Scriptural Sanctification - Media Sabda Org

Dr. Mudge would explain the case of the Ephesian disciples on the theory that they were living
under an inferior dispensation and knew only the baptism of John, not having been instructed by a
gospel minister as to their privileges under the dispensation of the Spirit, ushered in at Pentecost. But
what will he say of the Samaritans, discipled by Philip? Philip was a gospel minister; "full of the
Holy Ghost," consciously living under the dispensation of the Spirit, and doubtless preached a full
gospel to them. See Acts vi. 3-5. It seems to have been about a year after Pentecost; and he, if not
one of the apostles, was most probably one of the one hundred and twenty, or at least of the
thousands converted at Pentecost or soon thereafter, and probably lived in or about Jerusalem. And
these Samaritans were given Christian rather than John's baptism. But the Holy Ghost had not fallen
on them in the fullness of His power. They needed a measure of the Spirit -- some kind of a blessing
from him -- which they did not receive when they believed and were baptized under the ministry of
Philip. And after the apostles came and "prayed for them," they received it. Mark the difference
between these and the Ephesian disciples. (1) They had a better informed preacher. Philip, under the
influence of the Spirit with whom he was filled, preached "the things concerning the kingdom of God
and the name of Jesus Christ " -- things concerning the dispensation of the Son, if not of the Spirit,
called by way of preeminence "the kingdom of God." (2) They were baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus," the same baptism that was given the Ephesians after Paul found them, the latter having
received only John's baptism before.
But Dr. Mudge resorts to what he thinks is a better translation of the passage in Acts xix. 2 that
of the Revised Version: "Did ye receive the Holy Ghost when ye believed?" He admits that the
Authorized Version, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" would seem to give some
sanction to the theory that after conversion a second work, called "receiving the Holy Ghost," is
essential to the full equipment of the believer," meaning His full salvation. But Dr. Steele answers
this by saying: "Whether we read Acts xix. 2, 'Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?'
as Bengel, Meyer, and others do, or 'when ye believed?' as the Revised Version does, is immaterial.
It is evident that the persons addressed as disciples and believers were lacking in some great spiritual
blessing necessary to the perfection of their Christian character and to their highest efficiency."
According to the theory which we have propounded -- that one may be fully sanctified in
regeneration -- it matters not, as Dr. Steele says, which way we translate the apostle's words. On that
theory he might with propriety ask whether they "received the Holy Ghost," in His fullness, at or
subsequent to their conversion -- the time when they "believed" unto salvation -- unto pardon and
regeneration. Drs. Mudge and Tillett, however, dissent from that view of the matter, the former
expressly and the latter by implication or in a general way. Indeed, both of them seem to doubt the
identity of the baptism at Pentecost with the work of entire sanctification or perfect love. We are
persuaded that neither of these authors attaches the importance to what is called "the baptism," the
infilling, or "the gift of the Holy Ghost," that the Scriptures and other learned interpreters of the
Word do. They concede that such baptism may mark an important "epoch" in the believer's history,
but do not believe that it effects the marked and thorough change in His condition which the
advocates of the second-work theory insist is done by that baptism. After discussing the matter
somewhat at length, Dr. Mudge says:
"Our conclusion is that all true Christians, when they are born of the Spirit, are filled with the
Spirit up to their capacity at that time, are baptized with the Spirit, and may receive the gift of the