THE DOCTRINE OF THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT:
ITS EMERGENCE AND SIGNIFICANCE

Donald W. Dayton

Four years ago at this meeting, I presented a study on "Asa Mahan and the Development of American Holiness Theology."l At that time I used the first president of Oberlin College to illustrate a major shift in nineteenth century holiness thought a movement from explicating the doctrine of "entire sanctification" in terms of "Christian Perfection" to the use of "Pentecostal" terminology, especially as it found expression in the doctrine of the "baptism of the Holy Spirit." The core of that study was a comparison of two of Mahan's books, The Scripture Doctri7le of Christian Perfection (1839)3 and The Baptism of the Holy Ghost (1870). 3 This analysis revealed (1) a basic shift from a fundamentally "Christocentric" pattern of thought to one that might be called "Pneumatocentric"; (2) a corresponding movement from dividing history into two "covenants" divided by Christ (more exactly the atonement) to a threefold pattern of "dispensations" interpreted according to a trinitarian formula; (3) a shift in exegetical foundations that gave a new prominence to the book of Acts that had not been characteristic of the Wesleyan tradition, or especially of Wesley himself; (4) a consequent emphasis on such "pneumatic" themes as "power, " "gifts of the Spirit" and "prophecy" in a variety of senses; (5) a shift from the goal of sanctification in "Christian Perfection" to a greater emphasis on the event of the "second blessing"; and (6) finally, a renewed emphasis on "assurance" and the "evidence" of having received the "Pentecostal Baptism."

Since the presentation of that study, w hat was originally intended to be only a minor by-path in my doctoral program has grown to become its major focus. I discovered in pursuing the interaction between these two contrasting ways of explicating "entire sanctification" clues to answering a number of troubling questions about the evolution of Wesleyan/Holiness thought and practice. My conclusions are about to be put in final form in the writing of a dissertation seeking the "Theological Roots of Pentecostalism" by tracing a series of themes (especially the, "baptism of the Holy Spirit, " the emergence of "faith" or "divine ,healing," and the rise of premillennialism) from early Methodism through various nineteenth century holiness currents to the emergence

Pentecostalism about 1900. 4 The invitation to present here a study in development of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the l9th century ,provides the opportunity to restate, correct and amplify my earlier statement. I hope in the process to take advantage of the resources |gathered here to correct my own reading of the material before it finds more permanent expression.

Since that earlier study of Mahan, I have been attempting to confirm my analysis, to seek in early Methodism the sources of the .tension between these two ways of articulating entire sanctification, and also to trace out the later developments in the story. This work has convinced me that in considering this question we are dealing with one of the major unresolved issues in the Wesleyan/Holiness theological tradition.

I think that it is fair to say that Wesley roughly fits into the former of these two patterns. By this I mean that Wesley is fundamentally Christocentric in his theological patterns of thought (especially by comparison to developments after the Civil War in America), that he prefers the "covenantal" to the "dispensational" way of describing Christian history, that he does not characteristically appeal to the book of Acts to establish his key claims, that his writings do not reflect a pre-occupation with such "pneumatic" themes as "power" and the "gifts of the Spirit", that his concern in "Christian Perfection" is primarily teleological, and so forth. Though Wesley's doctrine of assurance through the "witness of the Spirit" might possibly be taken to break this pattern, in broad outline I think that we should say that on these questions Wesley stands essentially in a classically Protestant tradition not easily assimilatable into the patterns of pneumatocentric thought of the late nineteenth century.

This position is, however, disputed by some. Most recently one thinks of the suggestion of A. Skevington Wood, Robert Tuttle, and others that John Wesley should be viewed as a "theologian of the Spirit. " Such a position is also implied in a recent dissertation by Norman Kellett entitled "John Wesley and the Restoration of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Church of England in the Eighteenth Century. "' But a close examination of that study indicates that the author is arguing more for a renewal of experiential Christianity under Wesley than for a renewal of the doctrine of the Spirit in a formal sense. While no doubt a recovery of the experiential pushes one in the direction of emphasizing the Spirit- and it may be granted that Wesley shows signs of such a movement-it is still possible to distinguish between such emphases in an essentially Christocentric framework and the same emphases expressed in a more radically Pneumatocentric mode. Even A. Skevington Wood finally places Wesley in the more classical camp by insisting that "precisely because Wesley understood from Scripture this supportive role of the Spirit, his theology remains firmly Christocentric."

Some of these issues become clearer in turning to the disputed question of Wesley's use of the expression "baptism of the Holy Spirit." Later holiness theologians, especially those in the last century, have been puzzled by Wesley's reticence to use this term with regard to entire sanctification. Charles Brown felt that "the early Wesleyan theologians were so far misled by the technical theologians that they failed to put proper emphasis on the baptism of the Holy Spirit."9 More recently Charles Carter has treated this question in some detail, explaining Wesley's reluctance to use the expression on cultural and historical grounds, indicating that he "knows of no instance in which either Wesley or Fletcher ever spoke against the use of this terminology of the 'baptism in the Spirit'."10

But Wesley's reticence about this vocabulary cannot be so easily dismissed. It appears to have been a deliberate and measured response to controversies and discussions that arose in the early years of the so-called "Calvinistic Controversy" of the 1770s. John Fletcher and his biographer and editor Joseph Benson were much more inclined than Wesley to use this Pentecostal vocabulary. Fletcher, for example, was confirmed in his conviction that he should resign from Trevecca in part by Walter Shirley's attack on Benson's writings on the "baptism of the Holy Spirit. " Shirley had maintained that "the prophecy of Joel (Acts 2) had its complete fulfillment on the day of Pentecost."11

Wesley apparently shared at least some elements of Shirley's position. Earlier he had objected to Benson's tendency to speak of sanctification as "receiving the Holy Ghost," insisting that "the phrase in that sense is not Scriptural and not quite proper; for they all 'received the Holy Ghost' when they were justified."12 Wesley apparently attributed the source of these ideas to Fletcher, writing during that period against "Fletcher's late discovery."l3 Fletcher, on his part, was also clear about his differences from Wesley along this line. Some years later he wrote to Miss Mary Bosanquet, later to be his wife, that his own views on perfection were much like Wesley's "with this difference, that I would distinguish more exactly between the believers baptized with the Pentecostal power of the Holy Ghost, and the believer who, like the Apostles after our Lord's ascension, is not yet filled with that power."14

From these and related fragmentary comments I conclude that Wesley was not only reticent about identifying sanctification with Pentecost, but specifically repudiated at least some of the common themes associated with that position. In part this was apparently because he was fearful of undermining the classically Protestant association of the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" with Conversion. But it is also clear, however, that this identification was made in early Methodism, especially in the thought of John Fletcher and Joseph Benson. These differences in nuance and vocabulary between Wesley and his followers, while significant, did not result in radically different articulations of the doctrine of sanctification-at least in classical Methodism. But they do point to an ambiguity bequeathed by early Methodism to later generations of those seeking "Christian Perfection. " And in another time, and under other circumstances, the seeds of Fletcher's formulation could take root and grow in such a way as to overwhelm Wesley's position.

This development took place in America. Both Wesley and Fletcher were sources for the pre-Civil War revival of the doctrine of "Christian Perfection" in the 1830s. Manual anthologies of the period print Wesley and Fletcher side by side. Benson's writings were also widely distributed during this period. The popular diary of Hester Ann Rogers also showed the influence of Fletcher. Other isolated illustrations of "Pentecostal sanctification" occur, but Wesley's patterns remained dominant for several decades-no doubt in part because of Wesley's over-riding authority, but also surely because the broader ideas of perfection were more congenial to this optimistic and even utopian period in American life. But whatever the reason, in antebellum America the "perfection"

themes were predominant, whether one turns to Methodism, the merging holiness circles gathered around the Guide to Christian Perfection, or the Wesleyan Methodists.

The Pentecostal language of Benson and Fletcher was present in the background as a minor motif but often without specific reference to sanctification. In both the Oberlin Evangelist and the Guide to Holiness the expression "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is used to refer to a general awakening or revival of which Pentecost is the great archetype, or again to the many "anointings" or "baptisms" that Christians may experience during their life, or also to the special "spiritual unction" of the preacher that enables sermonizing to transcend human effort.

There is a special burst of Pentecostal imagery at Oberlin in the wake of the discovery of the doctrine and experience of entire sanctification in the years just before and after 1840. Most significant for later developments was Asa Mahan, as I have indicated in my earlier study, but his movement in this direction was probably later, most likely in the 1860s.

A. M. Hills, Church of the Nazarene theologian, was later to lament the fact that "Finney failed to connect the obtaining of sanctification with the baptism of the Holy Ghost. "16 He even went so far as to suggest that this failure prevented Oberlin from becoming a major center of holiness thought and experience. But this may be too strong. As Hills admits, "sometimes he almost got the truth,"16 and Timothy Smith has argued that Pentecostal themes were woven into Finney's letters in the Oberlin Evangelist in 1839 and 1840. 17 But the language was not used in Finney’s more widely read Views of Sanctification 18 nor in his volumes of systematic theology. Much later, in 1871, Finney would address the Oberlin Council of Congregationalism on the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit,19 but by this time the pattern was becoming more common and Finney’s emphasis is more in the direction of the "enduement of power" that themes of "perfection."

Other Oberlin faculty were more explicit in their emphasis on the Holy Spirit and more likely to associate Pentecost with sanctification. Henry Cowles prepared in 1840 two short sermons on the "baptism with the Holy Ghost for the Oberlin Evangelist. The second of these Concluded that "the plan of salvation contemplates as its prime object, the sanctification of the church, and relies on the baptism of the Holy Spirit as the great efficient power for accomplishing the work. "20 A later work of Cowles was entitled On Being Filled with the Holy Ghost.21

But perhaps more interesting were the views of John Morgan expressed in two essays in the first volume (1845) of the Oberlin Quarterly Review. The first of these was entitled "The Holiness Acceptable to God, " an essay that so impressed Finney that he incorporated it into the first edition of his systematic theology (1847). A second essay on the "Gift of the Holy Spirit," however, argued that "the baptism of the Holy Ghost, then, in its Pentecostal fullness, was not to be confined to the Primitive Church; but is the common privilege of all believers."22 Morgan also made explicit his view that "the baptism of the Spirit is the peculiar privilege of the saints" and not to be confused with the "influence of the Spirit of God by which sinners are converted. "23 These two essays are also important because they illustrate the continuing tensions that so often surface in attempts to integrate the themes of "holiness" and "perfection" into the story of Pentecost. The former essay illustrates the themes of "holiness" without great emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit. In the latter essay on the Holy Spirit, themes of perfection give way to an emphasis on the "enduement with power from on high."

But these discussions fell largely into the background and seem not to have had major influence in effecting the later shift-though there was after the Civil War some tendency to reach back and draw on these discussions after the shift had taken place. The broader and more obvious shift toward the "Pentecostal" formulation of entire sanctification seems to have taken place in the wake of the revival of 1857-58 in the years just before and after the Civil War.

The harbinger of this development was the popular essay by British Methodist William Arthur, The Tongue of Fire, published in 1856 and distributed in eighteen editions within the next three years.24 More subtle than much that would follow, this book is more an exposition of Pentecostal themes as a model for the longed-for spiritual awakening than a specific defense of "Pentecostal sanctification, " but it did help set the "Pentecostal" tone of the revival to follow and helped move Methodism and the holiness circles closer to a "Pentecostal" elaboration of their distinctive doctrine.

Arthur may also have been a major influence on Phoebe Palmer. By the next year she too was using "Pentecostal" vocabulary to promote "holiness." Her reports to The Guide to Holiness of her evangelistic work in Canada, the USA, and the "Old world" during these years all reveal an increasing move in this direction.25 Her reports were also widely distributed in book form as Four Years in the Old World.26 Also from this period is the not so widely distributed but nonetheless significant work entitled The Promise of the Father.27 This study, actually a defense of the ministry of women as a "neglected specialty of the last days," clearly teaches holiness doctrine through the vocabulary of Pentecost.

These harbingers of what was to come did not immediately sweep all into their path. In 1870 when Asa Mahan's book on The Baptism of the Holy Ghost was offered to the Palmer's publishing house, Phoebe resisted, suggesting that Methodists were not quite ready to receive the doctrine in this form and that perhaps a Calvinistic publisher would be more appropriate. Mahan replied that precisely because he was presenting the doctrine in a new form, "a new interest in the whole subject will be excited."28 The Palmers, however, proceeded with publication and another "holiness classic" was born, one that had impact far beyond Methodist and holiness circles.

The impact of such writings grew rapidly though out the rest of the century and by 1900 holiness capitulation to the Pentecostal formulation was nearly complete. This development might be said to climax in 1897 when The Guide to Holiness substituted the words "and Pentecostal Life" for "and Revival Miscellany" in its title in response "to the signs of the times, which indicate inquiry, research, and ardent pursuit of the gifts, graces, and power of the Holy Spirit. 'The Pentecostal idea' is pervading Christian thought and aspiration more than ever before."29 The Guide during this decade reverberated with reports in the image of Pentecost-sermons were published in a column called the "Pentecostal Pulpit," women's meetings were reported as "Pentecostal Woman-hood," prayers were held in the "Pentecostal closet," music was provided by "Pentecostal choirs," and the Scriptures were distributed by "Pentecostal Bible Houses." This was also the period that saw the publication of such works as S. A. Keen, Pentecostal Papers (1895), H. C. Morrison, Baptism with the Holy Ghost (1900), Seth Cook Rees, the Ideal Pentecostal Church (1897), Martin Wells Knapp, Lightening Bolts From Pentecostal Skies (1898), and so forth.

The fact of this shift, once pointed out, is obvious-one has only to compare the first few years of The Guide to Christian Perfection in the late 1830s and early 1840s with those just before the turn of the century. The reasons for the shift are not entirely clear. Advocates of the change have suggested that here finally is the great breakthrough for which the Wesleyan tradition had been straining for a century-and that the Pentecostal vocabulary provides the most biblically appropriate way of explicating the doctrine of entire sanctification. Others less sympathetic with the change will notice other forces at work. There was for example, a collapse of the pre-Civil War optimism that had at least subliminally supported the earlier themes of perfection. After the War, at least in some circles, the longing was more for "power" and the fundamental perception of the world was less optimistic and expansive. (More about this issue later.) It may be as well that the new Pentecostal vocabulary offered a fresh, more obviously biblical, vocabulary that avoided earlier disputes about the precise definition of "perfection" and more easily fit into the developing interdenominational character of the holiness movement. Something of this may be seen in an 1874 appeal by Daniel Steele, who after giving his own testimony to a "baptism of the Spirit", in The Guide to Holiness, advised all "to cease to discuss the subtleties and endless questions arising from entire sanctification or Christian perfection, and all cry mightily to God for the baptism of the Holy Spirit."30

But we should also notice that the turn to the doctrine of the Spirit in the late 19th century was a wider phenomenon. In 1899 C. I. Scofield would remark that

To the extent to which this is true, the holiness shift to Pentecostal vocabulary would be the form this broader development took within the more narrow confines of the holiness and related traditions.

But the adoption of this new way of explicating entire sanctification failed to resolve the fundamental tensions that had been present from the beginning. The fact remained that from the doctrine of Christian Perfection as it had been articulated classically by Wesley there were few real crossovers to the Pentecostal accounts and vocabulary. And conversely, those who gave priority to the Pentecostal accounts found it difficult to move easily out of these texts to the Wesleyan themes of sanctification and cleansing. True, certain connections could be made via strained harmonization or through the utilization of broader theological themes, but the Acts texts emphasizing cleansing were few and far between, Acts 15:9 being the text most frequently claimed as the bridge. Continuing struggle with this problem is evident throughout the literature of the late nineteenth century, and at least three answers to this fundamental tension may be discerned.

The first of these, the position that became normative holiness teaching, may be seen in the effort to express the holiness doctrine through the pentecostal imagery, arguing in effect for "Pentecostal sanctification" and that the disciples had indeed been entirely sanctified on the day of Pentecost. In this formulation the holiness theme of "purity" was related to the Pentecostal theme of "power" as two parts, the negative and the positive, of one event or act of God. Thus Thomas K. Doty would attempt to hold the two together by emphasizing The Two-fold Gift of the Holy Ghost (1890), arguing that the " 'Second work of grace,' properly so-called, includes both salvation from all sin, by the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, and the Gift of the Anointing of the Holy Ghost. "32 The effort to keep these themes together is also reflected even in the title of A. M. Hills' Holiness and Power (1897). Nazarene theologian E. P. Ellyson could then later reflect what had come to be normative holiness teaching by quoting his denomination's Manual to the effect that entire sanctification "is wrought by the baptism with the Holy Spirit and comprehends in one experience the cleansing of the heart from sin and the abiding, indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, empowering the believer for life and service."33

But the tensions implicit in this solution to the problem are revealed in two mutations that took place in the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The first of these was to take the doctrine as developed, wash out the "purity" themes of the holiness tradition and continue to teach a doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second definite work of grace subsequent to conversion for the purpose of empowering for service. This solution was more congenial to the Calvinistic wing of revivalism and is the form in which the doctrine spread through pre-fundamentalist evangelicalism. This development is expressed most clearly in the tradition of Evangelist D. L. Moody. In response to the prayers and entreaties of two Free Methodist ladies who felt that he lacked power, Moody was "baptized in the Spirit" in 1871.34 Moody, however, was reluctant to speak openly of this experience, but his successor, R. A. Torrey, showed no such reticence and gave the doctrine special emphasis in such books as The Baptism With the Holy Spirit(1897), and The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit(1910).

A second variation resolved the tensions between "purity" and "power" in the more normative holiness teaching by breaking up the experience into two separate events to advocate "three works of grace. " To the classical holiness pattern of two works of grace, conversion and entire sanctification, was added a third, the Baptism of Anointing of the Holy Spirit. Intimations of this solution begin to appear early and are sometimes attributed to Fletcher. Just before the publication of Arthur's Tongue of Fire, for example, the Guide to Holiness carried an essay by "J. D.," asking a question that seemed to arise from the empirical observation that not all the "entirely sanctified" seemed to be "empowered with the Spirit":

A number of persons, especially B. H. Irwin in the mid-West and R. C. Horner of Ontario, moved from these intimations to articulate a doctrine of "three blessings" or "works of grace." R. C. Horner is particularly interesting because he reveals a more extensive and sophisticated knowledge of Wesley, having at one point written an extensive refutation of the emerging attacks on Christian Perfection in the Methodist Episcopal Church.36 In one sense it may be said that Horner understood Wesley better than the mainstream of the holiness movement. As Horner put it

This then was the situation at the end of the nineteenth century on the eve of the emergence of modern Pentecostalism. In summary, the classical Methodist formulation of Christian Perfection was susceptible to an elaboration in terms of Pentecost in the work of Fletcher and Benson. Though Wesley resisted this development when it came to the fore in the "Calvinistic Controversy" of the 1770s, the ambiguity remained and the question reemerged in the antebellum revival of Christian Perfection in America, especially being anticipated in another Calvinistic" context, that of early Oberlin College. In America the Pentecostal formulation took root and grew, especially after the Civil War, to become the dominant holiness formulation by the end of the century. But the original tensions reasserted themselves in such a way as to produce three variations: (1) The dominant holiness position which viewed sanctification as the negative aspect and empowering for service as the positive aspect of the one event of the "baptism of the Holy Spirit"; (2) the more "Reformed" or "Keswick" variation that de-emphasized the theme of "purity" for the theme of "power" while keeping the basic structure of the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" as a second, definite experience subsequent to conversion; and (3) the "third blessing" variation that split the holiness baptism of the Spirit into two events, sanctification and the "baptism with the Holy Spirit" or the "baptism with fire."

That is the story as I understand it. Further detail and documentation will be available in the dissertation.38 In conclusion, I would like to discuss in a more informal manner the significance of the history and developments sketched above. I believe that the story outlined above provides important clues to issues that have troubled the holiness movement for some time. Among these would be (1) the relationship theologically of the holiness movement to Pentecostalism as it emerged at the turn of the century; (2) the loss of the process side of sanctification that was originally present in the more subtle relationship of crisis and process in classical Methodism's doctrine of Christian Perfection; (3) the reasons for the decline of the antebellum social reform studied by Timothy Smith in Revivalism and Social Reform,39 especially as these questions arise in the holiness context; and (4) the very important shift in the nineteenth century from a dominant post-millennial eschatology in the early period to the rise of a pre-millenial eschatology in the latter part of the century.

First of all, I believe that the developments sketched above make clear the precise relationship of the holiness movement to Pentecostalism. This relationship is both positive and negative. On the one side I find it difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of the rise of modern Pentecostalism without the background of the Wesleyan doctrine of "Christian Perfection" transmuted into the doctrine of "Pentecostal sanctification." The rise of the doctrine of the "baptism in the Holy Spirit" was accompanied by a number of other developments (a shift toward the ecstatic, rise of emphasis on the "gifts of the Spirit," a shift toward premillennialism, etc.), all of which were in the direction of Pentecostalism. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that late nineteenth century holiness thought is closer to the patterns of Pentecostalism that it is to the thought of Wesley. The holiness movement provided the basic underlying theological framework of Pentecostalism. On the other hand, Pentecostalism was at the same time definitely a mutation within the holiness tradition-a sort of "holiness heresy" if you will. Pentecostalism is most directly related to the two variations on the holiness doctrine of the "baptism of the Holy Spirit." One needs only to take the Torreyite and Hornerite variations and add "speaking in tongues" as the initial evidence of the "baptism" to have the two major branches of Pentecostalism, the more Reformed theology teaching two crises (conversion and a "baptism of the Spirit" for the empowering for service evidenced by speaking in tongues-combined with a more gradual doctrine of sanctification) and the more Holiness theology teaching three crises (conversion, sanctification as a crisis, and the Pentecostal doctrine of the "baptism of the Spirit" as a "third blessing"). Though these late nineteenth century variations on normative holiness teaching were efforts to resolve ambiguity present from the beginning of the Wesleyan tradition, they were both repudiated before the even more offensive doctrine of initial evidence of speaking in tongues developed.

Secondly, these developments also illuminate the vicissitudes of the subtle formulation of Wesley in combining both process and crisis in his doctrine of entire sanctification. It has been clear for some time that the theme of process tended to drop into the background in the late nineteenth century in favor of an emphasis on the crisis. In this development popular holiness thought tended to fall more and more into a "two blessing" pattern with the emphasis on the discreteness of the two events and a tendency to identify the work of the Spirit too exclusively with the second. One key to this development (there are others) is the rise of the doctrine of "Pentecostal sanctification." The earlier Wesleyan themes of perfection and growth were more integrally related to patterns of process and development while Pentecost is inherently an event-an event that tends to emphasize discontinuity rather than continuity with what precedes and follows. This shift of emphasis is often subtle and varies in strength according to the sensitivities of various advocates of the doctrine, but in it is to be found at least one clue to why "crisis" became the crucial aspect of the late 19^th century holiness doctrine of entire sanctification in its pentecostal formulation.

Thirdly, I think it is possible to discern in this development certain clues as to why the late 19th century decline in revivalism of the impulse toward social reform. The picture is very complex, and we must resist the tendency to oversimplify. Antebellum revivalistic reform was rooted not only in the depth of religious experience these people had but also in a variegated network of inter-connected motifs that gave additional support to the reform impulse. Among these would be the cultural optimism of the period, its post-millenial vision of God's working in the world, themes of perfection as expressed in the doctrine of entire sanctification and in other ways, an emphasis on the role of human agency and so on. It is possible to see in the rise of the Pentecostal formulation of entire sanctification the erosion of some of these supporting themes.

This erosion is discernible at several points. I think that it is possible to see in the rise of the doctrine of pentecostal sanctification some shifts from the strong ethical content of sanctification in classical Methodism to the more experientially (and perhaps even ecstatically) oriented "pentecostal" formulation. Again, part of the key to the reform movements was the affirmation of human agency, especially over against the antecedent Calvinistic depreciation of the role of human agency in favor of divine sovereignty. Those who affirmed the role of the human will in salvation were inclined also to place a greater emphasis on human role in the rebuilding of society. As a result, the Arminian tendencies of antebellum religion were a key part of the push toward reform. But there is a sense in which the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" pushes back in the direction of divine sovereignty by calling the convert to "tarry" and "wait" for the "baptism" to be given more completely according to divine initiative. It is also possible to discern other motifs more congenial to one or the other way of understanding sanctification. The pre-Civil War era of emphasis on perfection also revealed confidence, optimism, and similar themes, while the Pentecostal formulation seems to speak more to a pessimistic mood seeking a recovery of "power" in the midst of powerlessness and inability. One would not wish to make too much of these shifts (and others), but they are discernible and do help provide clues to what was being experienced, at least subliminally, in the popular culture of the nineteenth century.

Finally, and in a similar vein, it is possible to see in these developments certain clues to, or at least parallels to, the shift in eschatology from the dominant post-millenial theology of the pre-Civil War era to the late nineteenth century rise of premillennialism. Post-millennialism was in many ways a sort of social counterpart to the more personally oriented doctrine of "Christian Perfection," especially as it found expression before the Civil War in America. The first several issues of the Oberlin Evangelist proclaimed that a major purpose of the journal was "to call attention to the fact that the millennium is to consist in the entire sanctification of the church." Similarly, there is also a sense in which pre-millennialism was the social correlate of the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" on the personal level. Both expressed a similar pulling back from the role of human initiative, a greater emphasis on divine sovereignty, a stronger emphasis on discontinuity rather than continuity, and so forth.

In my earlier essay on Asa Mahan, I tried to indicate a few ways in which this difference is integral to the two positions. This may be illustrated in the use of the Bible. Under Wesley and later "Christian Perfection" formulations of entire sanctification, a variety of biblical figures, both Old and New Testament, could become direct models. It was often pointed out that such figures as Noah and Abraham were said by the Scriptures to have walked "perfect" before the Lord, at least in some sense. But in the "Pentecostal" formulation this direct modeling is somewhat precluded by the fact that the Spirit came upon the church definitively only at Pentecost so that a greater emphasis is given to the role of the Old Testament as predicting the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost. In this formulation passages like the prophecy of Joel became more important, especially as it was quoted in Acts 2. As these themes moved more to the center of concern, the interest in prophecy is heightened-both in terms of adopting a more promise-fulfillment manner of relating the testaments and also beginning to see the New Testament events as proleptic intimations of the future. Such fundamental shifts could well have helped prepare the way for the rise of the "prophecy conferences" in the late 1870s. Similarly the use of the term "dispensation" and the more complex division of the heilsgeschichte in the later Pentecostal formulation of holiness teachings could predispose adherents to be more receptive to dispensational themes carried by the prophecy and bible school movements. It is at least worth noticing that the shift to "Pentecostal" formulations of holiness teaching usually antedated the adoption of premillennialism by a decade or so.

FOOTNOTES

1. Wesleyan Theological Journal 9 (Spring, 1974), 60-69. Another version of this paper appeared as "From 'Christian Perfection' to the 'Baptism of the Holy Spirit'" in H. Vinson Synan, Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins (Plainfield, NJ: Logos, 1975), pp. 39-54.

2. (Boston: D. S. King, 1839), as well as other editions.

3. (New York: W. J. Palmer, Jr., 1970), as well as other editions.

4. See my fuller statement of some of this in "The Evolution of Pentecostalism," Covenant Quarterly 32 (August, 1974), 28-40.

5. "John Wesley, Theologian of the Spirit," Theological Renewal #6 (June/July, 1977), 26-34.

6. Robert Tuttle of Fuller Theological Seminary represents the neo-Pentecostal or charismatic tradition in the United Methodist Church. His position is best expressed in unpublished materials prepared for a United Methodist Commission on the charismatic renewal but there are hints in The Partakers (Nashville: Abingdon, 1974). Zondervan will soon issue a major study of Wesley by Tuttle.

7. By Norman Lawrence Kellett (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Brandeis University, 1975).

8. "John Wesley, Theologian of the Spirit," p. 26.

9. Charles Ewing Brown, The Meaning of Sanctification (Anderson: Warner Press, 1945), pp. 114-5.

10. Charles W. Carter, The Personal and Ministry of the Holy Spirit: A Wesleyan Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974), p. 180.

11. Letter of Fletcher dated March 22, 1771, to Benson, reprinted in Luke Tyerman, Wesley's Designated Successor (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1882), p. 179.

12. Letter of Wesley dated Dec. 28, 1770, to Benson, reprinted in John Telford (editor), The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, Vo. V (London: Epworth Press, 1931), p. 215.

13. See, for example, the letter of Wesley dated March 9, 1771, to Benson in Telford, Letters of Wesley, Vo1. V, p. 228.

14. Letter of Fletcher dated March 7, 1778, to Miss Mary Bosanquet in Tyerman, Wesley's Designated Successor, p. 411.

15. A. M. Hills, Life of Charles G. Finney (Cincinnati: Office of God's Revivalist, 1902), p. 226.

16. Ibid.

17. See his paper first presented at the Sixth Oxford Institute of Methodist Theological Studies and repeated at the Wesleyan Theological Society, November 5, 1977 as reprinted elsewhere in this issue.

18. (Oberlin: James Steele. 1840).

19. Finney's appendix to the British edition of Mahan's Baptism of the Holy Ghost may be based on this 1871 address.

20. Oberlin Evangelist II (1840), p. 93.

21. (Oberlin: J. M. Fitch, 1848).

22. Oberlin Quarterly Review I (August, 1845), p. 115. This essay was later published in pamphlet form with an introduction by Finney (Oberlin: E. J. Goodrich, 1875).

23. Ibid, pp. 95-6.

24. (New York: Harper, 1856).

25. See the reports of this in Melvin E. Dieter, "Wesleyan-Holiness Aspects of Pentecostal Origins" in H. Vinson Synan, Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, pp. 65-fi7.

26. These letters are collected in Four Years in the Old World (New York: Walter C. Palmer, Jr., 1870).

27. (Boston: Henry V. Degen, 1859).

28. See Asa Mahan, Autobiography, Intellectual, Moral and Spiritual (London: T. Woolmer, 1882), pp. 413-4, as well as Mahan's letters to Phoebe Palmer in the Phoebe Palmer papers, Rose Library, Drew University.

29. "Pentecost-what is it?" Guide to Holiness. 66 (Jan., 1897), p. 37.

30. "Baptism of the Spirit, " Guide to Holiness 20 (February, 1874), p. 38.

31. C. I. Scofield, Plain Papers on the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (New York: Revell, 1899), preface.

32. (Cleveland: Christian Harvestor, 1890).

33. E. P. Ellyson, Doctrinal Studies (Kansas City: Nazarene Publishing House, 1936), p. 106.

34. Variously described in Richard K. Curtis, They Called Him Mister Moody (Garden City: Doubleday, 1962), p. 149; William R. Moody, The Life of Dwight L. Moody (New York: Revell, 1900), pp. 146-7; and in R. A. Torrey, Why God Used D. L. Moody (Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1923 and other editions), chapter 7.

35. "J. D., " "Entire Sanctification and the Fullness of the Spirit," Guide to Holiness 29 (April, 1856), p. 97.

36. Notes on Boland (Boston: McDonald & Gill, n. d.).37. Pentecost (Toronto: William Briggs, 1891).38. "Theological Roots of Pentecostalism" (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, the University of Chicago, 1978).

39. (New York: Abingdon, 1957).