overlooked. In addition, the mystical tradition had a major influence on this phase of the holiness revival, largely through the writings of Thomas Upham. Methodism was prepared for the influence by Wesley’s use of the mystical tradition, but the unique contribution of Upham should not be overlooked. Finally, the early holiness revival was influenced by the revivalist tradition in general, and Charles Finney in particular. In fact, the promotion of holiness in nineteenth century America cannot be understood apart from revivalism. These explicit influences on holiness revivalism were combined wit the implicit philosophical influence of Scottish Realism, through Upham and Asa Mahan. Though few holiness revivalists were consciously aware of this influence, the framework of much holiness theology in the century was dependent of Scottish Realism. 

The second phase of the development of the theology of the holiness movement was initiated by the Evangelical Revival of 1858. The primary impact of the revival was an emphasis on experiences of the Spirit, which led to a strong spirit of optimism, newness, and ecumenism. The experience of the revival led many to criticism the world around them. The secular world was seen as degeneration. More importantly to holiness revivalists, the Methodist Episcopal Church was degenerating. That denomination was becoming too formal, too wealthy, and too educated. Spiritual decline was indicated by lack of powerful preaching, lustful singing, and attendance at prayer meetings and class meetings. These concerns of the holiness revivalists led to several conflicts with the M. E. Church. One point of tension was how to spread holiness. The denomination believed holiness promotion should occur within the church. The revivalists believed non-denominational agencies were essential to the continued spread of holiness into other denominations. The M. E. Church believed special promotion was schismatic. Holiness revivalists believed special promotion was a sign that holiness was becoming the property of all denominations. These ecclesial controversies were compounded by theological disagreement. The question of when a believer should expect to be perfected was an important battlefield. The M. E. Church said entire sanctification was the result of a prolonged process of growth. The holiness revivalists were guided by an analogy with conversion. One should expect to be perfected in as short a time as one should expect to be converted. The only hindrance to perfection was the will, and emphasis that had its source from the framework provided by revivalism. Another theological disagreement was the controversy over testimonies. The M. E. Church was saying that testimony to entire sanctification should occur only where it would be received well. Nor should one emphasize the necessity of giving testimony, for it could lead to pride. The revivalists, on the other hand, believed that giving testimony to entire sanctification was necessary for maintaining this experience, while agreeing with the denomination that humility was important. As can be seen, the issue at each level of conflict between the M. E. Church and the holiness revivalists was centered on the revivalist experience.

The second phase was dominated by the above emphases and conflicts. Expressions used to explain what was happening in the revival were oriented to the work of the Holy Spirit and Pentecostal terminology. The traditional Methodist explanation of holiness, however, continued to be used. Yet, Phoebe Palmer’s altar terminology gained dominance as the primary framework for explaining entire sanctification. Despite some reservations expressed by various revivalists, palmer’s terminology was accepted. The primary reason for this development was the revivalist emphasis. The contrast between Wesley and Palmer may be seen at this point. Wesley usually limited his revivalist promotion to conversion, while he explained holiness in the context of the Societies he had formed. In this way, entire sanctification as a part of a process could be more easily seen. However, the holiness revivalists made entire sanctification the object of revivalist promotion. The moment of decision, and clear, simple steps as to how to make that decision, were necessary. Palmer’s altar terminology met this need in the best ay discovered to this time. Hence the emphasis on special means to promote holiness, the push for the attainment of entire sanctification at the beginning of Christ experience and the necessity of testifying to entire sanctification. The influence of revivalism clearly shaped the theological emphases of the holiness movement.

The third phase began in the Guide n 1878, with the publication of George Hughes articles on the Holy Spirit. In a sense, this phase was logically built from the previous one. While the second phase emphasized experiences of the Spirit in describing what was happening in the revival, it rarely brought that emphasis into its theological formulations. The third phase sought to achieve this objective. Terms like baptism, and fullness of the Spirit, as well as fire and power, became identified with entire sanctification. Holiness revivalists were aware they were doing something new. The emphasis on the Holy Spirit was considered unique to their age. This new emphasis led t to a typological interpretation of Acts as the needed biblical basis for their theologizing. however, they brought the experiences of the Spirit within traditional Methodist theology. Therefore, suggestions that there were three or more works of grace were rejected. Yet, when they incorporate the new emphasis on the Spirit and the revivalist promotion of holiness with the traditional Methodism, changes were likely to occur. The expectation for perfection to occur early in Christian life was part of the modification of Methodist theology. The technical definitions of holiness that arose out of holiness conventions were also part of this trend. Their emphasis was on elucidating the crisis experience of entire sanctification. 

In this phase there was an intensification of the previously noted concern for the degeneration of the world around them. Though the revivalists were convinced the world faced a crisis, they were more specifically concerned with developments within the M. E. Church and within the revival itself. The concern over the decline of the M. E. Church have been mentioned already. The specter of schism had to be faced directly, for many within the revival were calling for separation. The leaders of the revival went to extreme lengths to keep the revival within the established churches. These concerns were compounded by the Pentecostal emphasis on the holiness revivalists as the 20^th century drew near. Revivalist expectations were heightened. The signs of degeneration would be reThe signs of degeneration would be removed by the great, worldwide revival, thereby preparing the way for the coming of Jesus Christ. The Pentecostal revival was seen as the cure, or better, the radical surgery, needed to remove evil from the world, the M. E. Church, and the present revival itself. The power of revivalist expectations also led to a greater emphasis on the ecumenical nature of the revival. Holiness revivalists saw their task as bringing holiness to every denomination that would then form the basis for unity between churches.

The James Mudge controversy arose in the theological-ecclesial milieu described above. Mudge may be seen as an expression of fundamental Methodist hierarchical concerns over the holiness movement. The revivalists were seen as lacking the qualities of perfect love, having schismatic tendencies, being hyper-critical of the church, having a low view of justification, and leaving little room for growth. Theological conflict focused on the nature of sin. Mudge saw a distinction between sin as an act and depravity. The converted would not commit the former. The latter included both self-will and infirmities, thereby making it impossible for depravity to be removed. There was a de-emphasis on a second experience after conversion, while at the same time emphasizing the necessity for growth and maturity. The holiness revivalists, however, desired to maintain Wesley’s three-fold distinction of sin as act, sin as self-will, and infirmities. In this case, the first was removed in conversion, the second was removed in entire sanctification, while the third must be conquered every day. This conflict over the nature of sin was compounded by differences in biblical interpretation. As has already been shown, the revivalist wanted to place the experience of the Spirit theologically under entire sanctification and biblically within the Pentecost experience in Acts. Mudge claimed that this typological interpretation of Acts was wrong on biblical grounds. The experiences of the Spirit were said to refer to conversion rather than a crisis after conversion. More than any other incident, then, the Mudge controversy revealed some of the basic differences between Methodism and the holiness revivalists.

The author is aware that the conclusions expressed above need to be understood considering the limitations of the paper. The most important is that the evidence presented in this paper drives from the Guide. When describing holiness revivalists, or the holiness movement, therefore, the is basing his comments on what he found in that magazine. Though it is a major source for the holiness movement, it is far from the only one. To understand fully the theological shifts other sources would need to be investigated.

Other limitations focus on areas for further study. For example, the influence of mysticism through Upham, and of Scottish Realism through Upham and Mahan, has not been studied enough. This would lead to a better understanding of the nature of the conflicts between Methodism and the holiness revivalists. The Evangelical Revival of 1858 needs to be seen in its larger context before its specific influence on the holiness movement is studied. This would help to elucidate the significance of the emphasis on the Hly Spirit and Pentecostal terminology. In a sense, a history of the theologizing about the Holy Spirit in 19^th century America needs to be undertaken. Obviously, the larger context of revivalism needs to be understood far better than it is now. Methodist history needs to be seen as part of the immediate historical background of the revival. Finally, the secular history of the Unites States needs to be related far more directly to the shifts that occur within the holiness revival.

As can be seen from this paper, biblical, theological, philosophical, and historical issues are raised by the holiness movement of the 19^th century. Indeed, the holiness movement itself had varied expressions when it touched denominations outside of Methodism. True, a mainline holiness movement may be identifiable. But his should not blind the researcher to the variety that it contained within any revival, and which is manifest in the holiness revival. Though much has been accomplished in this paper, much more needs to be done.

            Later in the 1900s and again in the early 2000s, this conflict with Methodist leadership finds a reflection. The charge was made by Mudge and the Methodist leadership that the Holiness Movement as divisive. It had spawned several magazines, it had its own meetings, it printed its own literature, and it had its own speakers. Though the first-generation holiness leaders were faithful to the church, many newly converted people did not have the same ties. The Holiness Movement had gone beyond Methodism, spawning Keswick and Pentecostal movements as well as the more narrowly defined Holiness Movement. The new denominations that grew out of the Holiness Movement were only a matter of time.

            Many of the controversies at the turn of the century remain with us. 

• What is the place of the revivalist tradition within Methodism?
• How does Methodism apply the classical doctrine of Christian perfection considering the psychological emphasis on the wholistic nature of personality?
• How do we interpret the biblical data that emphasizes the necessity for holiness?
• From a biblical view, how is the Holy Spirit related to our understanding of holiness?
• How does a movement designed to effect change keep from defining the issues so clearly between themselves and the structure they hope to change so that division is the only alternative?

What is the relation of the language of the Spirit to the experience of entire sanctification? One can raise the question at both biblical historical levels. I will focus upon the historical question.

The beginning of the holiness revival was around 1839, with the publication of the first issue of the Guide to Holiness. Timothy Merritt, the first editor, emphasized the need for the special promotion of holiness and a strong adherence to early English Methodism, especially the theological formulations of John Wesley. The early development of the holiness revival was governed by these emphases. The call for holiness to become a specialty became the watchword of the revival. Combined with this was the belief that John Wesley had most clearly defined the theological and practical implications of biblical holiness. In addition, mysticism through Thomas Upham, Scottish realism through and Upham and Asa Mahan, revivalism through Charles Finney, and altar terminology through Phoebe Palmer, made ther impact on the early development of holiness thought.^[170] These factors provided the material out of which the holiness revival began to theologize.

The year 1858 marked a turning-point for the holiness revival. The great evangelical revival, that began in Canada, was spreading throughout America and the entire world. Along with this revival came an emphasis on describing what was happening in the revival by referring to the language of the Spirit. For example, H. V. Degen reviewed the book by Phoebe Palmer, Promise of the Father, which gave biblical support for women preachers by appealing to acts 2. Degen called the revival a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit and an expression of Pentecostal showers. As to the content of the book, he said that we are living in the latter part of the last days, when God pours out the Spirit not only on sons, but daughters also, permitting them to share in the gift of prophecy. The result of allowing women to preach? His answer was that we do not doubt that a Pentecostal flame would be kindled that would result in the salvation of tens of thousands. Their experience in the revival forced the members of the holiness movement to go to the only paradigm for revival they knew, that of Pentecost and the language of the Spirit found there. These references to the Spirit became the primary means of expressing what was occurring in the revival.

The original call to make the promotion of holiness a specialty implied that the churches were not fulfilling their commission in this area. For holiness revivalism, this criticism would be directed at the M. E. Church. The denomination was reproved for its formalism, lack of fervor, reduction of attendance at class meetings and prayer meetings, too much emphasis on education, and its movement from the rural and poor people to the urban and middle class. The thrust of the criticisms by the revivalists was that Methodism was in need of the same outpouring of the Spirit that they had received, which would then give the church the spiritual power necessary to fulfill its mission.

Special promotion was the source of great conflict between the M, E. Church and the leadership of the Holiness Movement. The revivalists wanted to make holiness the property of all denominations, thereby forcing revivalists to be ecumenical in relation to established denominations. They were convinced that the only way this would happen would be by creating new organizations that would not be tied to any denomination. Their vision was that this promotion would fulfill the vision of John Wesley. The revivalists were convinced that the message of holiness should not be confined to Methodism, but rather should be brought to the entire church. Denominational barriers and sectarianism were to crumble at the feet of the holiness message.

The ecumenical character of the holiness revival had the effect of a willingness to accept varied terminology for the one experience of entire sanctification. Classical Methodist terms like sanctification, perfect love, and perfection were widely in use. Other terms also became standard: fullness of God, compete in Christ, higher kife, and the rest of faith. The use of the term “second blessing” was usually discouraged, for it implied too much of a distinction between conversion and entire sanctification. The criticism that these terms were not scriptural was countered with the view that such a limitation was too confining. In the contest of an openness to new terminology, the use of expressions referring to the work of the Spirit can be readily understood. The holiness revival generated a dynamic into its adherents that allowed them to experiment freely in this area.

The ecumenism of the holiness revival was not the only source of conflict with the M. E. Church. One significant example was over how soon after conversion one should expect entire sanctification. For the revivalists the answer was determined by analogy with conversion. As soon as one could expect conversion, therefore, was as soon as one could expect entire sanctification. H. B. Beegle stated this view most clearly when he said that believers ought to obtain the blessing of perfect love in as short a space of time, as they expect penitents to obtain the blessing of pardon. As we will see, Methodism began to emphasize that entire sanctification could occur only after a long process of growth.

Before the 1870s, the holiness revivalists explained the theological content of entire sanctification either by classical Wesleyan terms or by the altar terminology of Phoebe Palmer, while the language of the Spirit a\was used to explain what was happening in the revival however, by January 1878 in the Guide George Hughes charged that the nature of the Holy Spirit had not been discussed enough in the Christian world. He could not have said this unless even he distinguished between revivalist expressions referring to the Spirit and a conscious theologizing about the Spirit. In the next eleven issues of the Guide Hughes proceeded to examine the nature and work of the Holy Spirit. For the rest of the century there were extensive discussions of spiritual gifts, healing, and especially the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The intensity with \which this project was carried out was exemplified by Hughes when he said that the Holy Spirit does not receive the honor to which the Spirit is justly entitled. We should think more about the names, character, and offices of the Spirit, so that the church may understand that this is the dispensation of the Holy Spirit and become mighty. The revivalists were conscious of departing from their Methodist tradition. The emphasis on the Holy Spirit was seen as the distinguishing mark of the revival and the peculiarity of the times.^[171]

A further development of the emphasis on the role of the Spirit occurred as the 20^th century drew near. The holiness revivalists had a steadily increasing expectation for a Pentecostal revival. By this was meant a world-wide revival that would remove evil and prepare the church as well for the coming of Christ. Many editorials from the Guide revealed this emphasis on Pentecost. Thus, they can write that the Jerusalem Pentecost is undoubtedly intended to be duplicated. Pentecost is the central, all comprehending thought of the New Testament dispensation. They could connect the arrival of the 20^th century with the expectation for a Pentecostal revival, viewing it as a time for the manifestation of the power of God as worthy of the period, worthy of th is high dispensation, to commemorate the outgoing of the illustrious and unparalleled nineteenth century. 

The commitment to early English Methodism was modified by the acceptance of the terminology that arose out of the evangelical revival. The experience of the holiness revival gradually led to a theologizing about the Spirit. Though some people in the revival went to three works of grace, the strong ties of the leadership of the holiness revival to Methodism led them to incorporate the language of the Spirit into their understanding of entire sanctification. The needed biblical base was discovered in a typological interpretation of Acts. These theological shifts were accompanied by fundamental ecclesial differences with Methodism. While the holiness revivalists saw non-denominational promotion of holiness as a positive sign, Methodist leadership saw it as schismatic. 

The James Mudge controversy arose within this setting. 

The third phase was characterized by a conscious development of a theology of the Holy Spirit, which led to a strong expectation for a Pentecostal revival before the return of Christ. Combined with these optimistic elements were more negative concerns for the state of the world, the fanaticism of some people in the revival, and a concern for the condition of the Methodist Episcopal Church. All of this made the ecumenical character of the revival even stronger than before. The earnestly expected Pentecostal revival would remove the negative forces against the revivalists and allow the spread of holiness. The effect of these elements on the interpretation of Wesley was to emphasize the crisis element in Wesley’s thought as a revivalist theme, rather than as part of the order of salvation. For Wesley, the latter meant entire sanctification was part of the ongoing process of salvation. For the holiness revivalists, it was a crisis experience that was intended to occur early in the Christian experience. The hardened definitions of holiness in the 1880’s made this fact clear. As the examination that follows will show, this complex of theological and cultural concerns gave birth to much controversy. One of those conflicts was the controversy surrounding James Mudge.

The present Christian Holiness Association represents the center of the revival.  This includes the OMS, Nazarene Church, Wesleyan, Free Methodist, Salvation Army, Evangelical Friends Alliance, Evangelical Church of North American, Brethren in Christ, Evangelical Christian Church, Evangelical Methodist Church, Missionary Church, and other smaller groups.  On the Calvinistic side were the Keswick and Deeper Life movements.  On the Arminian side are the Baptist and Pentecostal movements.  The latter have been expanded from their source in the holiness movement.

Another aspect of reform was the spread of holiness teachings.  This movement arose because of a desire to give Christian perfection at the center of Methodism.  It had become accepted in principle, but vaguely understood.  In addition, while any doctrine faces the tension of the gap between what is taught and what is practiced, this tension is heightened when the doctrine involved is something called "perfection."  It would appear that there was a decline of preaching on perfection in the 1800's.  This may have been because Wesley's primary tract on the subject was dropped from the discipline of the church.  Also, Methodism grew large enough that many laity no longer had a knowledge of the teaching.  There was also a lack of theological education in general.  The members of the holiness movement eventually became inflexible in their definition of holiness and became increasingly critical of Methodism.  Though at first desiring to reform the Methodist Church, the movement eventually spread beyond Methodism.  People by the end of the 1800's were much more ready to leave Methodism.  The denomination itself lost control of the situation, and it began to push these reformers out of the church.  Benjamin Roberts founded the Free Methodist Church in 1860.  The National Camp Meeting Association for Promotion of Holiness was formed in 1867 as a result of a revival begun in 1858.  The leader was John Inskip.  Phoebe Palmer, the female evangelist of the movement, was the most popular and influential leader of the holiness movement.  Her Tuesday Meeting for the Promotion of Holiness and her periodical, Guide to Holiness, spread her views far and wide.  Denomination officials viewed this with suspicion.  The insistence upon identifying Christian perfection as a "second blessing" and as a "baptism of the Spirit" led to doctrinal disputes with the hierarchy of the Methodist Church.  The controversy with James Mudge, a professor of theology who stressed the growth elements in sanctification, proved to be too much for the advocates for holiness.  Many left the church.

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Luther Lee, “Sanctification: What it is – and How it Differs from Justification and Regeneration,” Guide, III (September 1842), 65-66.

[2] Ibid., 67-71.

[3] Henry W. Adams, “Christian Holiness,” Guide, X (1846), 119-24. 

[4] Henry W. Adams, “Christian Holiness,” Guide, XI (1847), 49-54.

[5] Henry W. Adams, “Christian Holiness,” Guide, XI (1847) 97-101.

[6] Henry W. Adams, “Christian Holiness,” Guide, XI (1847), 125-9.

[7] “Minutes of the Convention,” Guide, III (September 1841), 70.

[8] “The Synod of New York and New Jersey, On the Subject of Christian Perfection,” Guide, III (December 1841), 148-9.

[9] Editorial, “Our Feast of Tabernacles,” guide XXIII (September 1853, 96.

[10] Editorial, “Regeneration and Entire Sanctification,” Guide, XXIII (December 1853), 184-88.

[11] E. M. B., “The Relation of Quietude and Energy,” Guide, XIV (1848), 110-11.

[12] See Dr. Alan Coppedge’s notes on Wesley’s view of sanctification, as well as Harold Lindstrom, Welsley and Sanctification, translated by H. S. Harvey (London: Epworth Press, 1946), p. 105-25. 

[13] John Wesley, A lain Account of Christian Perfection (Kansas City, Mo: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1966), 43-4.

[14] Ibid, 44-5.

[15] John Esley, “Christian Perfection,” Sermon xL The Sermons, (Salem, OH: Schmul Publishers, 1967) 397.

[16] John Fletcher, The Last Check to Antinomianism: A Polemical Essay on the Twin Doctrines of Christian Imperfections and a Death Purgatory (No title page), 158. 

[17] Ibid., 161.

[18] Ibid., 163.

[19] Ibid., 165.

[20] Ibid., 167.

[21] Ibid.,167-8.

[22] Ibid., 168.

[23] Howard Fenimore Shipps, The Revival of 1858 in Mid-America, NP, ND, 8.

[24] Guide XXV (Jan 1859), 31.

[25] Jesse Peck, “The Form of the Fourth in the Midst of the Fire,” Guide XXXV (February 1859), 33.

[26] Ibid., 34.

[27] Ibid., 34.

[28] Editorial, “The Revival,” Guide XXXVII (May 1860, 156.

[29] Amos Norton Craft, “Holiness a Milenial Theme,” Guide XLVII (April 1865), 80.

[30] E. R. Wells, “The Times,” Guide XXXVI (July 1859), 7-10.

[31] W. S. T., “A Few Kind and Candid Thoughts to Unbelievers in a Full, Present Salvation,” Guide, XXXV (May 1859), 132.

[32] D. Nash, “the Great Want of the Church,” Guide XLVI (September 1864), 50.

[33] M.D.W., “the Gift of Power Still Essential,” Guide LIII (May 1868), 147.

[34] M.D.W., “Gift of Power Still Essential,” Guide LIV (August 1868), 44.

[35] D. Nash, “The Revival the Church Needs,” Guide LXIV (November 1873), 145-6.

[36] Editorial, “Costly Churches, Guide LIII (April 1868), 123.

[37] “A Voice from Wesley,” Guide LXIV (Octobr 1873), 104.

[38] “E.E.R.,” “The Higher Christian Life,” Guide XXXVI (October 1859), 109.

[39] Editorial, “Holiness as a Specialty” Guide XXXVIII (December 1860), 184.

[40] Editorial, “Holiness as a Specialty,” Guide XXXVIII (December 1860, 184. 

[41] “News Along the Line,” Guide LVIII (December 1870), 185.

[42] Ibid., 185.

[43] G. H. Blakeslee, “Entire Sanctification, and Experience Distinct From Conversion,” Guide XXXVII (February 1860), 36-40.

[44] Whedon, “Wesley Upon Entire Sanctification,” Guide XXI (August 1861), 233-36.

[45] William Wesley Tothesch, “Is There a Necessity of a Distinct Work in the Soul After Conversion?” Guide LIII (January 1868), 25.

[46] William I. Gill, “Wesley’s Journal on Entire Sanctification,” Guide LVIII (September 18700), 79-81.

[47] John A. Wood, “Directions for Attainment of Perfect Love,” Guide XIV (January 1863), 19.

[48] H. B. Beegle, “An Important Question,” Guide LVII (June 1870), 176.

[49] H. B. Beegle, “An Important Question,” Guide LVIII (July 1870), 18-20.

[50] John A. Wood, Perfect Love (Chicago: the Christian Witness Co., 1910), 30-33.

[51] William I. Gill, “Wesley’s Journal on Enitre Sanctification,” Guide LVIII (December 1870), 166-69.

[52] W. S. T, “Entire Sanctification: To be Confessed,” Guide XXXV (June 1859), 175-8.

[53] “The Christian’s Privilege,” Guide XIII (July 1862, 226.

[54] J. A. Wood, “Mr. Wesley on Profession of Holiness,” Guide XIV (January 1863), 23.

[55] J. A. Wood, “The Profession of Perfect Love,” Guide XIV (February 1863), 43-7.

[56] William I. Gill, “John Wesley’s Profession of Sanctification,” Guide (July 1870), 9-11.

[57] William I. Gill, “Wesley’s Journal on Entire Sanctification,” Guide LVII (October 1870), 103-06.

[58] A Southerner, “Holiness and Emancipation,” Guide XII (August 1861), 247-8.

[59] “A Letter from Phoebe Palmer,” Guide xIV (June 1863), 131.

[60] “John Wesley on Dress,” Guide XV (January 1864), 11).

[61] “A Voice from Wesley,” Guide LXIV (October 1873), 104.

[62] H. W. Beecher, “Methodist Singing,” Guide LXIV (February 1874), 63.

[63] A. A. Phelps, “Evidences of the Sanctified Stte,” Guide XXXVII (March 1860), 76.

[64] J. E. Joyner, “Nature and Extent of Sanctification,” Guide XXXVI (August 1859), 44-5.

[65] Phoebe Palmer, “Entire Sanctification: How Received – How Retained,” Guide LIV (December 1869), 170.

[66] Phoebe Palmer, the Way of Holiness (New York: Printed for the Author, 1852), 63.

[67] Phoebe Palmer, “Entire Sanctification: How Received-How Retained,” Guide LIV (December 1869, 170.

[68] Phoebe Palmer, Present to my Christian Friend (New York: Foster and Palmer, 1852), 38. Phoebe Palmer, The Way of Holiness, 30-32, 62.

[69] Phoebe Palmer, Faith and its Effects (London: Alexander Heylin, n.d.), 4.

[70] “Letter from Mrs. Palmer,” Guide XXXV (March 2859), 72-3. “The Tuesday Meeting,” Guide LIII (June 1868), 191. “National Camp Meeting,” Guide LIV (July 1868), 26-8. “News Along the Line,” Guide LVIII (December 1870), 185. “Letter From Mrs. Palmer,” Guide XXXV (March 1859), 72. “the Tuesday Meeting,” Guide LXIII (February 1873), 64.

[71] Editorial, “Pious Novelists and Pious Amusements,” Guide LIII (January 1868), 28-30.

[72] Editorial, “Costly Churches,” Guide LIII (April 1868), 123.

[73] Phoebe Palmer, “Holiness,” Guide LXIV (August 1873), 42-3.

[74] “Letter From Mrs. Palmer,” Guide XIV (June 1863), 131.

[75] Charles Edwin Jones, Perfectionist Persuasion (Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Prress, 1974), 5. 

[76] Pioneer Experiences: or, The Gift of Power Received by Faith, Phoebe Palmer, ed. Introduction by Hishop Janes. (New York: W. C. Palmer, Jr. 1868), 7.

[77] Henry Belden, “Frequent Baptisms of the Holy Ghost,” Guide LXV (July 1874), 3-5.

[78] Henry Belden, “Frequent Baptisms of the Holy Ghost,” Christian Witness and Advocate of Bible Holiness, XXV (September 26, 1895), 2. Hereafter this paper will be called Christian Witness.

[79] George Hughes, “the Glorious Dispensation fo the Spirit,” Guide LXXI (January 1878), 1.

[80] George Hughes, “the Glorious Dispensation of the Spirit,” Guide LXXII (December 1878), 161-65.

[81] Editorial, “What we Believe and Teach,” Guide, LXXVI (August 1880), 52.

[82] F. G. Hubbard, “Sermon: Spiritual Gifts,” Guide, LXIx (January 1882, 4-7.

[83] Mrs. Dr. Mahan, “Holiness and Healing,” Guide, LXX (October 1882), 115.

[84] Ibid, 116.

[85] W. H. Poole, “the Gift of the Holy Ghost,” Guide, LXIX (February 11882), 38-39.

[86] James Harris, “the Holy Spirit,” Guide, LXXXII (November 1888), 134-35.

[87] Editorial, “Honor the Holy Ghost,” Guide, LXXVIII (August 1886), 58.

[88] Editorial, “Holiness Unity,” Guide, LXXII (December 1900), 184-5.

[89] Gideon Draper, “Pentecost and Evangelization,” Guide LXXXVIII (January 1888), 8-9.

[90] Editorial, “Pentecost Expected,” Guide LXXXIV (July 1889), 25.

[91] Editorial, “Pentecost Terminology,” Guide LXVIII (February 1898), 49.

[92] Editorial, “The Great Century Pentecost,” Guide, LXX (April 1899), 112.

[93] Supplement: The New Century Union Forward Movement of the Guide to Holiness, LXXII (1900), 163.

[94] I. E. Page, “The Work in Great Britain: Has the Great Revival Begun?” Guide, LXXV (July 1901), 11.

[95] Editorial, “A Bright Transition,” Guide, LXXXIII (January 1889), 25.

[96] Editorial, “Reigning with Christ,” Guide, LXXXIII (January 1889), 25.

[97] “Holiness Convention – Round Lake,” Guide, LXX (August 1882), 59.

[98] Editorial, “The Prophetic Conference,” Guide, LXXII (December 1878), 180-81.

[99] Joseph H. Smith, “A Divine Visitation,” Guide, LXV (December 1896), 200-02.

[100] Editorial, “The Trumpet Call,” Guide, LXV (December 1896), 232.

[101] “Holiness Convention – Round Lake,” 59.

[102] Editorial, “Led by the Spirit,” Guide, LXVIII (November 1886), 152.

[103] J. R. Jacques, “Open Letter to Young Pastors on Holiness and the Christian Pastorate,” Guide, LXXXIV (September 1889), 68-70.

[104] Dougan Clark, “The Reckoning of Faith,” Guide, LXXXIV (October 1889), 98-100.

[105] Editorial, “Pentecostal Terminology,” Guide, LXVIII (February 1898), 49.

[106] Editorial, “Signs of the Times,” Guide, LXXV (January 1885), 26.

[107] Daniel Steele, “The Holy Spirit the Conservator of Orthodoxy,” Guide LXXV (February and March 1885), 34-37, 66-72.

[108] Editorial, “What is the Matter?” Guide LXXXIV (December 1889), 185.

[109] “Address to Our Patrons, Guide, LXXIV (December 1889), 162.

[110] Editorial, “Large Margins,” Guide, LXXI (June 1878), 175.

[111] Editorial, “What is the Trouble?” Guide, LXXII (April 1900), 116.

[112] Editorial, “Grateful Memories,” Guide, LXXXII (December 1888), 184.

[113] Editorial, “What God Hath Wrought,” Guide LXXI (March 1878), 86.

[114] “Holiness Convention – Round Lake,” Guide LXX (August 1882), 59.

[115] Editorial, “General Assembly” Guide LXXVI (July 1885), 28.

[116] M. Annesly, “The Second Blessing, or Sanctification,” Guide LXXI (February 1878), 46.

[117] G. Burrows, “A Presbyterian Testimony,” Guide LXIX (January 1882), 15.

[118] M. Burns, “The Profession of Holiness,” Guide LXIX (February 1882), 46-7.

[119] Editorial, “Holiness General Assembly,” Guide LXXV (March 1885), 89.

[120] Editorial, “General Holiness Assembly,” Guide LXXV (April 1885), 154.

[121] Editorial, “Christian Unity,” Guide LXXVI (December1880), 178.

[122] “Holiness Convention – Round Lake,” Guide LXXX (August 1882), 59.

[123] Editorial, “The General assembly,” Guide LXXVI (July 1885), 28.

[124] Ibid, 26.

[125] Editorial, “A Talk with our Subscribers,” Guide LXXVI (November 1885), 153.

[126] Editorial, “Holy Unity,” Guide LXXVII (January 1886), 25.

[127] John Summerfield, “Sermon; Christian Perfection,” Guide LXIX (April 1882), 102-5.

[128] “Holiness Convention – Round Lake,” Guide LXX (August 1882), 59.

[129] Editorial, “The General assembly,” Guide LXXVI (July 1885), 27.

[130] Editorial, “An Error Corrected,” Guide LXXXI (April 1888), 120.

[131] Editorial, “Two Christian Verities,” Guide LXXXIV (August 1889), 57.

[132] Editorial, “The Advance of the Church,” Guide LXXI (February 1878), 53-4.

[133] Editorial, “The General Assembly,” Guide LXXVI (July 1885), 27.

[134] Editorial, “An Error Corrected,” Guide LXXXI (March 1888), 88.

[135] Editorial, “What God Hath wrought,” Guide LXXI (March 1878), 84-6.

[136] A part of my paper presented to Melvin E. Dieter in 1979 contained a discussion of theMudge controversy. The following is from a paper I wrote in hopes for publication in the Good News Magazine in 1981. I refer to Lewis R. Dunn, A Manual of Holiness and Review of Dr. James B. Mudge, Cincinnati: Jennings and Rye, 1895; Asbury Lowrey, Methodist Review, LXXVII (Nov 1895), p. 956; John A. Wood, Christian Witness, October 3, 1895-Novemver 7, 1895; Harold Lindstrom, Wesley and Sanctification, translated by H. S. Harvey, London: Epworth Press, 1946, p. 105-125. I also wrote a paper on August 23, 1979 that I have incorporated into this material. 

[137] James Mudge, Growth in Holiness Toward Perfection, or Progressive Sanctificatiion (New York: Hunt & Easton, 1895), 263-75.

[138] Ibid., 275-80.

[139] J. C. Granberry, “Dr. Mudge on Growth in Holiness,” Methodist Review, XLIII (March-April 1896), 198.

[140] The Methodist Review, LXXVII (July 1895), 663-65.

[141] John Galbraith, “Growth in Holiness,” Zion’s Herald, LXXIII (July 3, 1895), 419.

[142] Ottis Cole, “Mudge’s Growth in Holiness,” Zion’s Herald LXXIII (July 3, 1895), 419.

[143] Editorial, “Change of Name Does alter the Fact,” Christian Witness XXV (August 1, 1895), 1. See also Editorial, “Alas Poor Paul,” Christian Witness, XXV (October 3, 1895), 1; Editorial, “Is Deprivity Unclean?” Christian Witness, XXV (November 7, 1895), 1.

[144] Asbury Lowrey, “Dr. Mudge and His Book,” Methodist Review, LXXVII (November 1895), 956.

[145] John A. Wood, “Growth in Holiness, by Rev. James Mudge, D. D.,” Christian Witness XXV (October 3, 1895), 2.

[146] Lewis R. Dunn, A Manual of Holiness and Review of Dr. James B. Mudge (Cincinnati: Jennings and Rye, 1895), 31-33.

[147] Cole, 418.

[148] Editorial, “Current Misrepresentations,” Christian Witness, XXV (October 3, 1895), 1.

[149] Dunn, 122.

[150] Lowrey, 957.

[151] John Wood, “Growth in Holiness by Rev. James Mudge, D. D.,” Christian Witness, XXV (October 31, 1895), 2.

[152] Dunn, 58.

[153] John A. Wood, “Growth in Holiness by Rev. James Mudge, D. D., Christian Witness XXV (November 7, 1895), 2.

[154] Dunn, 92.

[155] John A. Wood, “Growth in Holiness by Rev. James Mudge, D. D., Christian Witness XXV (November 7, 1895), 2.

[156] Dunn, 121.

[157] John A. Wood, “Growth in Holiness by Rev. James Mudge, D. D., Christian Witness XXV (November 7, 1895), 2.

[158] Dunne, 125.

[159] Cole, 419.

[160] C. Munger, “A Brick From the New Babel,” Christian Witness XXV (August 15, 1893), 3.

[161] John A. Wood, “Growth in Holiness by Rev. James Mudge, D. D., Christian Witness XXV (November 7, 1895), 2.

[162] Lowrey, 954.

[163] Dunn, 7.

[164] John Parker, “Great Truths, Great Errors in Two Recent Books,” Christian Witness XXV (November 14, 1895), 2.

[165] Dunn, 48.

[166] Parker, 2-3.

[167] Munger, 3.

[168] Munger, 3.

[169] John A. Wood, “Growth in Holiness, by Rev. James Mudge, D. D.,” Christian Witness XXV (Octobrer 31, 1895), 2.

[170] Melvin E. Dieter, Revivalism and Holiness, dissertation presented to Temple University, November 1, 1972

[171] Guide to Holiness, Editorial, LXXVIII, August 1886, 58 and LXXII, December 1900 184-5.