By Harry Edward Jessop

Chapter 13

ERRONEOUS VIEWS

(1) The Simultaneous Theory

(2) The Development Theory

(3) The Death and Post-Mortem Theories

(4) The "Holy in Christ" Theory

(5) The "Signs" Theory

(1) The Simultaneous Theory -- The doctrine of entire sanctification has not been without its contending theories. We shall name five, and deal with them in order. By the simultaneous theory we mean that teaching which opposes Second Blessing truth by declaring, "We get it all at once."

1. The theory stated. "All true believers are not only saved from the dominion of sin but from the being of inward as well as outward sin, so that it no longer remains in them" (Count Zinzendorf, quoted by Rev. John Wesley in his sermon on 'Sin in Believers'). The moment a believer is justified, he is sanctified wholly. Entire sanctification and justification are in the same instant, and neither is increased nor diminished. "As soon as any one is justified, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit dwell in his heart; and in that moment his heart is as pure as it ever will be" (Count Zinzendorf, quoted by Rev. John Wesley, Wesley's Works). Count Zinzendorf, of the Moravian Church, seems to have been the father of this teaching.

2. The theory tested.

(a) It is contrary to the plain teaching of the Word of God. In the Scriptures two distinct works of grace are quite differently represented (pages 24, 34, 35). Various groups and individuals are represented as needing and receiving a Second Work of grace. The disciples at Jerusalem (John 17:16, 17; Acts 1:4; 2:4). The converts at Samaria (Acts 8:5-17). Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:1-20). The household of Cornelius (Acts 10; 15:8,9). The church at Corinth (1 Cor. 3:1-4; 2 Cor. 13:7-11). The church at Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1; 4:3-8; 5:23,24). The church at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-5; Eph. 1:13)

(b) It is contrary to the received teaching of the church Mr. Wesley said: "The doctrine that there is no sin in believers is quite new in the church of Christ. It was never heard of for seventeen hundred years; never till it was discovered by Count Zinzendorf. I do not remember to have seen the least mention of it, either in any ancient or modern writer; unless perhaps in some of the wild, ranting Antinomians. ... I cannot, therefore, by any means receive this assertion, that there is no sin in a believer from the moment he is justified; first, because it is contrary to the whole tenor of Scriptures; secondly, because it is contrary to the experience of the children of God; thirdly, because it is absolutely new, never heard of in the world till yesterday; and lastly, because it is naturally attended with the most fatal consequences, not only grieving those whom God hath not grieved, but perhaps dragging them into everlasting perdition" (Sermon on "Sin in Believers").

Rev. William Bramwell: "An idea is going forth, that 'when we are justified we are entirely sanctified,' and 'to feel the evil nature after justification is to lose pardon'. ... You may depend upon it, this is the devil's great gun. We shall have much trouble with this and I am afraid we cannot suppress it" (Letter to a friend).

Rev. J. A. Wood: "The theory that the soul is entirely sanctified at regeneration involves the whole subject of Christian sanctification in inextricable difficulties. The following are some of them: If sanctification is complete at justification, then every man who enjoys religion is entirely sanctified. If sanctification is complete at conversion, then every Christian, to be truthful, should profess entire sanctification. If all who are converted are entirely sanctified, then all the directions in the Word of God to seek holiness, sanctification, or perfect love, are given exclusively to sinners. If sanctification is complete at justification, then converts are not to seek for any further cleansing. If sanctification is complete at justification, then ministers have no right to urge Christians to 'go on unto perfection,' or to 'cleanse themselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. '

"If justification and entire sanctification are inseparable, then all who feel the fruits of the flesh are in a state of condemnation. If a state of entire sanctification is consistent with the struggles; of pride, unbelief, impatience, jealousy, and anger (the common experience of newly justified believers) , must we not infer that these must go with us to heaven? As it must be admitted that entire sanctification fits the soul for heaven. If sanctification is complete at conversion, then every man who is not entirely sanctified is a child of the devil.

"If entire sanctification is complete at justification, it is so in opposition to the experience of the whole church of God; and, with slight exceptions, the whole Christian world has been seriously mistaken during two thousand years. If all that are regenerate are wholly sanctified, then whoever is convicted for full salvation, and groaning after it, is at once to infer that he was never converted, or that he is now backslidden. Thus would this heresy, if received, perplex and harass with perpetual difficulties and discouragements the very members of the church who are most deeply concerned to possess all the mind that was in Christ. A system involving such difficulties cannot be received as the truth of God, and should be regarded as anti-scriptural, and avoided as dangerous heresy" (Perfect Love, pp. 27, 28).

Rev. C. W. Ruth: "That justification and sanctification are experienced simultaneously; that whoever is justified is also sanctified. Those holding this theory may be heard to say they 'got all when they were converted.' But this theory is contrary to Scripture and to universal experience. Every command, exhortation, prayer, and promise in the Bible touching the subject of sanctification is for Christians -- never for sinners. If Christians are sanctified when justified, why should sanctification be subsequently enjoined upon them? . .."Who ever heard of a minister inviting a sinner to seek sanctification?" (Entire Sanctification a Second Blessing, p. 21).

(c) It is contrary to the general experience of the people of God.

Rev. C. W. Ruth: "Not only is this theory contrary to all Scripture, but contrary to all human experience. Every truly converted soul has felt the motions and stirrings of carnality in his heart, subsequent to pardon, manifesting itself in fear, anger, unbelief, pride, self-will, despondency, etc. We venture to assert that no young convert has ever gone six months from the place of his conversion without finding some of these things in his heart, which is evidence that the roots of carnality were still within. Again, no young convert has ever thought of testifying to sanctification as an experience unless in a second blessing meeting" (Entire Sanctification a Second Blessing, p. 22). (See testimonies in the closing chapter. )

(2) The Development Theory -- By the development theory we mean that teaching which opposes Second Blessing truth by declaring, "We grow into it." The necessity for and possibility of growth in grace has already been shown (pages 69-73). There can be no successful Christian experience without a continued development to the last day, of our earthly pilgrimage. No authenticated teacher of Scriptural holiness will question this, yet all will unite in declaring that growth has no sanctifying power. It is a trite but true saying, "We grow in, not into holiness of heart." Yet how persistently and how glibly this theory is propounded; clearly without an effort to grasp its implications and honestly think it through. When honestly faced, three great factors will be found to be distinctly against it.

(1) The fact of time. Just how long must we grow ere sin really dies: Men "grow" for years, but no matter how long the growth process may be, they become no less conscious of the fact of indwelling sin. But I want purity now. I may die at any moment. I cannot wait to "grow," even if I knew how much time it would require. Surely God must have a quicker method.

(2) The fact of nature. Just what will grow? And what will the growth accomplish? Growth is simply the development and expansion of what already exists. Whoever heard of the development of roses to kill weeds? Whoever even suggested a fattening of the patient to destroy a malignant cancer? Even so, "Old Man" will never grow himself "dead. "He must definitely destroyed.

(3) The fact of experience. The "growth theory" has no witnesses. Many will say, "I am growing" and "with all my failures I am better than I used to be" but none will dare to say, "Along the growth line, I have arrived." The most that the growth theory can offer is a protracted hope which never materializes.

Rev. John Wesley: "Inquiring how it was in all these parts we had so few witnesses to full salvation, I constantly received one and the same answer: 'We see now we sought it by our works; we thought it was to come gradually; we never expected it to come in a moment, by simple faith, in the very same manner as we received justification.' What wonder is it, then, that you have been fighting all these years as one that beateth the air?" (Wesley's Works). "You may obtain a growing victory over sin from the moment you are justified, but this is not enough. The body of sin, the carnal mind, must be destroyed . ... and this is done in a moment. To talk of this work as being gradual would be nonsense, as much as if we talked of gradual justification." (Journal of H. A. Rogers)

Dr. William Jones: "Another popular error entertained by many prominent scholars of this age is the notion that this state of entire purity is attained by growth. All growth is accretion. In all the phenomena of growth the vital forces proceed according to the general law of appropriation. All cleansing is by elimination -- by removal. The processes and purposes of growth are entirely different from the processes and purposes of cleansing. Growth is for the enlargement of the organism, for maturity and fruitage. Christian growth is for character-building, for usefulness in the Master's vineyard-growth is a complex process, and involves the obedience and co-operation of a responsible being; it requires time in which the active forces may produce their desired result. Cleansing is a vital part of man's salvation; and salvation, in all its stages, is God's own personal work and is done at once. Neither time nor growth can in any sense enter as factors into man's salvation. But growth is not conceivable without time, though time is never a worker" (Sermon, Personal Fellowship and Divine Cleansing," in The Double Cure, pp. 41, 42).

Dr. Asbury Lowery: "Some will have it that growth is equivalent to getting sanctified. Not so . .. growth implants no new quality in growing matter. It only develops the qualities belonging to its substance. ... There may be better or worse specimens, but no difference in properties. On the other hand, saving grace produces a new creature. 'Old things pass away, and, behold, all things become new.' Note also, growth does not cure disease in animals, nor remove rottenness from vegetables. How often do we see decay and growth going on in the same tree. Wherever there is a bruised spot, or dead bit of integument, growth can never overcome it, nor put the smallest measure of life into it. The same is true of animal substance. Growth and disease progress side by side, with no counteraction of one by the other. By parity of reasoning it is impossible for the process of growth in grace to work corruption out of the soul, or infuse a new element of life into it. It is contrary to the law of growth to change anything. ... Hence there can be no such thing as growth into holiness, for that would imply a change of kind which is contradicted and rendered impossible by the immutable law of growth" (Possibilities of Grace, pp. 231-233).

Dr. Daniel Steele: Growth in grace, while accompanied by increasing power to abstain from actual sin, has no power to annihilate the spirit of sin, commonly called original sin. The revelation of its indwelling is more and more perfect and appalling as we advance from conversion" (Love Enthroned, p. 104).

Dr. F. G. Hibbard: "It has long appeared to us that many who are seeking after entire holiness mistake the duty of a gradual growth in grace, and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, for a gradual growing out of sin. They seem to think that the two mutually involve each other, and that as they must always grow up into Christ in all things, so they must by degrees grow out of the bondage, guilt, and pollution of sin.". . . Now to all such we would say one word of admonition -there is no gradual growing out of sin. All that partakes of the proper nature of sin in you must be forgiven and washed away through faith in the blood of the Lamb. When this is done, it is an instantaneous work." ... Sin is not a thing to be grown out of, but a thing to be forgiven and to be cleansed away . . . In this view of perfection (the improvement and maturity of the graces of the Spirit) there are degrees and progressive stages; but in the work of simply cleansing from all sin, both 'of flesh and spirit,' inbred and overt sin, there are no degrees, no progressive stages, but the work is complete at the first, and instantaneous as to time, performed by the Holy Ghost just at the moment when the burdened soul has faith to be made every whit whole" (N. C. Advocate).

Rev. J. A. Wood has the following: "Can a state of entire sanctification be secured by ordinary growth in grace? "It cannot, for the following reasons: "Growth in grace is neither a destroying, nor a washing, nor a cleansing, nor a crucifying process. Entire sanctification is a death, a washing, a purification. 'The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.'

"Growth in grace has respect to addition, to enlargement and development, and belongs entirely to the positive in Christian life -- the graces of the Spirit. Growth is an increase or development of some living force: not a destroyer nor transformer of any living force. The idea of entire sanctification is that of purification, i. e. , the removal of an impurity or defilement. One is a destruction; the other is an enlargement.

"Growth in grace is a natural process, involving culture and discipline, and appertains to spiritual life. Sanctification is a supernatural and divine work wrought in the soul. Growth, the natural, gradual process of development, should not be mixed with the instantaneous, supernatural work of purgation and purification.

"In growth in grace, the soul is active and cooperative. Entire sanctification is something experienced, and not something done. The soul is passive, is the subject and not the agent of the cleansing, the same as it was in regeneration. Before and after both regeneration and entire sanctification the soul is active and co-operative.

"Growth never changes the nature of anything; hence a believer cannot grow pure, for the same reason that a sinner cannot grow into a saint -- growth not changing the nature of things. A pure nature may grow, and an impure one may grow, and mere growth does not change the one or the other.

"Growth and development have no fixed relations to purity in any way. They have respect to size, or enlargement, and not to quality or purity; and hence, all changes by growth, or gradual processes, are in size or quantity, and not in kind or quality. Purity or holiness has respect to quality and not to quantity.

"Growth in grace is the same after entire sanctification as before. If growth in grace is a cleansing process, and is growth in purity, it must follow that when the soul is entirely sanctified there can be no further growth, since what is wholly pure can never become more pure" (Perfect Love, pp. 80, 81).

Dr. Samuel Chadwick: "Another mistake made by earnest Christians about holiness is that it comes by gradual growth in grace and a steady progress of spiritual discipline. They are always growing toward it, but they never get into it, always struggling and striving to attain but never entering into possession. The positive expectation is always seen to be afar off, and they die without having possessed. The hopeful future never becomes the positive now. The time never comes that calls for a definite step and a positive act of faith.

"But holiness does not by growth, neither is it identified by growth. Growth is a process of life, holiness is the gift of abundant life. Growth is the result of health; holiness is health. Holiness implies a crisis, a new experience, a transformed life. It is not an achievement nor an attainment, but a gift of grace in the Holy Ghost" (Way to Pentecost, pp. 86-87). There is no sin-destroying energy in growth.

(3) The Death and Post-Mortem -- Theories By death and post-mortem theories we mean that teaching which opposes Second Blessing truth by declaring, "It is not possible in this life." The two outstanding theories are: The Protestant Theory of sin's destruction by the fact of death; and the Romish Theory of sin's destruction in the purgatorial flame.

(1) Sanctification by the fact of death. According to this teaching, death is man's sanctifier, or at least it is only in the atmosphere of death's presence that this sin-destroying work can be done. Here is an old-time relic of that Gnostic idea which saw in the body the seat of sin, and which could suggest no way of deliverance from sin, but the severance of the spirit from the body. The only remedy was death. It is this error which John attacks in his first epistle. The thought of death being a deliverer is repulsive. Death is not a friend, but an enemy, an intruder; a repellent monster trampling down the choicest blooms in this fair universe of God.

Two Scripture passages will help us here: Rom. 5:12, 17:1 Cor. 15:26, 56. Note these expressions: "Sin entered into the world, and death by sin." "By one man's offence death reigned.

..... The last enemy . .. is death." "The sting of death is sin." Viewed in the light of this Sanctification-at-death Theory, these passages become illuminating. Death is seen to owe its very existence to the fact of sin. Death is seen to owe its power to reign to the fact of sin. Death's only sting is seen to be the fact of sin. Death is seen as man's enemy to the very last. We wonder how much help grace needs from death in the work of destroying sin?

Rev. John Wesley: "The whole comes to one point. Is there, or is there not, any instantaneous sanctification between justification and death? I say yes!" (Letter to Charles Wesley, 1767. )

Rev. J. A. Wood,: "Is not death a sanctifier? "It would seem that many believe so. This may not be said in words, but actions speak louder than words. The greater part of believers defer their sanctification until death, while death itself has no more to do with the believer's sanctification than with his justification.

"The Bible nowhere states or intimates that death sanctifies the soul. It nowhere exhorts Christians to rely upon death for their sanctification. Christ and the apostles placed no reliance upon death for that purpose.

"While the sacred writers speak often of the means, the agencies, and the time of sanctification, they never name death as its means, its agent, or its time.

"If death sanctifies the soul. then it, at least, is partially our Savior; and thus the effect of sin (for 'death is by sin') becomes the means of finally destroying it; that is, the effect of a cause can react upon its cause, and destroy it.

"Death, in its very nature and circumstances, is entirely unpropitious for the work of sanctification. If sanctification, as the Bible teaches, involves human agency, the free, intelligent action of the mind, 'sanctified by faith,' 'through the truth,' death is no process of cleansing the soul." If death sanctifies the soul, then the work is removed from the ground of moral agency, and we have no responsibility in the matter. This would nullify all the precepts requiring our agency to obtain personal holiness. That we have a personal responsibility in our sanctification is evident.

"In so far as we can see, there is not a shadow of evidence that dissolving the connection between the soul and body will produce any effect upon the character or moral condition of the soul. The change produced by death is in our physical state and mode of being, and a mere physical change of state cannot relieve the soul of its pride, unbelief, selfishness, and corrupt lusts. Change of character is God's work, and is by grace, through faith, by moral means.

"Many appear to believe the old pagan dogma that the body is the seat of sin, and that depravity pertains only to the body, and that when the body dies, as the soul leaves the body, it will be free from depravity. That the body is degenerated, and possessed of deranged appetites and propensities, making it 'an instrument of unrighteousness " ' is admitted; but Christian sanctification has less regard to the body than to the soul, which is the seat of inbred sin. The carnal mind, or selfishness, pride, anger, covetousness, impatience, hatred, and all filthiness of the spirit, belong to the soul and not to the body" (Perfect Love, pp. 177, 178).

2. The theory of sin's destruction by the fires of purgatory. This postmortem theory has held multitudes in bondage, and has been the instrument for bringing much wealth into the coffers of the church. Only fire can deal with the nature of sin, but God's Word reveals a divine fire, to be applied here and now. (See Matt. 3:11; Heb. 12:29)

(4) The Holy in Christ Theory -- By the "Holy in Christ" Theory we mean that teaching which trims the corners of radical, full salvation truth by such sophistries as, "It is not what I am myself; it is what I am in Christ." "In Christ." Here we have one of the great Pauline expressions which has become basic to evangelical doctrine, and to many it will seem strange that we should object to it here. It will soon be seen, however, how possible it is to twist a glorious Bible truth into a dangerous error, and thereby be deceived.

Rev. C. W. Ruth calls it: "The Calvinistic, Keswickian, Antinomian theory of repression and imputed holiness, as opposed to the Wesleyan theory of eradication of inbred sin and imparted righteousness" (Entire Sanctification a Second Blessing, p. 25). The difficulty here confronted is the almost inconceivable position of a limitation of the Atonement by an exaltation of Christ. The expressions used by these brethren are often so ambiguous that the unwary are beguiled, and are apt to conclude that this holiness controversy is "merely a matter of terms" and that those who insist on a more drastic phraseology are only troublers in Israel who make "much ado about nothing. "

Almost half a century ago Dr. William Jones rang out the warning in the National Camp Meeting: "There is a subtle and dangerous heresy vigorously propagated at the present time, which affirms that the sinful nature of man cannot be extirpated in this life." Those who entertain this doctrine affirm that the utmost the Holy Ghost can do for the soul is to repress hereditary depravity. They affirm that the Adamic nature cannot be crucified. ... There is an unlimited difference between the terms 'repression' and 'destruction.' . . . The conception of holiness by repression is contrary both to human experience and to the Bible, and is antagonistic to the fundamental principles of philosophy. Holiness in man is the same in kind as holiness in God. Therefore as God is essentially holy, saved manhood must be essentially pure. .. He is nowhere styled as the divine represser. His name is called Jesus because He saves His people from their sins" (The Double Cure, p. 36,37).

Since that day, this teaching has shown amazing development, and in dealing with it we must remember that among those who endorse it are many wonderful children of God. What they have is the best they know. We must keep in mind, therefore, that in dealing with the doctrine we do not attack the integrity of those who hold it.

1. The truth. There is so much about this teaching that is good that it is not easy for the uninstructed to detect the error.

a. Much is made of the person and passion of the Lord Jesus. They faithfully proclaim His deity, His death, and His high priestly intercession.

b. Essential emphasis is placed on the lost condition of the human race. Fallen, guilty and undone, the Calvary Atonement of the Son of God is declared to be the world's only hope.

c. Much is said about holiness, with the insistence that without it no man shall see the Lord. That holiness has Christ as its source and its center, and is ours only as we are in Him. Thus far there is no difficulty. To such teaching as this not even the most fastidious could object.

2. The error. Now comes the error, which may be stated as follows: Those abiding in Christ, and thereby partaking of His holiness, have, it is declared, two distinctly different natures which remain with them until the hour of death:

a. The divine life, imparted at regeneration, which cannot commit sin.

b. "The flesh," i. e. , the self life, our heritage from Adam, which is the seat of sin. Concerning this Adamic heritage three things are taught:

(1) It is the believer's constant humiliation. Like an incubus it holds the holiest soul, and from it there is no release. From those who hold this form of teaching, expressions like the following are frequently heard: "This constant need of a deeper death to self." "The power of corruption within every man, which to his last hour of life upon earth must defile his best deeds and give to his holiest efforts the nature of sin."

(2) In the believer it registers no condemnation. In himself is corruption but the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin, and by a divine imputation the merits of Christ are counted to him for righteousness.

(3) By the believer it involves continual suppression. The sinful nature must be checked, suppressed, subdued, but until this mortal put on immortality, it can never die. There is no real deliverance in this theory. It lacks the essentials of Bible salvation.

(5) The Signs Theory -- By the "Signs" Theory we mean that teaching which depreciates the faith position, insisting that the seeker must look for outward manifestation, generally an utterance in an unknown tongue. Within recent years those sections of the Christian church which stood for the deeper experiences of grace have been torn with contention in controversy over that strange spiritual phenomenon. The battle has been fierce, both sides having their champions, and it would seem that at times neither side has distinguished itself by the manifestation of a superabundance of charity. The question calls for a frank discussion, based on open-minded inquiry into Scripture and history. This we shall endeavor to present in the section before us.

1. The New Testament records a spiritual phenomenon which has become known within the church as "the gift of tongues." This manifestation frequently accompanied the reception of the Holy Spirit. We say "frequently" because this was not always the case, neither was this manifestation always of "tongues" alone. The manifestations accompanying the reception of the Holy Spirit varied, but the central fact was always the same.

a. At Pentecost there were four (Acts 2:1-4) : Wind, atmosphere, flame, tongues. "A sound . ..as of a rushing mighty wind." "It filled all the house where they were sitting." "There appeared . .. cloven tongues like as of fire." "They began to speak with other tongues." The central fact of Pentecost lay beyond all these -- "They were all filled with the Holy Ghost" (ver. 4).

b. At Ephesus there were two (Acts 19:1-7) : Tongues, prophecy. The central fact "The Holy Ghost came on them" (ver. 6).

c. At Caesarea there was one (Acts 10:44-48) : The central fact "The Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word" (ver. 44).

d. At Samaria there was no sign at all (Acts 8:14-17). The central fact "They received the Holy Ghost" (ver. 17). In each case the experience sought was the same. Throughout the entire book there is no record of the seeking for "tongues." (Later we find this in the Corinthian church --1 Cor. 12-14- but the purpose of the Corinthian epistle was to discourage it. In each case the search was for--not the manifestation, but the fact-namely, the Holy Ghost. Where "tongues" did accompany this bestowal it was the utterance of languages, the fact of which was recognized by those who heard (see Acts 2:6-11). This manifestation is recognized by Paul as having a place among the nine "gifts" of the Spirit (see 1 Cor. 12:4-11).

No one person possesses all nine. They are distributed at the will of the Spirit throughout the "body" -- the figure used for the church.

a. Among these gifts, the gift of tongues is evidently regarded by the apostle as not being of supreme importance. Proof: In 1 Cor. 12:4-11 the complete list of gifts, "tongues" is placed eighth in order. In Eph. 4:8-13 the condensed list of gifts, "tongues" is omitted altogether.

b. In the realm of spiritual gifts the Holy Spirit is sovereign, and makes distribution according to His own will (see I Cor. 12:11).

c. The people among whom "tongues" were most coveted and emphasized manifested the most shallow spiritual experience. Corinth manifested two outstanding characteristics: Carnality: So crude were its manifestations that the reader of the epistle blushes with shame. Craze for sensationalism: So marked is the craze that the reader of the epistle Immediately feels himself to be in the danger zone. The question of "gifts" is introduced into the epistle in response to inquiry and by way of warning.

2. Some considerations concerning this manifestation for us today. Strangely enough, this tongues sign seems to disappear during seasons of stability and reappear at intervals of transition when the Spirit of God would seem to be at work. It appeared, as we have seen, in the apostolic age, at Pentecost, and in numerous instances recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. It has appeared at different periods throughout the years that have followed. In the second century, among the Montanists. Protesting against ecclesiastical domination, and preaching individual liberty and personal inspiration, they strove after a direct communion with God. They saw great revivals, coupled with what appeared to have been unwarrantable excesses. Trances, prophecies and tongues are recorded.

In the thirteenth century, among the Franciscans. In the seventeenth century, among the Huguenots. They were subjected to rigorous persecution, out of which came what was later known as the "Church of the Desert." Continual experiences of the supernatural are reported, among which was "speaking in tongues."

In the nineteenth century. Numerous instances are recorded: Manifestations in London, the Irvingites, 1822; manifestations in Sweden, 1841; manifestations in Ireland, 1859.

In the twentieth century: Manifestations during the Welsh revival, 1904; manifestations of the modern "Pentecostal Movement." On the basis of this we make a threefold suggestion.

a. Such extraordinary manifestations could originate in God. It would be utter folly to state rashly that any unusual supernatural phenomena must of necessity be from the devil. It is not for us to say what old thing God should or should not repeat, or what new thing He should or should not do. We must approach this subject from a totally different angle.

b. Such extraordinary manifestations could also originate in other sources. The fact that they are extraordinary in no sense marks them as divine. There are subtle psychic forces within the human personality which could account for much. We are only just beginning to realize how deep and subtle our human nature is and what amazing forces we possess, which, unless understood, rightly directed, and divinely governed, may allure us into spheres which we do not understand, and leave us mental, spiritual and nervous wrecks. There are weird satanic forces in the realm of the supernatural which need to be seriously taken into account. Such manifestations could be counterfeits of Satan (see Eph. 6:12).

c. Since then, the New Testament gives no encouragement to seek these manifestations, but emphatically declares the Holy Ghost to be Sovereign in His distribution of all spiritual gifts, and especially in view of the obvious dangers which surround it the only safe, sane and Scriptural attitude is to seek the baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire by a definite act of entire consecration and simple faith, leaving it to an all-wise God to distribute all else according to His own will. God gives to His believing people the Holy Ghost, purifying their hearts by faith.