Scriptural Sanctification - Media Sabda Org

his theory and ours seems to be that he does not admit that the Spirit, under this dispensation, saves
the believer from all selfishness -- from all that kind of depravity which is contrary to or inconsistent
with perfect, pure, or unmixed love, while we insist that this ethical baptism or fullness of the Spirit
did at Pentecost and does now, on condition of consecration and faith, purify the believer from all
this. And we think Dr. Mudge is unfortunate in adducing the recorded experience of Dr. Steele in
support of His theory. After discussing the case of the apostles and citing the experience of Mr.
Wesley, he says:
"A strikingly similar case has occurred in more recent days -- that of the distinguished author and
theological teacher, the Rev. Daniel Steele, D.D. In November, 1870, he, being at that time professor
at Genesee College, tells us that, 'after an earnest and persistent struggle, he entered into a spiritual
enlightenment entirely inconceivable before, a permanent spiritual exaltation and fullness.' As to His
previous life, he says: 'My experience was never marked. I never could tell the day of my conversion
... Hence my utterances have been feeble and destitute of power ... I will not dwell on the unpleasant
theme of a ministry of twenty years almost fruitless in conversions, through a lack of the unction
from the Holy One ... The Holy Spirit, though formally acknowledged and invoked, was practically
ignored ... I believe myself to have been in the pre-Pentecostal state ... I believe that I dwelt a long
time in the dispensation of the Father, a shorter period in that of the Son, and that now at length, by
the grace of God, I have entered that of the Holy Ghost. In the first period I enjoyed the first element
of the kingdom, righteousness or justification -- dikaisoyne -- an act of the Father; in the second
place, the legacy of the risen Jesus; and in the third, joy, the endowment of the Holy Ghost."
Dr. Mudge would explain Dr. Steele's professed experience of entire sanctification, as a second
work, realized subsequent to regeneration, on the theory that conversion is more thorough and
involves the gift of a larger measure of the Spirit under some circumstances than it is and does under
others, a fact that is cheerfully conceded. In other words, that when Dr. Steele "entered into a
spiritual enlightenment entirely inconceivable before" he simply came into the dispensation of the
Spirit, and was only more thoroughly regenerated and received more fully the witness of the Spirit,
without being saved from all selfishness or depravity. We admit that Dr. Steele only then came fully
into the dispensation of the Spirit, but we deny Dr. Mudge's inference therefrom. For we think that
an analysis of Dr. Steele's experience, quoted above and given elsewhere in His writings, will show
that it tends to establish rather than disprove our theory as to the character of the work wrought at
Pentecost, and at Ephesus, twenty years later.
1. Dr. Mudge seems to think that Dr. Steele's "pre-Pentecostal" experience was below the ordinary
or average experience of the believer under this dispensation, and that his ministry was less fruitful
than the average, while this second or third experience only brought him up to that average. But Dr.
Steele says that while in the dispensation of the Son he had the "peace" which is "the legacy of the
risen Jesus." And four years later, in speaking of that experience, he says: "I loved Jesus, studied His
character with increasing admiration, and preached him with delight." He had some measure of
"peace," "love," and "delight" in His service. Can the average Christian, who doubts Dr. Steele's
theory of "perfect love," claim more for his own experience? What Dr. Steele did mourn over was
a "void" or "vacuum" in his nature, the "fractional" or imperfect quality of his "love," and a lack of
"power" in his preaching.