[button title=”View/Download Complete Work” link=”http://faithsaves.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Dissertation-for-Website.pdf” target=”_blank” size=”small” background=”#cf573e” color=”#fff” text_shadow=”#8d321f”]
[button title=”Download Chapter” link=”http://faithsaves.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/part-17-Hannah-Whitall-Smith.pdf” target=”_blank” size=”small” background=”#cf573e” color=”#fff” text_shadow=”#8d321f”]
I. Excursus XI: Hannah Whitall Smith:
Higher Life Writer, Speaker on Sanctification, Developer of the Keswick Theology, Quaker Quietist and Universalist Heretic
Mrs. Hannah Whitall Smith, author of The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life and other devotional books, was in her day, and remains at this time, a very influential—indeed, probably the most influential—Higher Life writer on sanctification. Her views undergird and powerfully influence and mold the entire subsequent history of the Higher Life theology. She published The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life in 1875, a capstone of her and her husband’s preaching of the Higher Life as “lay evangelists of the National Assocation for the Promotion of Holiness” at the Conventions at Broadlands, Oxford, and Brighton that constituted the birth of the Keswick theology. The publication of her best-selling book coincided with the tremendous impact her preaching was having at that time in Britain. Robert and Hannah were spreading the Higher Life not only “in London, but [also] in other cities such as Manchester, Nottingham, Leicester and Dublin, as well as various Continental European centers. Additionally, strategic doors were opening to them, such as being invited to meet dons and other senior members of Cambridge University to share their message.” As thousands of ministers assembled from not the British Isles only, but also France, Germany, Switzerland, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Italy, Spain, India, Russia, Persia, China, Australia, Israel, South Africa, and North America to learn the Higher Life from the Smiths at the Brighton Convention, Robert declared: “All Europe is at my feet!” There was much truth to his declaration, although in leading venues such as the Oxford Convention and “at Brighton . . . Hannah Smith[’s] . . . daily Bible Readings were the main focus of interest and she was widely recognised as the leading spirit at the conference. Never shy about publicity, she observed that . . . she had a congregation larger than that of C. H. Spurgeon.” Her preaching brought many into the Higher Life. Describing this period of time, Hannah wrote in her diary:
In January 1874 I went over with our four children and joined my husband in England. . . . [T]he Lord gave us . . . wonderful openings . . . for preaching the Higher Christian Life to rich and poor. My inward experience continues, through it all, to be one of perfect rest and peace. My husband’s health was mercifully restored, and the strain of my earthly sorrow was removed. The Lord saw that I had learned the lesson and He delivered me. And my earthly happiness has been unclouded since[.] . . . We returned last Sept. 1874 to America and this winter has been a time of busy work in Philadelphia for me. In March 1875, my husband went back to England, and in a week, I sail with the children to join him. A great work is opening before us there for this summer in large conventions calling for the promotion of Scriptural Holiness [the Keswick precursor Conventions], at which I have to take a prominent part, both in holding ladies meetings, and in giving “Bible readings,” as they are called to save the feelings of the dear brethren who are afraid to call it preaching.
Her preaching and her person were very well received at these conferences, and her book The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life, which was really “old Quaker doctrine,” was likewise positively received by those who adopted the Keswick teaching, leading, throughout the rest of her life, to “numberless calls . . . for preaching or giving Bible readings” all over America and abroad. Mrs. Smith was regularly “preach[ing] in Quaker and other churches in England” in high demand, while also publishing further influential books. Indeed, “H. W. Smith[’s] The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life . . . is regarded as the classic presentation of Keswick teaching and was instrumental in the spread of the ‘victorious life’ movement that began at the first annual Convention for the Deepening of the Spiritual Life held at Keswick, England, in 1875.” “[I]t may be confidently said that . . . The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life . . . has never been superseded . . . [in] its teaching . . . by anything which has appeared since. This book has had a remarkable influence in connection with the Holiness Movement.” Indeed, Hannah came to teach the Keswick doctrine of her Christian’s Secret as the “Superintendent of the Evangelistic and Bible Reading work” of the “Women’s Christian Temperance Union,” so that she had “direct influence over 60,000 Christian women, and indirect influence over all their congregations.” She testified: “[T]he Lord has given me my parish among them.” Indeed, she wrote: “ever so many of [these women were] saying that they had learned the secret from my book “The Christian’s Secret.” It is perfectly wonderful how that book has gone over this whole country. Wherever I go I am met with stories of its value and blessing. So many people even here have told me that it is ‘next to their Bibles.’” While it was reckoned by many as of great enough value to be always next to one’s Bible, Hannah’s book was most selective in its presentation of Biblical teaching, never citing verses such as Philippians 2:12, for the Apostolic command to act with fear and trembling, and the mention of working, did not fit Mrs. Smith’s emphasis upon personal happiness, ease, and sanctification by faith alone. In any case, her book is properly recognized as foundational and paradigmatic for the Keswick doctrine of sanctification, so much so that her “book . . . for many years, was the most-read devotional book in the world.” The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life “had not only a phenomenal sale all through [Mrs. Smith’s] lifetime . . . [and] was reissued again and again, and translated not only into all the major languages of the world, but even into obscure dialects of half-civilized tribes . . . [in] every part of the globe.” Hannah W. Smith’s writings “have done [m]ore than any publications ever written to extend,” in the eyes of advocates of the Higher Life, “the knowledge of the truth of sanctification.” Her preaching and writing have had an inestimably great impact on the ideas of many millions in worldwide Christendom.
Hannah wrote her book out of a conviction that Higher Life or Keswick doctrine was solid Quaker teaching. She was convinced that “the early leaders of her own society of Friends [Quakers] had been preaching the same” Higher Life theology “which she was hearing about from . . . Methodist writers such as John Wesley” and “the Holiness advocates of her day.” Certainly the classic Quaker doctrine of sanctification is either extremely similar or entirely identical to the doctrine taught by the Keswick convention. Hannah was confident that her Higher Life teaching was simply classic, unreformed Quakerism.
How, then, did Mrs. Smith come to write her bestselling and extremely influential Quaker and Keswick classic? She explained:
[M]y book, The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life . . . was written simply and only to oblige my husband, who was editing a monthly religious paper at the time, and who begged me each month for an article. I had no feeling whatever of being “called” to write it, nor that I was being “guided” in any way. . . . I said . . . that I would only write one [article], and that he need not expect me to continue. For some reason, however, my article excited more interest than anything else in the paper, and he begged me so much to go on writing that I finally consented to give him an article every month. . . . [T]hese articles, collected in a book, made the Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life[.] . . . But these articles were dragged from me, so to speak, at the point of the bayonet, for I never wrote them in any month until the printers were clamoring for their copy. I could not be said, therefore, to have had any great feeling or sense of being called to write them, beyond the fact that I did it to oblige my husband[.] . . . [T]he book was not written under any special feeling of being called to write it, nor with any idea that it was in the least an especially religious service. I did it simply and only to oblige my husband, and that was all there was to it. I didn’t even pray much about it, nor had I any thought that I was doing a work for the Lord[.]
Indeed, Hannah was yet more candid in writing to her daughter:
[M]y most successful book [The Christian’s Secret] was written so to speak at the point of the bayonet, without one ray of enthusiasm, and hating to do it all the time. . . . I must repeat that I did write “The Christian’s Secret” at the point of the bayonet, as it were. I did not want to write it at all, and only did it at father’s earnest entreaties. . . . [H]e begged me so hard that at last I said I would write one article and no more, if he would give up drinking wine at dinner. Then when that article was published everyone clamoured for another, and father begged, and I was good-natured and went on, but under a continual protest. And the best chapter of all was written . . . when I was . . . as near cursing as a person who had experienced the “blessings of holiness” could dare to be! So . . . books can be successful even if they are ground out with groans and curses[.]
Thus, Hannah W. Smith did not pray much about her bestseller, nor think that she was doing a work for the Lord by writing it, but simply wanted her husband, at the pinnacle of his work as a Higher Life preacher, to stop drinking alcohol at dinner. She had not a ray of enthusiasm for the book, but emphatically hated writing it, and even ground out the best chapter with groans and curses. Nevertheless, with what appears to be assistance from the supernatural realm, her book, and its Higher Life theology, spread like wildfire and was received with overwhelming acclaim. So wonderful, she came to conclude, was the Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life that she wrote concerning it: “Every line I write is a pure favor to the world[.]” The book was her doing—it was marvelous in her eyes.
Nevertheless, even as she wrote her bestselling and paradigmatic Keswick book without much prayer and without thinking about doing any work for God by composing it, but filled with hatred, groans, and curses, Hannah recognized that the kind of religion she led others to adopt could be preached and promulgated by ungodly people who, without any blessing from God, simply were putting on a religious show. After the downfall of her husband Robert P. Smith on account of his promulgation of erotic bride mysticism during the Keswick precursor Conventions, the Smiths returned to America. Upon their arrival, Dr. Charles Cullis, who “had stood by Robert more nobly and grandly than any other human being” when Mr. Smith was exposed for his erotic mysticism, sought to restore Robert by having him and his wife preach some meetings. The “sole object [of the meetings] was to reinstate Robert in the eyes of the church and the world. . . . [I]t ought not to have been called a ‘Convention for the promotion of holiness,’ but a ‘Convention for the promotion of Pearsall Smith.’” Hannah Smith wrote to a friend about these meetings:
I felt utterly indifferent to the meeting in every way . . . I f[ound] no pleasure in it whatever. So we made no preparations for the meeting, we neither studied, nor prayed, nor meditated, nor in fact thought about it at all. . . . We both of us hated it cordially, and felt we should be only too thankful when it was over.
It was in no sense a religious or “pious” undertaking on our parts. We were neither fervent, nor prayerful, nor concerned, nor anything that we ought to have been. Thou sees I am telling the honest truth. And I really cannot imagine a meeting begun in a worse frame of mind that [sic] ours was, according to all one’s preconceived notions of what is the right and suitable thing. And in precisely the same frame of mind we went through the meeting. It was all a wearisome performance to us. We did it as if we had crossed over an impassable gulf. The flood had come since the last time [when Higher Life meetings were held], and changed everything for us. There was no interest, no enthusiasm. The meetings were a bore; the work was like a treadmill. We counted the hours until we could get away, and hailed the moment of emancipation with unspeakable joy. . . . [We knew we had] indifference and want of every sort of proper qualification for Christian work, which I have described before[.] . . . I was utterly unmoved; and both Robert and I came away more confirmed than ever in our feeling of entire relief from everything of the kind. We are done! Somebody else may do it now.
However, despite the fact that neither Robert nor Hannah Smith could stand being at the meetings, the power from the spirit world that was evident in their earlier ministry was more abundant than ever:
I . . . am compelled to record that the meeting was a perfect success. There was just the same power and blessing as at Oxford or Brighton, only on a smaller scale because of the meeting being smaller. There was every sign of the continual presence of the Spirit. Souls were converted, backsliders restored, Christians sanctified, and all present seemed to receive definite blessings. Dr. Cullis and many others say that it was the best meeting ever held in this country. And it really was a good meeting, even I, uninterested as I was, could see that. There was just the same apparent wave of blessing that swept over our English meetings. And Robert and I never worked more effectually. He had all his old power in preaching and leading meetings, and the very self-same atmosphere of the Spirit was with him as used to be in England. As for me, thee knows I am not much given to tell of my own successes, but in this case, in order that thee may have all the facts, I have to tell thee that I was decidedly “favored” as Friends say. In fact I don’t believe I ever was as good. All who had heard me before said so.
The fuss that was made over me was a little more than even in England. The preachers fairly sat at my feet, figuratively speaking, and constantly there kept coming to me testimonies of definite blessings received while I spoke. The second time I spoke a Democratic Editor was converted and consecrated on the spot; and I could scarcely get a minute to myself for the enquirers who fairly overwhelmed me. . . . I had to write all this, and thee must tear it right up, but how could thee know it unless I told thee[.] . . . For who would have dreamed of such an outcome to the indifference and want of every sort of proper qualification for [Christian] work, which I have described beforehand? . . . They all talked to me most solemnly about how dreadful it was in me to think of giving up public work[.] . . . We had to refuse lots of urgent invitations to hold meetings in various places, but we did it without a longing thought, only too thankful to be released. . . .
The one satisfaction of the meeting to us was this, and it was a satisfaction, that Robert was treated with all the old deference and respect, and that no one even seemed to think of or remember the English scandals, and Robert felt that it was a complete reinstatement of himself in the eyes of the church and the world. Our object in going to the meeting was accomplished . . . it will wipe out all the wretched English blot, and put him right once more. And then henceforth home and home life for us.
Personal holiness and genuine blessing from the Holy Spirit were not required for the type of religion spread by Hannah and Robert Smith. Their Higher Life doctrine could be spread by both knowingly unconsecrated Christians who were just putting on a weary performance and by unconverted persons. Hannah continued:
And now, WHAT does thee think of it all? I think one of two things, but which one I think, I don’t know. Perhaps thee can tell me. Either I was awfully wicked in the whole matter, and God was not in it anywhere, and all the success was by force of natural gifts and talents. Or else I was awfully good, so good as to have lost sight of self to such a degree as to be only a straw wafted on the wind of the Spirit, and so consecrated as not to be able to form a desire even, except that the will of God might be fully done.
I waver about myself continually. Sometimes I feel sure I have progressed wonderfully, and that my present sphinx-like calm and indifference to everything whether inward or outward except the will of God, is very grand. . . . I really don’t much care what His will is. . . . And then again I think I am an utterly irreligious and lazy fatalist, with not a spark of the divine in me. I do wish I could find out which I am. But at all events my orthodoxy has fled to the winds. I am Broad, Broader, Broadest! So broad that I believe everything is good, or has a germ of good in it, and “nothing to be refused,” if it be received with thankfulness.
I agree with everybody, and always think it likely everybody’s “view” is better than my own. I hold all sorts of heresies, and feel myself to have got out into a limitless ocean of the love of God that overflows all things. My theology is complete, if you but grant me an omnipotent and just Creator. I need nothing more. All the tempests in the various religious teapots around me do seem so far off, so young, so green, so petty! I know I was there once, it must have been ages ago, and it seems impossible. “God is love,” comprises my whole system of ethics. And, as thou says, it seems to take in all. . . . I guess He means us to be good human beings in this world, and nothing more. . . . There is certainly a very grave defect in any doctrine that universally makes its holders narrow and uncharitable, and this is always the case with strict so-called orthodoxy. Whereas, as soon as Christian love comes in, the bounds widen infinitely. I find that everyone who has travelled this highway of holiness for any length of time, has invariably cut loose from its old moorings. I bring out my heresies to such, expecting reproof, when lo! I find sympathy. We are “out on the ocean sailing,” that is certain. And if it is the ocean of God’s love, as I believe, it is grand.
But, enough! Now, what will thee do with it all?
Hannah saw that her Higher Life doctrine did not require the blessing of the Spirit of God and that it led people to reject Christian orthodoxy for ever greater heresy. While she was not willing to commit to the truth because of her unwillingless to evaluate everything by Scripture alone, she was correct when she opined: “I was awfully wicked in the whole matter, and God was not in it anywhere and all the success was because of our natural gifts and talents.” Both Mrs. Smith and her husband possessed tremendous natural powers and salesmanship abilities which they used to great success. Mrs. Smith was also correct that her sphinxlike indifference was pagan fatalism, irreligious, and evidence that she had nothing of God in her. Describing the powers that brought her to be leading meetings and services continually, Hannah wrote: “There seems to be something occult about it.” Nonetheless, she continued on her path without care or concern, feeling happy. Mr. Smith recognized the overwhelming evidence provided by his last “successful” meeting that the Holy Spirit was not in his work at all, but that his success was simply natural; his apostasy from the profession of Christianity to agnosticism following in due course. Mrs. Smith, on the other hand, was not willing to recongize that all her Higher Life agitation had been done without any real blessing by God, and so she retained her belief in the Higher Life and in a deity, while her orthodoxy, such as it was, went to the winds. She could be satisfied without the incarnate Christ, considering dotrines such as His Deity, crucifixion, and resurrection as mere tempests in a religious teapot. She could be satisfied also without the church. She could even be satisfied with the piety of mystical Hindu syncretism or Buddhism, as long as she had a simple Creator. When Mrs. Smith could dilute the whole counsel of God contained in the complete Bible to a simple and mushy “God is love”—whoever and whatever God is—and when those who “travelled on this highway” of the Higher Life with her “for any length of time” ended up jettisoning orthodoxy also, it should have been glaringly and horribly obvious to her upon self-examination (2 Corinthians 13:5) that her religion was earthly, sensual, and devilish.
Hannah was able, in part, to continue to preach the Higher Life even after facing the evidence that all her work was unspiritual and devoid of the smiles of heaven because she flatly rejected self-examination. In direct contradiction to the command of 2 Corinthians 13:5 and other Biblical passages, Mrs. Smith proclaimed that “self-examination . . . seems to be spiritual” but in reality causes “injury and harm”—indeed, it is “about as disastrous as anything.” Consequently, as she learned from “Fenelon,” she counselled others: “[G]ive up all future self-reflective acts,” for this was a key to spiritual “liberty.” At the Brighton Convention, for example, she boldly preached against self-examination, distorting 2 Corithians 13:5 in a major way.
After all, she had “suffered so much from” self-examination that she wrote: “I have at last given it up forever. Do the same, dear friend[.]” Rather than practicing self-examination, one is to “lear[n] the precious lesso[n] . . . of knowing the inward Voice, and following it without reserve. . . . For myself, I find that the sweetness of a life of obedience to this inward Voice is greater than I can express,” as confirmed by her feelings of happiness and by the Quaker “Isaac Pennington.” Hannah sought to come to a “more complete surrender to . . . the inward voice . . . than ever” as she plunged ever deeper into the Higher Life; her “great hunger” was for this “voice.” Thus, by rejecting self-examination, she could remain deluded and happy despite in the devilish nature of her religion, as its terribly unsound character was only obvious to those who recognized human depravity, rejected the Inward Voice, cleaved to sola Scriptura, and carefully applied the Bible to their own spiritual experience, because of their own personal regeneration. Hannah W. Smith rejected such a careful and watchful attitude, since the conflict between the Bible and her experience hindered her feelings of happiness and made her feel like she was suffering; following the Inward Voice instead made her feel very happy, at least at the time—whether she was happy upon her death is another question.
As well as the paradigmatic Higher Life or Keswick writer, Mrs. Smith and her husband were Quakers, “birthright member[s] of the Society of Friends” who sought to lead her children into the Quaker way. The Smiths had Quaker ancestors reaching back to the days of William Penn. Hannah’s “father . . . was . . . a very strict Quaker . . . Robert’s family were also of good Quaker stock.” Indeed, Hannah, her “parents, and [even her] grandparents” were “birthright Friend[s],” and Hannah was raised in “traditional Quaker mysticism.” While, Mr. Smith was for a portion of his life a member of the Presbyterian denomination, even in his most theologically orthodox years he was close enough to Quakerism that, for example, around the time of his leadership of the Keswick precursor Conventions he could send his “children and their nurse . . . to stay for the whole summer with the Barclays, a wealthy Quaker family, at Monkhams, their home in Essex . . . [where] the girls shared the Barclay children’s governess and tutors.” Furthermore, Mrs. Smith “could not follow . . . Robert . . . [in joining] the Presbyterians . . . as she found their views against the preaching of women unacceptable.” Indeed, Hannah was too heretical even for many Quakers: “In 1867 . . . Hannah . . . tried to start a little Quaker Meeting in Millville, which, not surprisingly, turned out too heretical to be approved, and she searched the Scriptures to support her strong feeling that she was called upon to preach.” Nevertheless, by “the 1870s Hannah had no church affiliation and . . . had begun to attend Friend’s Meeting again,” as she “had become more or less reconciled . . . [with] the Quakers.” During some periods of their married life when, in the words of Hannah, “Robert [was] enthusiastic over [men such as a local] Baptist clergyman . . . because he preaches such a pure gospel,” Hannah nonetheless noted, “I cannot enjoy close contact with such people”; Quaker ministers, who did not preach a pure gospel, were better. The teachings of the Pearsall Smiths cannot be understood properly without a consideration of the Quakerism that permeated their religious background.
Hannah believed that the “Friends . . . were especially raised up by the Lord to teach this truth” of the Higher Life, and she “long[ed] to see Quakerism the formost in the great battlefield” for it. She wrote: “More and more I am convinced that Quakerism was in its first founding pure, unadulterated Christianity. Every advanced truth that the Lord teaches me, I find is only a return to pure Quakerism.” Before her rise as a preacher of the Higher Life, at the pinnacle of her preaching work with Robert that led to the founding of the Keswick Convention, and throughout the rest of her life, she remained a devoted Quaker.
Mrs. Smith . . . remained essentially a Quaker throughout life, or, as it would be more accurate to say, grew steadily more and more Quaker. There is scarcely a distinctively Quaker conception which does not find expression at some time or other in her writings. . . . [E]ven the fundamental mystical [Quaker heresy of] the “divine seed” is quite clearly enunciated and the characteristic Higher Life teaching developed out of it. . . . Mrs. Smith became perfectly well aware, then, that her teaching was in its essence genuinely Quaker teaching: and she delighted to present it in its organic relation with Quaker teaching.
The Higher Life theology she founded was simply the theology of Quakerism.
Since she did not have to examine herself by the teaching of Scripture, Mrs. Smith could set Biblical doctrine and practice against each other, reject the former, exalt the latter, and feel happy in her deluded state. Hannah wrote:
How true the old Friends were when they used to tell us that it was not what we believed but how we lived that was the real test of salvation, and how little we understood them! . . . And as thee says, my opinions about God may all be wrong, but if my loyalty to Him is real it will not matter. It seems as if it would be enough just to say, “God is,” and, “Be good,” and then all would be said. [That is, even Deism combined with mere morality would be acceptable.] It is the practical things that interest me now[.]
She did not know whether what she taught people was sound, or whether it was true—but she knew that it made people feel comfortable, and this was enough. Indeed, she wrote that her first duty in life was not to glorify God, but to be comfortable: “I consider it my first duty in life to make myself as comfortable as is possible[.]” After all, as Hannah explained at the Brighton Convention, the Holy Spirit is not “one to make us unhappy”—thoughts that make one unhappy “always come from Satan.” She did not seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness (Matthew 6:33), but sought first the secret of a happy life. Feeling happy—eudemonism—was what was truly important. Her son Logan narrated:
When in her later life [Mrs. Smith] came to be a sort of mother-confessor to the many people who used to come to her for advice in their perplexities, her advice was always, she told us, for them to do the thing they really and seriously wanted to do. . . . “But surely, Mother,” [her children] sometimes protested, “this is dangerous advice to give to people!” “Well,” she would answer, “our Heavenly Father knows the kind of advice I give, so if He sends people to me it must be because He wants them given this advice. Besides, children,” she would add, “people always in the end do what they want to do, and they might as well do it with a good conscience.”
Based on this view that people should do whatever they wanted, Hannah taught: “[D]on’t be too unselfish.” Logan Pearsall Smith explained what he learned from his parents about sanctification from the time he experienced his second blessing as an unregenerate seven year old:
Sanctification . . . renders us immune from sin. . . . [I] renounced . . . Pelagian attempts to conquer Sin and Satan by [my] own carnal struggles, and realized that only by Grace, and unmerited Grace alone, and by no “deadly doing,” could [I] attain the conquest that [I] sought. . . . [Those who receive the second blessing receive] [t]he glorious certainty that they are sanctified . . . they rejoice—as all my life I have rejoiced—in the consciousness that they can commit no wrong. I may do, I have undoubtedly done, things that were foolish, tactless, and dishonest, and what the world would consider wrong, but since I attained the state of Sanctification at the age of seven I have never felt the slightest twinge of conscience, never experienced for one second the sense of sin.
Logan achieved the goal of his mother’s theology of sanctification—happiness in a perpetual freedom from a sense of sin and guilt—the secret of a happy life. To Hannah W. Smith, feeling happy, and having no pangs of conscience because of sin, were more important than the glory of God and obedience to the Bible.
In line with the Quaker background she shared with her husband, both Mrs. and Mr. Smith were believers in the continuation of miraculous gifts for the present day as opposed to being cessationists, advocates of the Biblical truth that the sign gifts ceased with the completion of the canon of the Scripture and the death of the Apostles in the first century. The Smiths were consequently involved in the Faith or Mind Cure movement which advocated miraculous and non-medical means for healing and laid the foundation for Keswick continuationism and Pentecostalism. Mrs. Smith knew Quakers who had received Faith Cures. She was the instrument through which various people received such Cures herself, healing several who were “close to hysteria,” although she “tried her powers, in vain, on a victim of cancer,” since cancer is clearly a physical disease that is not removed when someone is no longer hysterical. She stated: “With Faith Healing I have had a great deal of experience.” Hannah wrote concerning a sick friend: “I wish she could get hold of faith healing[.]” She herself used a “Mind Cure for sea-sickness[.]” She was acquainted with that prominent evangelist of the Faith Cure, Dr. Charles Cullis, from at least 1871, and ministered with Cullis on various occasions, since “Dr. Cullis of Boston [was] a friend and fellow evangelist” of the Smiths. After all, Cullis surely had miraculous powers; he healed Mrs. Smith’s daughter of indigestion through the techniques of the Faith Cure, although he was unable to heal himself—ever—of a serious heart condition he endured for decades. Indeed, Cullis was such a firm supporter of Mr. and Mrs. Smith and their Higher Life preaching that he sought to restore Robert after Mr. Smith’s fall due to his preaching of erotic Spirit baptism. As a Quaker, Hannah W. Smith was naturally an advocate for the continuationism of the Faith or Mind Cure.
Mrs. Smith was likewise a “friend” of the “New Thought teacher . . . Mrs. Caldwell,” illustrating the close relationship between the nineteenth century New Thought or Mind Cure movements from which arose the Christian Science of Mary B. Eddy, with its spiritualism and laws of healing, and the Faith Cure. Hannah noted:
I find that spiritualists have all the “baptisms” and “leadings” and “manifestations” that [non-spiritualistic but continuationist] Christians have, with precisely similar symptoms. The same “thrills,” the same “waves” or currents of life, the same spiritual uplifts, the same interior illuminations; they even see similar visions of Christ, and hear similar interior voices . . . taken in themselves, it is utterly impossible to distinguish between them.
Mrs. Smith’s daughter also “visited . . . with the intention of studying her doctrine, the famous female prophet, Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy.” Indeed, Hannah Smith’s description of the Faith Cure makes its identity with the Mind Cure of New Thought evident:
[O]ur faith lays hold of spiritual forces which are superior to natural forces and which therefore can overpower them. . . . [W]e become able to avail ourselves of powers that He has put at our disposal in the spiritual realm. I expect His real will for us is health always, but if we disobey natural laws His will is thwarted, and it is only by bringing in spiritual laws that we can overcome the evil tendencies caused by sin[.] . . . [J]ust as a wire does not create the electric current but only draws it down in certain directions so our faith does not create health but only draws the vitality of the spiritual realm down into our vessel. It is wonderful what faith will do.
Thus, the Faith or Mind Cure works based on “law,” and prayer is not, as it is in the Bible, a means of healing through the petitioning of a personal, sovereign, and loving God in Christ for His gracious physical mercies—rather, prayer is the instrument of healing insofar as by it people are “brought into harmony with those laws” of healing. Anticipating the Word of Faith doctrine of positive confession creating positive realities and negative confessions creating negative realities, Mrs. Smith consequently counselled: “[L]et me advise thee not to talk of thyself as being old. There is something in Mind Cure, after all, and, if thee continually talks of thyself as being old, thee may perhaps bring on some of the infirmities of age.” She wrote: “[T]he mind cure . . . is only the science by which the faith cure works,” a fact generally recognized by objective writers of her day. No objective disjunction and sharp division between an allegedly Christian Faith Cure movement and a clearly pagan and evil Mind Cure movement can be established by objective historiography—Hannah W. Smith and other early continuationist Higher Life leaders certainly made no such division.
Indeed, the Mind or Faith Cure was simply the application to the body of the Higher Life or Keswick doctrine of sanctification by faith alone: “[T]he mind cure . . . [or] faith cure . . . is simply doing on the plane of physical health what we did on the plane of sin when we reckoned ourselves dead to it and alive only to God. If the atonement covers sickness as well as sin this [is] all . . . true.” Hannah’s rejection of self-examination was helpful as a support for the Faith and Mind Cure, for not only should one refrain from spiritual self-examination, but from physical self-examination also, so symptoms that were “cured” by the Faith Cure but were still present could be ignored: “Self examination of one’s physical symptoms or spiritual symptoms is about as disastrous as anything.” Unfortunately, the adoption of the Faith and Mind Cure in Hannah’s family led to unnecessary and tragic early death. Hannah Whitall Smith’s sister Mary Thomas died of breast cancer at the age of fifty-three in 1887, leaving behind her husband and eight children. Mary believed she was cured by the Faith Cure, consequently refused to go to a doctor to deal with her cancer, and consequently died. In the words of Hannah W. Smith:
The one great grief to all of us is that six months [earlier] she could have been cured [by conventional medicine], when she first began to think she had the trouble, but then she trusted the Lord for healing and fully believed it was done and went on believing this all summer so fully that she never said anything to anyone about it. And all the while [her cancer] was growing as rapidly as it was possible for it to do . . . my sister is simply the victim of the faith cure teaching.
Hannah’s preaching at a camp meeting exemplified the union of the Faith Cure and the Higher Life in her theology:
In our hotel I found one of the housekeepers who was a devoted adherent of mine and who told me of a Holiness Camp Meeting in progress in the country outside of the city. . . . Just as I neared the ground . . . I saw a Philadelphia lady whom I used to see at meetings there long ago coming to the pump for water! I spoke to her and she recognized me at once, gave me a hearty welcome, and then introduced me to the leaders of the meeting and to all the dear saints right and left. I received a perfect ovation! They had all apparently read my book “The Christian’s Secret,” and were full of it, and of the blessing it had been to them “next to their Bibles” [as] the “constant companion of their devotions,” the “greatest help of their lives” etc. etc. And they fairly overwhelmed me with their delight at seeing me, dear souls.
They would hear nothing but that I should stay and preach for them in their evening meeting, which I did, under a large tent. It was altogether quite a refreshing experience. . . . They had a meeting for faith healing, and insisted on my going to it to teach them! . . . I told them . . . I would give them Dr. Cullis’ teaching, and that seemed to satisfy them.
Mrs. Smith was far from being alone in combining the Faith or Mind Cure and the Higher Life; rather, preparing the way for Pentecostalism, “belief in and the witness to miraculous divine healings attended the holiness movement at every turn.” Her Quaker continuationism was by no means restricted to a belief in continued Apostolic healings; she noted that “speaking with tongues . . . is . . . apt to come to [Higher Life] Revivals, [and] I have known a great many instances.” She likewise thought: “[It is] the privilege of Christians to receive the same Baptism now . . . [as was received] on the day of Pentecost. . . . There is nothing in the Bible which suggests that this gift [of Spirit baptism as experienced on Pentecost] should cease[.] . . . [T]he early Friends must have known and experienced it, and . . . this accounts for their wonderful success.” After all, for Mrs. Smith, if not for Scripture, only elite believers—those only who have entered into the Higher Life—have the Holy Spirit, so a post-conversion second blessing comparable to Pentecost was obviously of tremendous importance. Mrs. Smith was a committed continuationst because of her Higher Life Quakerism, and was consequently very important Pentecostal precursor.
Hannah, as a natural concommitant of her continuationism and Quakerism, believed in the Inner Light heresy and was consequently an opponent of the sole authority of Scripture. W. H. Griffith Thomas effectively summarizes the character of the Quaker Inner Light heresy:
In the Mysticism of the Quakers we find the tendency to emphasise the doctrine of the “inner light” as something either independent of, or superior to the written Word. This position is set forth by Barclay, the leading theologian of the Society of Friends. “We may not call them (the Scriptures) the principal fountain of all truth and knowledge, nor yet the first adequate rule of faith and manners, because the principal fountain of truth must be the truth itself; i.e. that whose authority and certainty depends not upon another.” Again, “God hath committed and given unto every man a measure of light of His own Son—a measure of grace, or a measure of the Spirit. This, as it is received, and not resisted, works the salvation of all, even of those who are ignorant of the death and sufferings of Christ.” . . . [Contrary to Quakerism,] it is not true to say that every man, as such, has the Spirit of God, nor can we call the same thing “light,” “reason,” “grace,” “the Spirit,” “the Word of God,” “Christ within,” and “God in us.” Such a procedure would create untold confusion and lead to almost endless trouble. . . . According to the early Quakers a man of their time might be as truly inspired of God as were the Prophets and Apostles of the Bible. Against the imposition of dogma by authority George Fox said that “though he read of Christ and God,” he knew them only through a [“]like spirit in his own soul.” And to refer to Barclay again, he taught that “God hath placed His Spirit in every man, to inform him of his duty and to enable him to do it.”
The Inner Light was key to Quaker devotional writing and practice:
The most obvious theological distinction [in] Quakerism which makes an impact on devotional pratice is the doctrine of the ‘inner light.’ . . . [E]very individual was born with the light of Christ within. Though the light (which is often identified with the Holy Spirit) is darkened by sin, it can be rekindled through quietness and spiritual listening. Christ, therefore, shines anew on the heart apart from the normal means of grace such as preaching and reading the Scriptures.
Rejection of the sole authority of Scripture was a necessary corollary to the Inner Light doctrine—consequently, Hannah W. Smith, along with Quakerism in general, opposed the truth of sola Scriptura. For the “Society of Friends . . . [the] ultimate and final authority for religious life and faith resides within each individual. Many . . . seek for this truth through the guidance of the inner light.” Thus:
[George] Fox and others stressed [that] the contemporary believer has the same or clearer experience of God as the biblical prophets. . . . [T]he scripture is . . . like a record of ancient men who had their own ‘showings’ of the divine light, experiences recorded in order to prompt us to do the same. The Bible is a guidebook only in this way[.] . . . “Quakerism is better off emphasizing pantheistic and universalist perspectives. Our [Quaker] mode of worship is especially well-suited to this theology. Other denominations probably better serve people who are looking for strict adherence to doctrine . . . or Christ crucified as a personal Savior[.]”
Hannah Smith, a universalist who came to rest satisfied in a mystical “bare God,” rather than the Triune Father, Son, and Holy Spirit revealed in Scripture, received many great revelations as a Quaker—unfortunately, they were far, far too often not illumination that came from the study of the Scripture, but additional revelations or Quaker “openings” that arose from other sources. For example, she wrote: “One of my greatest ‘openings’ into the mystery of religion came from something I heard . . . Oscar Wilde . . . say in Philadelphia, dressed in shorts with a big sunflower in his buttonhole.” Statements of the serial pedophile Oscar Wilde, with the assistance of the Inner Light, were, for Hannah, a fine substitute for the sole authority of the infallible Word of God, the Bible.
Naturally, Mrs. Smith opposed literal or grammatical-historical interpretation of Scripture, and the truly authoritative character of Scripture in general. She affirmed: “I am afraid of too much literalness” in interpreting the Bible, preferring rather “the spiritual meaning” that is “often so much deeper than appears on the surface, as even to seem almost in contrast” to the literal meaning. After all, literal interpretation was the death-knell of Quaker continuationism and the destruction of the foundation of the Higher Life theology—it was, therefore, better when at meetings like the Broadlands Conferences Mrs. Smith, her husband, and others could minister in a “wonderfully inspired way,” testifying to notions validated not by literal exegesis of Scripture, but by “their personal experience,” as they “tarried . . . not . . . in the letter of the Word, but . . . discerned everywhere beneath it the living Word.”
Mrs. Smith could likewise rejoice when a modernist like “Newman Smyth” wrote “a grand book on Christian evolution,” or when the modernist “Canon Farrar . . . dealt forcibly with all timid holding on to old errors” and set forth the necessity for “revision of the Bible.” Indeed, because of the preeminence of the Inner Light, the Bible was normally not used in the Friends meeting. Mrs. Smith certainly had no patience for a dispensational and literal view of Biblical prophecy; indeed, while Biblical holiness leads saints to long for Christ’s second coming, Hannah Smith testified: “[S]ince Christ has come to me in my heart I cannot care so much for His outward coming.” What need did she have for the Bible and its literal meaning when she had mysticism and a Quaker inward divinity, a “Christ within,” to lead her and teach her?
Mrs. Smith, contrary to 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-37, spoke frequently to mixed audiences and taught adult men. Although Paul, under inspiration, stated: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak. . . it is a shame for women to speak in the church. . . . If any man think himself to be . . . spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord,” Mrs. Smith preached to men about how to be spiritual. At their meetings, both “Mr. and Mrs. Pearsall Smith . . . took a leading part in the speaking.” She “supported the right of women to preach as Quakers always had done,” defending “women’s preaching” after “an experience of revolt from the traditional views” found in Scripture, a revolt in which she was followed by many, such as Mrs. Boardman, who was similarly “led” to address mixed audiences under Quaker influence, and Hannah’s Quaker and Keswick successor Jessie Penn-Lewis. Mrs. Smith explained at the Brighton Convention, where vast crowds of men thronged to hear her preaching, that she had asked the Lord to show her whether women should preach or not, and “He . . . gave me such a strong feeling that it was His mind, that now, whatever is said against it, it makes no difference.” Experience validated woman preachers in a way that Scripture could not. However, the unscriptural experiental validation of women preachers was most comparable to the validation of the Mind and Faith Cures by experience—the marvels performed by women validated both their leadership ministries and the value of their Cures. After all, students of the early decades of the Mind and Faith Cure movements noted: “[N]inety-five percent of [the] adherents [of] . . . ‘Christian Science’ . . . are women . . . [and] ‘Faith Healing’ . . . too . . . has a largely feminine constituency.” Thus, experience on her side, arguments from Scripture could by no means move Mrs. Smith from her position, although she was willing to assent to the views of other Quaker women preachers who justified their disobedience by proclaiming at the pre-Keswick Conventions a misinterpretation of Joel 2:28’s promise about the prophesying of daughters. While the committee backing their Higher Life conventions allowed both Hannah and Robert to preach, she made “the members of the committee . . . uneasy[.] . . . It was bad enough for a woman to preach; many, in particular the Germans, found it extremely shocking; but for her to preach Restitution, or the denial of Hell, was dangerously heretical.” Nonetheless, Hannah wrote to Robert: “I quite enjoy the thought of your pow-wow over me . . . and of . . . condolences . . . on the possession of such a dangerous article as a heretical, preaching wife. . . . I do not in the least mind being a heretic. In fact I think it rather suits my cast of mind.” Indeed, it was precisely her denial of hell for the universalist heresy that brought her and her husband to fame, for her universalist confession lead to her receipt, “at a time when the universal hope was deemed a heresy . . . an invitation to hold [the] series of [Higher Life] meetings at Broadlands.” Consequently, on the authority of her feelings and subjective impressions and backed by her heretical opinions, Mrs. Smith began her career as a woman preacher in Quaker meetings and continued preaching regularly to mixed audiences of men and women for the rest of her life.
Mrs. Smith was also passionately opposed to the Biblical pattern of leadership by the huband in marriage (Ephesians 5:22-33), stating that it made women into slaves, and looking to woman’s sufferage as the key to the destruction of all the Biblical patriarchy (Isaiah 3:12) that existed in the society of her day. Concerning the Biblical roles in marriage, she said: “‘No’ emphatically . . . a thousand times ‘No.’ . . . I know nothing more absolutely unjust in itself nor more productive of misery to the woman than the assumption of the place of authority on the part of men. It reduces women at once in principle to the position of slaves . . . [a]ny amount of anarchy and confusion would be better.” Nothing, Hannah W. Smith knew, could be more unjust than what the Holy and Just One, the good and loving God, commanded about the roles of men and women in the marriage relationship.
Judging by her unhappy and un-Christian marriage and the fact that none of her children who survived to adulthood were born again or honored the Lord, Mrs. Smith neither had the true “secret” of a happy Christian life nor the spiritual power to affect others for Christ. Her son Logan Pearsall Smith rejected Christ and Christianity. He wrote:
The old doctrines of the corruption of man and his inevitable doom unless he finds salvation in the conviction of sin, the gift of grace, and a sudden catastrophic, miraculous conversion—this evangelical theology . . . has now become utterly alien and strange to me. . . . I rejoiced in . . . ridicule of the evangelical religion . . . I gave . . . serious attention to the literature of Theosophy, and was inclined to believe that the key to the problem of existence was to be found, if only I could grasp it, in a little book of Rosicrucian doctrine over which I used to pore for hours. . . . We are indeed leaves that perish . . . I do not find that a fate to be regretted . . . for any other form of being I feel no longing. All that I have read about what happens in a future existence makes the life beyond the grave seem an uncomfortable adventure. I have no desire for eternal bliss. . . . [I]f there is a struggle in the mind . . . between God and Mammon, I advise that the service of the god of money should be followed.
One of Hannah’s two daughters abandoned her Roman Catholic husband and her children to pursue an adulterous relationship, while the other daughter married atheist Bertrand Russell; both daughters rejected Christianity. Indeed, Hannah’s persistently adulterous daughter Mary wrote the following to her mother: “I have (I think) no orthodox standards of any kind. Thee, who is such a rebel against orthodoxy in religion, cannot be surprised or shocked if I am a rebel against orthodoxy in conduct. . . . [O]ne heresy leads to another, in the next generation at least.” As Hannah’s children rejected Christianity, so her husband Robert evidenced his unregenerate state by his rejection of Christianity for agnosticism and Buddhism accompanied by his own persistent adultery. More importantly than her lack of the “secret” of happiness or spiritual power, Mrs. Smith did not have the “secret” of a God-honoring Christian life, or even, based on her heresies, a Christian life at all. Nonetheless, “[m]any today who know her only through her writings know very little about . . . Hannah’s heresies . . . or, if they do, like those who knew her best, they still accept her spiritual insights as valid . . . loyal to . . . [the] doctrine . . . that life not doctrine was the true test of pure Christianity.” However, one wonders if many of those advocates of a doctrineless false pietism who embrace Mrs. Smith are aware that, while not living an outwardly profligate life, she nonetheless disliked united prayer, went to casinos, and hated her household servants. She wrote a note to her daughter about her “belated birthday present—a telescope Cigarette holder. Thee need not advertise that it is a present from the author of the ‘Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life’!” She also wrote her daughter concerning her grandchildren: “The girls decided to play Demon in my sitting-room, and asked if I would let them say ‘Da[-]n’ now and then, and what could a poor foolish grandmother say but, ‘Yes’! (But do not put this in my Memoirs, I beg of thee!).” Along with allowing her grandchildren to play Demon and employ curse words, Mrs. Smith also fellowshiped with spiritualists and received prophecies from occult palm readers. Her life was not a little different from that of a consistent pietist, even one who cared little for Biblically orthodox doctrine. Neither Mrs. Smith’s beliefs nor her life indicated that she knew the alleged “secret” to a happy or holy Christian life.
Mrs. Smith was a committed universalist. She was passionately and zealously wedded to the heresy that everyone would go to heaven and nobody would suffer eternally in hell. After a period of time during which she blasphemously thought God was selfish for not saving everyone and that she was more loving than God, and consistent with her Quaker background, Mrs. Smith adopted universalism because of a grossly unscriptural “revelation” given to her while she was expressing her displeasure with God. While feeling justified in her “upbraiding” of the Holy One, she adopted universalism because of an “inward voice” that she “knew” gave her the truth because of the testimony of her “heart” before she even looked at the Bible. She was open to such “revelations” because she rejected the total depravity of man in favor of the Inner Light: “Just as we inherit natural life from the first Adam, so do we inherit spiritual life from the second Adam. There is . . . in every man a seed of the divine life, a Christ-germ as it were. The old Quakers called it ‘the witness for God in the soul,’ ‘that which responds to the divine inspeaking. . . . There is a divine seed in every man[.]” After all, for Mrs. Smith, the law is not the externally objective testimony of Scripture, but the Inner Light, the Divine Seed—“Our law of life is within; we must love to follow it.” She would have done well to consider God’s testimony that “he that trusteth in his own heart is a fool” (Proverbs 28:26; cf. Jeremiah 17:9). Instead, Mrs. Smith taught that one should follow “God’s four especial voices, i. e. the voice of the Bible, the voice of circumstances, the voice of one’s highest reason, and the voice of one’s inward impressions.” She had learned from the Quakers that personal “revelations” were superior to the Scriptures:
A Quaker “concern” [alleged revelation] was to my mind clothed with even more authority than the Bible, for the Bible was God’s voice of long ago, while the “concern” was His voice at the present moment and, as such, was of far greater present importance . . . the preaching I hear[d] was certainly calculated to exalt the “inward voice” and its communications above all other voices . . . since God spoke to us directly[.]
She received such revelations throughout her life, leading her to all kinds of conclusions that could not be found in the Bible. Mrs. Smith persisted in believing in and preaching the universalism she had learned from the spirit world through the Inner Voice until her death, for the Inner Voice was the necessary corollary of the Quaker and Gnosticrejection of human depravity for the doctrine of the Divine Seed in every man. Every man had a Divine Seed, so every man would be saved; thus Hannah had learned from the Inner Voice. Hannah came to teach religious pluralism as a corollary of her universalism, that “a good Creator can be got at through all sorts of religious beliefs and all sorts of religious ceremonies, and that it does not matter what they are.” Indeed people who are “fundamentally good . . . can be so content without any real link with God,” or even “without any certainty that there is a God to be linked to.” Thus, not just the false gospel of High Church Anglicans and Roman Catholic priests, or the polytheism and blasphemy of Mormons within the realm of what might in the very loosest sense be termed Christiandom, but also the worship of various gods, whether Allah, Baal, or Satan, is fine; indeed, even atheists and agnostics can be fundamentally good, and everyone is going to heaven at the end, in any case. One may trust in Jehovah and hate the devil, and another may trust in the devil and hate the living God, but although “on exactly opposite pathways . . . we all meet God at last.” People who do not care in the least about the “saving of the soul,” and who are “unconsciou[s] . . . [of] the Christianity of Christ,” are still “serving, though it may be unconsciously . . . the Divine Master,” regardless of whatever the Bible might say to the contrary (e. g., Ephesians 2:1-13). God receives the worship and brings to heaven those who worship in spirit and in truth and serve Him in a Bible-practicing church, and He also allegedly receives the worship and brings to heaven those who offer the gore of human sacrifices to Moloch. It thus becomes clear why it was necessary for Hannah to preach the Higher Life—all already have eternal life, but not all have the happiness and rest that comes from the Keswick theology.
Hannah W. Smith wrote My Spiritual Autobiography: How I Discovered The Unselfishness of God specifically because she loved being a heretic, and because she wanted to convince others to adopt heresies and become heretics:
[M]y autobiography . . . “How I discovered God” . . . is the story of my soul life from my early Quaker days, on through all the progressive steps of my experience . . . I am putting all my heresies into my story, and am trying to show the steps that have led to them; and I flatter myself that it is going to be very convincing! So if you feel afraid of becoming heretics, I advise you not to read it. For my part, I always did love being a heretic as some of you know. What fun it was[!]
The book documents Mrs. Smith’s universalist and Quaker heresies, as well as the fact that her universalism, which she spread in her writings, antedated her and her husband’s public proclamation of the “Higher Life” theology from which the Keswick movement originated. She explained her adoption of the universalist heresy as follows:
Neither could I see how a Creator could be just . . . in consigning some of the creatures He Himself, and no other, had created, to the eternal torment of hell, let them be as great sinners as they might be. I felt that if this doctrine were true, I should be woefully disappointed in the God whom I had . . . discovered. . . . As an escape from the doctrine of eternal torment, I at first embraced the doctrine of annihilation for the wicked, and for a little while tried to comfort myself with the belief that this life ended all for them. But the more I thought of it, the more it seemed to me that it would be a confession of serious failure on the part of the Creator, if He could find no way out of the problem of His creation, but to annihilate the creatures whom He had created. . . . I could not believe He would torment them forever; and neither could I rest in the thought of annihilation as His best remedy for sin. . . . I set myself to discover my mistakes. . . . [O]ne day a revelation came to me that vindicated Him, and that settled the whole question forever. . . . I seemed to have a revelation . . . not of His [Christ’s] sufferings because of sin, but of ours. . . . I had been used to hear a great deal about the awfulness of our sins against God, but now I asked myself, what about the awfulness of our fate in having been made sinners? Would I not infinitely rather that a sin should be committed against myself, than that I should commit a sin against any one else? Was it not a far more dreadful thing to be made a sinner than to be merely sinned against? . . . I saw that, when weighted in a balance of wrong done, we, who had been created sinners, had infinitely more to forgive than any one against whom we might have sinned.
The vividness with which all this came to me can never be expressed. . . . I saw it. It was a revelation . . . it could not be gainsaid. . . . How long it lasted I cannot remember, but, while it lasted, it almost crushed me. And as it always came afresh at the sight of a strange face, I found myself obliged to wear a thick veil whenever I went into the streets[.] . . . One day I was riding on a tram-car along Market Street, Philadelphia, when I saw two men . . . dimly through my veil . . . [but when the] conductor came for his fare . . . I was obliged to raise my veil in order to count it out. As I raised it, I got a sight of the faces of those two men, and with an overwhelming flood of anguish, I seemed to catch a fresh and clearer revelation of the depths of the misery that had been caused to human beings by sin. It was more than I could bear. . . . I upbraided God. And I felt I was justified in doing so. Then suddenly . . . [a]n inward voice said . . . “He shall see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied.” “Satisfied!” I cried in my heart . . . . [“]If I were Christ, nothing could satisfy me but that every human being should in the end be saved, and therefore I am sure that nothing less will satisfy Him.” And with this a veil seemed to be withdrawn from before the plans of the universe . . . I saw therefore that the remedy must necessarily be equal to the disease, the salvation must be as universal as the fall.
I saw all this that day on the tram-car . . . not only thought it, or hoped it, or even believed it—but knew it. It was a Divine fact. And from that moment I have never had one questioning thought as to the final destiny of the human race. . . . However great the ignorance therefore, or however grievous the sin, the promise of salvation is positive and without limitations . . . somewhere and somehow God was going to make everything right for all the creatures He had created. My heart was at rest about it forever.
I hurried home to get hold of my Bible, to see if the magnificent fact I had discovered could possibly have been all this time in the Bible . . . my Bible fairly shone with a new meaning. . . . the true [universalist] meaning, hidden behind the outward form of words . . . rightly interpreted, not by the letter, but by the spirit . . . the denunciations of God’s wrath, which had once seemed so cruel and so unjust, were transformed into declarations of His loving determination to make us good enough to live in Heaven with Himself forever. . . . [A]t this time my real discovery of the unselfishness of God began. Up to then . . . I had been secretly beset from time to time with a torturing feeling that, after all, it was rather a selfish salvation, both for Him and for me. . . . always there had been at the bottom of my mind this secret feeling that His love could not stand the test of comparison with the ideal of love in my own heart. . . . I still had often felt as if after all the God I worshipped was a selfish God, who cared more for His own comfort and His own glory that He did for the poor suffering beings He had made. . . . [M]ost of my ideas of the love and goodness of God have come from my own experience as a mother . . . since this discovery of the mother-heart of God I have always been able to answer every doubt that may have arisen in my mind . . . by simply looking at my own feelings as a mother. . . . I had in short such an overwhelming revelation . . . that nothing since has been able to shake it. . . . [W]hen I had that revelation on the tram-car in Philadelphia that day, a light on the character of God began to shine. . . . The amazing thing is that I, in company with so many other Christians, had failed, with the open Bible before me, to see this [“truth” of universalism.] . . .
[Opposition to my new belief in universal salvation] became at this time well-nigh intolerable. I could listen patiently, and even with interest, to any sort of strange or heretical ideas . . . but the one thing I could not endure, and could not sit still to listen to, was anything that contained, even under a show of great piety, the least hint of [opposition to universalism]. . . . [A] celebrated Preacher . . . was visiting us. . . . his object was to combat my views on Restitution [that is, universalism.] [A]lthough the speaker was my guest, I broke forth into a perfect passion of indignation, and declaring that I would not sit at the table with any one who held such libelous ideas of God, I burst into tears and left the room, and entirely declined to see my guest again. I do not say that this was right or courteous, or at all Christ-like, but it only illustrates how overwhelmingly I felt on the subject. . . . As was to be expected . . . my views on Restitution, which of course I had speedily announced, met with a great deal of disapproval from the Plymouth Brethren, and my other orthodox friends . . . I have always rather enjoyed being considered a heretic . . . the discovery I had made . . . was considered by many to be . . . a grave heresy . . . but the revelation I had had was too glorious for me to withhold it whenever I found an open door; and . . . I was never willing to sail under false colours, nor speak anywhere without it being perfectly well known beforehand what a heretic I was[.] . . . And, as a fact, these very views, and the frank confession of them . . . were the means of opening the way for some of our most important and successful work. . . . In 1873 my husband had come over to England to hold some meetings in the interests of the Higher Life, or, what I prefer to call it, the Life of Faith. I soon followed him, and upon my arrival in London I was invited to meet a company of leading Evangelical ladies, who were to decide as to whether it would be safe for them to endorse me, and lend their influence to the work. . . . I [declared my belief in] the universal hope . . . the moment I ceased speaking . . . [I was invited to] come and have some meetings . . . not a word of disapproval was uttered, and . . . [the way] was thrown open to us for our first conference, which was a time of wonderful blessing, and proved to be the entering door for all the future conferences, and for our whole after work in England and elsewhere. . . . I believe in Restitution more and more. . . . When in 1874 there was to be one of these conferences . . . some of the committee who were helping to organize it, got frightened about my heresies . . . [but] as it was felt important to have me at the meetings, the committee . . . decided to take me as I was, with all my heresies. . . . I am a thousand times stronger in my view of restitution every day I live. . . . I . . . know that never for one single moment in all my work in England was I made to feel that my views on restitution in the slightest degree hindered the entrance of the message I had to give, or closed any door for my work. In fact I believe they made the way for me in many places that would otherwise not have been open. . . . [Concerning] my [universalist] . . . belief . . . without it I should have been shorn of half my power.”
Mrs. Smith then proceeds to explain that she came to her position about “the life of faith”—although her view of faith was always extremely weak and unscriptural—only after she had adopted the universalist heresy. She called “the life of faith” the “fourth epoch in my religious life,” while the universalist heresy was “the third epoch in my religious life.” Her universalism, she affirmed, opened up avenues for her spread of the “Higher Life” doctrine, and without universalism, she stated, “I should have been shorn of half my power.” Universalism was essential for Mrs. Smith’s development and promulgation of the Higher Life or Keswick doctrine of sanctification.
As already noted, Mrs. Smith declared that her universalist heresy and other heresies were key to her work as a Higher Life preacher and Keswick founder:
[T]hese very views, and the frank confession of them . . . were the means of opening the way for some of our most important and successful work. . . . [the] meetings in the interests of the Higher Life, or, what I prefer to call it, the Life of Faith. . . . [A] company of leading Evangelical ladies . . . were to decide as to whether it would be safe for them to endorse me, and lend their influence to the work. . . . I [declared my belief in] the universal hope . . . the moment I ceased speaking . . . [I was invited to] come and have some meetings . . . not a word of disapproval was uttered, and . . . [the way] was thrown open to us for our first conference, which . . . proved to be the entering door for all the future conferences, and for our whole after work in England and elsewhere. . . . [M]y views on restitution . . . made the way for me in many places that would otherwise not have been open . . . without it I should have been shorn of half my power.”
Hannah elsewhere explained her rise to Higher Life preacher in England in more detail, revealing that not universalism only, but spiritualism also—familiar intercourse with demons—was key to her exaltation as a famous Higher Life preacher and the founder of the Keswick theology. First, before beginning to preach the Higher Life, she sought Quaker approval for her teaching:
Robert [Smith] . . . seems to expect nothing else but that I will plunge into the work [of Higher Life agitation] with equal zeal, but I have not felt any guidance as yet in reference to it, except in the direction of the Friends [Quakers]. . . . I really could not consent to do it unless the Friends had first heard me, and were fully alive to the purport of my message. [A Quaker leader] therefore proposed, and we agreed, to invite a number of Friends to come to our house . . . to hear one of my lessons[.] . . . I burn to see this glorious life of faith becoming once more the realized experience of my dearly loved [Quaker] Society.
At this meeting, the critical incident was Hannah’s declaration of her belief in universalism, which brought her the support of the famous noblewoman and spiritualist Mrs. Mount-Temple, also known as Mrs. Cowper-Temple, who attended both Quaker meetings and spiritualist séances with her husband. Mrs. Mount-Temple narrated:
[T]he critical . . . incident at this meeting [took place while] Hannah was sitting in a little circle of excellent orthodox friends [Quakers], who had assembled to hear some of the good things that she had to impart, and she was there on examination.
She happened to have seen a funeral in the street, and as she spoke of it, we all put on the conventional look of sadness. “Oh,” she said, “when I meet a funeral I always give thanks for the brother or sister delivered from the trials and pains of this mortal state.” “How wonderful,” I thought, and I could not help exclaiming, “Is that possible? Do you feel this about everybody?” . . . She stopped and looked around. . . . [It was] a time when the universal hope was deemed a heresy, and she was on her trial. She owns that she went through a few moments of conflict. But truth prevailed, and looking up, with her bright glance, she said, “Yes, about everybody, for I trust in the love of God.” I yielded my heart at once to this manifestation of trust and love and candour.
Logan Pearsall Smith described his mother’s critical confession of universalism in more detail:
[S]he could not, she avowed to the assembled company, believe that the God she worshipped as a God of love was capable of such awful cruelty [as not to take every single person to heaven]; sinners, of course, He punished, but that He had decreed that their torments should be unending was to her a horrible belief. . . . [T]he company was on the point of breaking up in confusion when from the depths of the great drawing-room there floated forward, swathed in rich Victorian draperies and laces, a tall and stately lady, [Mrs. Cowper-Temple,] who kissed my mother, and said, “My dear, I don’t believe it either.”
This dramatic moment was . . . a turning point . . . since, if it had not occurred, our family would no doubt have soon returned to America[.] . . . For this lady who thus intervened and took my mother under her protection was, as it were, the queen of evangelical Christians; and her acceptance . . . [and] corroborat[ion] of [Mrs. Smith’s] view of Hell . . . afterwards confirmed by that of her husband, William Cowper Temple, silenced all opposition and no further objections were suggested . . . [since the] Cowper Temples, owing to their great wealth and high position, were by far the most important people in the world in which [Mr. and Mrs. Smith] were, so to speak, on trial.
Mrs. Mount-Temple was delighted in Hannah W. Smith’s confession of universalism—she declared that it was “what strongly drew me to her that day”—as was Mr. Mount-Temple, who “partly believe[d] in Mahomed, Vishna, Buddha, the Pope, the Patriarch . . . [and] love[d] high, low and Broad Church.” The couple were of one mind in religious matters. Thus, because of Hannah W. Smith’s frank confession of universalism, the Mount-Temples threw their powerful influence behind her and her husband. With such patronage, and the help of the demons conjured in the Cowper-Temples’s séances, the Pearsall Smiths were exalted to their position as leading Higher Life preachers, and the founding of the Keswick theology became possible.
The Mount-Temples were the owners of the Broadlands estate where the foundational precursor Conference to the Keswick Conventions was held, and the fundamental innovations of the Keswick theology on the older orthodoxy were set forth. Broadlands was a receptacle for amalgamating many mystical heresies and spreading such newly minted concoctions onward; for instance, both the Catholic “Bernard of Clairvaux” and “profound saying[s] . . . of Druidic philosophy,” uttered, perhaps, between Druidic acts of human sacrifice, were welcome at Broadlands. As Hannah W. Smith saw her doctrine of the Higher Life in the ideas of Buddhism and Hinduism, so the Higher Life proclaimed at Broadlands and affirmed by the Mount-Temples was not that only of Roman Catholic mysticism, and other unregenerate mystics within the Judaeo-Christian tradition, but even that of overtly pagan Eastern mysticism:
From very early times, and especially in the countries of the East, there have been men and women who have sought . . . [to] ponder the nature and duties of true life, to be alone with God, and learn to know and worship Him.
Buddha and his followers in India, the Essenes among the Jews, and the early Christians of the third and fourth centuries, who from Rome and many other cities fled to the deserts of Egpyt . . . [medieval] anchorite[s] . . . [dwellers in] monastic settlements . . . [h]ermits . . . perfect m[e]n . . . [possessed] spiritual power . . . [that] gave them force and initiative[.] . . . Men and women who lived thus were revered, trusted, and consulted during their lifetime, and honoured, and sometimes worshipped, after their death. . . . The Roman Catholics have their “Retreats” under a spiritual director, the . . . Anglicans of the English Church have their “quiet days,” the Quakers their Conferences[.] . . . Surely these practices, during so many ages and amongst such diverse peoples . . . point to a true instinct rooted deeply in human nature, one which is referred to and sanctioned in the Holy Scriptures . . . the felt need . . . [to] reach after the highest possibilities of life. . . . The Conferences at Broadlands came about this way.
Indeed, for Mr. Mount Temple, a poem praising the Muslim Allah, including the confession “La Allah, illa Allah! . . . expressed better than anything he knew his own thoughts and feelings.” Universalism and religious syncretism were the foundation of the close friendship of Hannah Smith with Mrs. Mount-Temple and her husband.
The Mount-Temples also found enchanting and attractive the Quaker rejection of a judicial justification solely by the imputed righteousness of Christ and the associated Quaker Higher Life doctrine of sanctification by faith alone preached by the Smiths. Mrs. Cowper-Temple narrated:
William [Cowper-Temple] was deeply interested in the experiences of which [Hannah W. Smith] and her husband had to tell us. We had been brought up to try to hold the forensic view of justification by faith; but of sanctification by faith we had never heard, and it seemed to us that, though the meaning of the two terms [justification and sanctification] might be identical, it enabled us to look at the doctrine in a new light . . . for who could really care about being merely accounted righteous? [W]hile to be made righteous . . . seemed something worth hearing about.
Mr. and Mrs. Cowper-Temple’s support for Mrs. Smith and her husband, because of Hannah’s universalism and the Smiths’ Quaker repudiation of the gospel by confusing justification and sanctification, led to Hannah and Robert’s exaltation to the central position as Higher Life preachers—their “fame spread from Broadlands.” The 1874 Conference at Broadlands that came about because of Hannah’s confession of universalism and repudation of justification and the gospel was the “initiatory [Higher Life] Conference . . . [and] the starting-point for those that followed . . . and which, but for this one at Broadlands, would never have been held.” That is:
[B]ut for this spectacular intervention, [the Smiths] might never have taken to preaching in England . . . [I]t was the worldly greatness of [Hannah’s] new friend which saved H. W. S. . . . Lady Mount Temple . . . [was] a hospitable leader of the evangelicals (Broadlands became almost a second home to the Pearsall Smiths)[.] . . . The religious conferences at Broadlands, where H. W. S. often preached, became famous. . . . [T]he house . . . was filled to the attics and many of the guests overflowed into the inns . . . [f]amous people attended, in the company of others less famous.
Along with the weighty patronage of Mrs. Cowper-Temple, “the Friends . . . were unanimous in wishing [her] . . . to give them a series” of Higher Life lessons, and Mrs. Smith’s fame as a Higher Life preacher had consequently begun, with the “Mount Temples [as] ardent supporters of the Smiths.” As a result, “the good Cowper Temples . . . inaugurate[d] a series of such [Higher Life] meetings,” the first and following, Broadlands Conferences, those key initial precursors and supports of the Keswick Conventions. “Lady Mount-Temple . . . initiated the Broadlands Conferences in 1874 where one might find, at the same gathering, a preaching Negress, a Quaker, a Shaker, an atheist, a spiritualist, an East End Socialist, and a prophet of any sort at all.” At these Broadlands meetings Mr. Smith “was an acceptable preacher . . . but [Mrs. Smith], beautiful in her Quaker dress, with her candid gaze and golden hair, was given the name of ‘the Angel of the Churches,’ and her expositions . . . attracted the largest audiences, and made these gatherings famous in the religious world.” Hannah W. Smith, who was present at the first, the last, and most of the Broadlands Conferences in-between, truly epitomized the Higher Life as presented at Broadlands and its successor Conventions at Oxford, Brighton, and Keswick. From the first Conference in 1874, the root of all the subsequent Higher Life and Keswick movement and a pinnacle of Higher Life teaching, participants generally recognized that they “received the clearest and most definite teaching” from Mrs. Smith’s preaching there, just as she set forth the Broadlands and Keswick doctrines in her “books, which are well known.” Many at Broadlands could testify: “She was to me the most inspiring . . . figure . . . amongst those who addressed us.” She led countless multitudes of unregenerate individuals at Broadlands to feel happy, “sunny, and joyful” as she pointed them to the ease and rest of the Higher Life. The Cowper-Temples kept up the Broadlands Higher Life Conferences annually, spreading the Higher Life with Hannah W. Smith, as well as supporting the Oxford Convention and other subsequent Higher Life gatherings, until “Lord Mount Temple’s death at Keswick.” Truly, through the work of the Pearsall Smiths and Mount Temples in the birthing of the Higher Life theology proclaimed at Keswick and in other ways, “[t]he results that followed on the Broadlands Conferences were widespread and various”—indeed, “it is difficult to measure them,” for they are truly incalculable.
Mrs. Mount-Temple was not only Mrs. Smith’s patron in her Higher Life preaching, but the two became very close friends—so much so that Mrs. Mount-Temple mentions Mrs. Smith first in a list of “[f]riends whom we [the Mount-Temples] loved.” During their time as Higher Life evangelists in Britain, the Smiths would often leave their children “at Broadlands in Hampshire, the home of [Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s] friends, the Cowper Temples . . . Broadlands became . . . almost [the family] home in England,” where “innumerable guests . . . were gathered . . . to listen to the glad tidings” of the Higher Life. Hannah called her rich patron “our sweet Lady Mount Temple,” since their “friendship lasted till [Mrs. Mount Temple’s] death in extreme old age,” when Mrs. Smith was one of a few very close friends granted entrance to Mrs. Mount Temple on her deathbed. They spoke together at various functions to large crowds.
Lord Mount-Temple was not merely the owner of the Broadlands property but the active leader and director of the Higher Life Conferences on his estate; they were the highlight of their year. He “was eminently fitted to preside over such an assembly . . . [and] occup[ied] the position of President at these Conferences,” while “Lady Mount-Temple . . . was the sun and soul of all that . . . company.” Mr. Mount-Temple’s spiritual guidance and leadership were crucial, unforgettable, and a model for Broadlands spirituality. He opened and closed the meetings, presided over them, introduced and specified the topics Conference participants were to address, set and maintained the tone and direction of the speeches, and regularly spoke himself. Broadlands spirituality and Higher Life theology are inextricably united to the spiritual system of the Mount-Temples—indeed, the spirituality of the Conferences and that of their hosts were indubitably one and the same.
Mr. and Mrs. Mount-Temple were unregenerate people who were drawn into spiritualism, the Higher Life theology, and many other grievous false teachings, and their devilish errors were blatent and obvious to any who had a modicrum of Biblical discernment. In Mr. Mount-Temple’s “childhood[,] religion was at a very low ebb . . . religious instruction did not come within the scope of recognized maternal duties,” and he received “no religious training,” so his ideas were very “vague.” He never came to a point of conscious conviction of sin and of his lost estate, followed by repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, and to the new birth. Instead, as he thought, he felt “the first strivings within him of an unexpressed God-consciousness . . . in his cradle,” and from that time he was a “spotless youth” who was, apart from Biblical conversion, “growing spiritually” (contrast Luke 5:31-32). Similarly, Lady Mount-Temple “as a child . . . had learned to pray but had never undergone a ‘conversion’” to Christ; instead, “search[ing] for . . . a higher life,” she turned to spiritualism in 1861. She testified: “[C]onversion never came to me. Instead of it I was early beset by doubts of all kinds.” However, at least each of the Mount-Temples could testify: “I am enrolled in [the] holy army [of] . . . the Lord Jesus. . . . I have been signed with the sign of the cross in Baptism.” After all, the sacrament of “Christening . . . was the ingathering of [infant] lambs into [their] Master’s Fold.” Surely a baptismal regeneration could substitute for a Biblical conversion.
While unconverted, the couple nevertheless desired spirituality. Seeking the Higher Life, Mr. and Mrs. Mount-Temple “learned to take a much wider view of the Church as a single body of all baptized Christians, including Nonconformists and members of the Roman and Greek Churches.” For example, a picture of Christ bestowing the stigmata on the hands and feet of Francis of Assisi was a wonderful positive in the spirituality of Broadlands, for such a receipt of stigmata was certainly not a devilish deceit, but a glorious and positive event. Mr. Mount-Temple testified:
I . . . always felt an interest in the opinions of different denominations . . . and have attended the worship of all which have been within my reach . . . I have been able to enjoy the privilege of prayer with them all.
I have prayed fervently in the . . . Romish churches, and have lifted up my heart in their solemn litanies and pealing music[.] . . . I have learnt much in the Unitarian services in Liverpool; I have profited by the sermons and prayers of the Independents, Wesleyans, and Baptists; I have joined with Quakers and Plymouth Brethren . . . worshipping the same God . . . [by] Unitarian [writings] . . . I am drawn nearer to my heavenly Father[.] . . . I found myself edified by . . . Papists and Greeks [Eastern Orthodox], as well as with Calvinists and Lutherans[.] . . . In [a] . . . Unitarian Chapel . . . [i]t is delightful to . . . join in prayer and praise, and to carry away some good thoughts. . . . I have never become acquainted with any religious body in which there were not to be found persons full of love to our Lord.
Preachers of the Trinity and preachers of a non-Trinitarian deity, advocates of justification by faith alone and of justification by works, worshippers of Jehovah and worshippers of Mary, and all religious bodies whatever, contained people who were full of love to the Lord, Mr. Mount-Temple knew. “From the first he combined the opinions of the Broad Church with . . . fervour and warmth.” Similarly, Mrs. Mount-Temple did not view Roman Catholics or other advocates of false gospels as people to “proselytize, believing they had all they needed to make them good Christians.” Naturally, medieval Romanist mystics such as “Fénelon . . . were . . . men of exalted and angelic nature.” “Catholic[s] of the mystic school” were present and preaching at the Broadlands Conferences from the first. The place of worship at the Mount-Temples’s Broadlands residence contained a special crucifix, kept low to the ground so that not adults only, but children also could reach its feet to kiss the graven image of the Catholic “Christ,” and poems about the crucifix and prayers to be like it were celebrated parts of Broadlands spirituality. Radically different and contradictory beliefs were to be united around Higher Life mysticism: “High Church, Broad Church, Low Church were . . . submerged in the Deep Church.” Hannah W. Smith likewise rejoiced in the ecumenical unity and the “absolute oneness” she felt with those who believed and preached false gospels at the Broadlands Conferences, a oneness she recognized as greatly facilitated by and manifested in Mr. Mount-Temple. “All shades of religious opinion” were represented at Broadlands, and Mr. Mount-Temple’s command was embraced: “[D]on’t be too critical.” “None of those who took part . . . at Broadlands . . . could be spared”—every single one of the false views and heresies represented there were necessary, and every single speaker and visitor was a positive influence and helped raise others to the Higher Life, no matter how abominable his false doctrines and practices were when compared to Scripture.
Having come to doubt the doctrine of the Fall, the Mount-Temples came to adopt a “broader view of Christian truth and of the universal hope,” that is, the universalism that made Hannah Smith so appealing to them. Many universalists in addition to Mrs. Smith were among their religious teachers, facilitating both the ecumenicalism of both the Pearsall Smith and Cowper Temple families. “Dr. Baylee” was a dear “religious . . . . friend . . . for many years” who “helped indeed,” and he “was rejoicing in the universal hope” when he “visited [the Mount Temples] in later years at Broadlands.” They testified: “[H]elp and enlargement through the great Christian prophet of our day, Frederick Maurice. We used to wander on Sunday afternoons to [his] . . . Chapel[,] [where we] heard the broader view of Christian truth and of the universal hope[.]” They testified that their “best friends” included Maurice’s “disciple[s],” and proclaimed that “the blessed George MacDonald,” that famous universalist, “has been one of our dearest friends and teachers,” indeed, a “special teacher or prophet” at Broadlands. Despite the plain words of Jesus Christ (John 8:44), Broadlands affirmed that “all [are] children of God,” with the “actual, living, inspiring presence of the Holy Spirit in each heart.” The rejection of Christ’s teaching about hell in favor of the universalist heresy was important to the great Higher Life lived by the Cowper-Temples and proclaimed at Broadlands, and the promotion of universalists such as Hannah W. Smith was consequently near to their heart.
Broadlands ecumenicalism was held together, not by universalism only, but by the Quaker doctrine of the Divine Seed also:
[Mr. Mount-Temple] discern[ed] far more quickly than most the Divine seed in every man. . . . He was in very truth, as George Fox was, the “friend” of all men. He believed, with George Fox, that every soul of man was a visited soul . . . therefore differences of creed . . . were no hinderances to his loving fellowship[.] . . . This deep sense of the solidarity of mankind [in the Divine seed] led Lord and Lady Mount Temple to seek to gather the leaders of wholly differing schools of thought together in their home at Broadlands, that they might all be drawn closer together[.] . . . All sects . . . were represented at these Conferences. High Church, Low Church, Broad Church, Dissenters, Quakers, Plymouth Brethren, Salvation Army officers, [and so on] . . . were all at [Broadlands] bound together into one common brotherhood[.] . . . Each [speaker] agreed immensely with the last speaker, and then proceeded to offer quite another Gospel.
Since the Divine Seed was in every man, Lord Mount Temple prayed for a mystical Deification: “My Lord Jesus, as Thou didst take my humanity, I pray Thee impart to me Thy Divinity.” Employing the language of the truth affirmed at the Council of Chalcedon of Jesus Christ’s character as one Person with two natures, a true Divine nature and a true human nature, Mr. Mount Temple affirmed the sickening idolatrous error that all men are, like Christ, likewise single Persons with a Divine and human nature: “I have to record my thanks . . . for deep Churchism at our Conferences . . . for the knowledge that we are all two in one—two natures in one person . . . the Divine and human.” Likewise, as Christ had preexisted his incarnation, so all men had preexistent souls—“We were not created when we were born; that was not the beginning—‘Trailing clouds of glory do we come/From God, Who is our home’; we were put here for a term, for our education, enwrapped in a fleshly nature, that the inner nature might grow by overcoming it.” Consequently, as one enters the Higher Life of mystical union with God, one comes to “nothing short of interpenetration, oneness with God,” patterned after Christ, for “[i]n Him the human is the Divine.” Passing beyond a simple knowledge of Jesus leads to “the ideal life, the life of man as Son of God.” The preexistent soul becomes the Divine Seed in man, so that he can enter into the Higher Life and be finally divinized. Speakers at Broadlands tied in deification and preexistent souls with universalism and the Divine Seed in every man, for the Biblical doctrine of total depravity was set aside: “Awake to the knowledge that every fellow-creature is a member of Christ. Gordon found it useful in dealing with men, whether heathen or others, to say to himself, ‘Here is one in whom God is, I will speak to the God in him.’ . . . We must be dead to the sin in others, alive to the God in them.” Certainly if, in accordance with Satan’s primordial lie (Genesis 3:5) and consistent with Quaker doctrine, all people are God and man, the possibility that some men are “heretick[s]” to be “reject[ed]” after admonition (Titus 3:10), or that the true Christian was to have “no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Ephesians 5:11), would the farthest thing from Mr. Mount Temple’s supposedly Divine but actually depraved and idolatrous mind.
The ecumenicalism and universalism derived from the Divine Seed doctrine were at the heart of the Broadlands Conferences, as they were exceedingly dear to Hannah W. Smith and the Mount Temples, and passed into the Higher Life and Keswick movement through them. Unregenerate false teachers were treated as the objects, not of evangelism, but of hearty fellowship as the children of God, so that their ideas could be imbibed:
Almost every shade of Christian thought was represented there; there were those who belonged to the High Church, Low Church, Broad Church, Dissenters, Salvationists, Quakers, Swedenborgians, all able . . . to meet as one brotherhood . . . in the real union apparent at these Conferences . . . learn[ing] from one another . . . [as] His children.
Indeed, ecumenicalism was one of the greatest and most marked results of the Broadlands Conferences:
But perhaps the most marked of the results of the Conferences, the one which has had the widest influence, even amongst those who were never at Broadlands, but have caught something of its spirit, was the breaking down of barriers between brethren; . . . between those of whatever creed . . . the increased desire for union, that seems everywhere to be leavening the churches. . . . People met together at Broadlands who certainly would not have met elsewhere . . . [and] found their differences were of less importance than they had thought, and that they were one in the deepest aspiratons of their souls. . . . Evangelicals saw that Ritualists were not necessarily slaves of the husks and the letter; more important still, the eyes of orthodox religionists were opened to the mysterious workings of the spirit of truth in regions far beyond the precincts of recognized Christianity . . . a sign of what is coming upon Christendom. . . . Those hours were a prophecy and promise of . . . what is long[ed] for, “the corporate union[.]” . . . [T]he Broadlands Conferences were the starting-point of . . . [t]he great Conferences at Oxford in 1874, and at Brighton in 1875 . . . leading on to those held annually at Keswick[.] . . .
Two men were heard talking together outside one of the great meetings at the first Oxford Conference. “What does it all mean?” said one. “Oh, don’t you know,” replied the other, “it’s all the Christian people in the world are going to be one sect.”
Ecumenicalism, both through the direct position of the leaven at Broadlands and through the leaven of the ecumenical Conferences it birthed at Oxford, Brighton, and Keswick, was a central result of the meetings started by Lord and Lady Mount-Temple. Furthermore, the alleged workings of God in saving and blessing people outside of Christianity and among all the groups in Christendom, which formed the foundation of Broadlands ecumenicalism, arose from the Broadlands emphasis upon universalism. At Conference after Conference Hannah W. Smith, Andrew Jukes, George MacDonald, and many others passionately set forth the universalist heresy; since all men have the Divine Seed within them, “the awakening touch will come, the life will be quickened and manifest itself,” so that all will come to salvation. Not regenerate man only, but each and every “man is the child of God,” without any qualification of any kind, so that “the ordinary work to be wrought by evangelical preaching . . . [s]udden and effectual conversion . . . is not in” MacDonald’s writings or those of his fellow universalists. Evidence for universalism was culled, not from the Bible alone—for it was very difficult to find it there—but from many other sources, such as pagan religions and modern poets. After all, since “[a]ll the poets believe in a golden age,” so should we:
[T]he restitution of all things . . . [is something] which mankind in almost every age and in many countries seem to have had some kind of dim intimation[.] . . . I still have an impression of the reverent, serious attitude, the bowed head and almost breathless awe, in which the subject was approached, and the contributions, not only from our own Scriptures, but from the sacred writings of the East, from old philosophies, and from modern poets, which were brought forward to show how deep-seated was this great hope in the hearts of mankind generally. . . . “There is no evil,” says the old Druidic philosophy, “that is not a greater good than it is an evil[.”] . . . Dante surely had something of the same idea . . . [as did] Browning . . . [and] Tennyso[n] . . . [and] Trench[.] . . . Quotations were of course made from the Scriptures [also]. . . . Much was spoken that might be summed up in Walt Whitman’s words[.] . . . [A] prayer from Lord Mount-Temple . . . would fitly close the meeting. . . . Referring to possibilities for individual souls after death, George MacDonald said one day: “The Roman Catholics believe in three stages after death. At the Reformation the Protestants gave up one, but they gave up the wrong one.”
Consequently, the Broadlands Conferences stood for the position that “a desire to proselytize . . . has been the cause of all the religious tyranny and persecution that has been the disgrace of the Christian Church, and . . . is entirely opposed to the spirit and teaching of Jesus.” Indeed:
[O]utside . . . the Christian temple . . . there are beautiful, preeminently beautiful souls adorned with all Christian graces. . . . These noble, beautiful souls . . . are the “other sheep, not of this fold,” are guided by the “true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” . . . Proselytising is wrong. There was, perhaps, nothing our Lord condemned more strongly. . . . The desire to proselytize is generally from selfishness or pride. . . . We should never take from any man, not even from a heathen, that [spiritual truth] which he has, without giving him something better. . . . The world is helping the churches. There is an island in the South Sea, where, it is said, the people are never dishonest and never untruthful. A missionary is going out there. It makes one almost tremble to think of it.
Lord and Lady Mount-Temple were very successful in working at Broadlands with Hannah W. Smith and others in spreading their Higher Life ecumenicalism and universalism throughout Christendom.
The Inner Light, with its concomitant heresies of the Divine Seed and universalism, were exalted in the anti-cessationist Higher Life atmosphere of Broadlands. The “higher and deeper Christian life” was a development of “the inner light, which is variously manifested by human souls, each contributing in the measure it has received ‘of the fullness of Him that filleth all in all,’” that is, of the Divine Seed in every man, the presence of which was intimately tied in with the affirmation of universalism and the rejection of an eternal hell. Experience and many world religions validated such ideas—had not the Druids believed in the Inner Light? A belief in the Biblical doctrine of human depravity, which denies that man has anything remotely close to a Divine Seed in him, was a tremendous roadblock to the Higher Life, for “only as . . . man . . . yields himself to this highest within him, can he know his true life, the spiritual life . . . self-surrender to the highest life within” is what is necessary. People can obey without grace, Biblically defined, since virtues are “latent in all men.” Broadlands testified: “Whenever I meet a man, I know the germ of the Christ-life is there. . . . Christ is the life of men, the Divine seed in every one.” Consequently, “[t]here is something to learn from every one,” for “revelation” comes to all men through the Inner Light based on the Divine Seed. Monergistic regeneration of the spiritually dead sinner is the opposite of the Broadlands message; on the contrary, “[W]hat we call conversion [is] the potential spiritual life becoming the actual,” the Divine Seed beginning to flourish as those who already have Divinity within enter into the Higher Life.
The advance of “Christian Socialism” was also part of the Mount-Temples’s spirituality. They “loved heartily” their “dear friends” and fellow leaders in “Christian Socialism,” such as “Charles Kingsley” and “Tom Hughes,” who first met Mr. Mount-Temple at the first Broadlands Conference in 1874. However, Mr. Mount-Temple outshone them all in the battle for socialism: “[I]n the early days of Christian Socialism, . . . [the] movement [was] so vehemently and widely denounced, [but Mr. Mount-Temple] was from the first an advocate and liberal supporter, and, from his social and public position, risked more than all the rest of [its leaders] put together.” Attacks on freedom and the spread of socialism under the guise of Christianity were important parts of the Cowper-Temples’s religion.
When the Cowper-Temples declared that they received alleged truths from “all sects” and “schools of thought,” their “all” was no exaggeration—as strong continuationists because of their belief in the Quaker doctrine of the Divine Seed, they happily received the allegedly inspired teachings of the most twisted cultists and vilest fanatics, as they exalted, listening to, and obeyed their heart’s voice (cf. Jeremiah 17:9). They warmly held the “belief in the revival of the prophetic gifts which Christ had bestowed on his apostles for all men with a living faith.” The couple consequently rejoiced in the demonically-manipulated perfectionist and cult leader Edward Irving and his Apostle, Henry Drummond. Irving founded of the Catholic Apostolic Church, predicted the end of the world in 1868, affirmed that Christ had adopted man’s fallen nature, claimed that the gift of tongues and other first century miraculous gifts had been restored among his followers, and vigorously maintained other heresies, which Drummond faithfully supported and promulgated. Mrs. Mount-Temple narrated:
Mr. Henry Drummond . . . [was] a very special influence which affected [Mr. Mount-Temple’s] religious views[.] . . . At Albury, Mr. Drummond and Lady Harriet, the Duchess of Northumberland (then Lady Lovaine), and Lady Gage, the other daughter, were all very kind to us, and hoped perhaps that we should join the Apostolic Church, of which Mr. Drummond was an Apostle.
It was all very interesting and hope-giving, and opened a new region to us. All we heard of the birth and development of this Church was thrilling. . . . Haldane Stewart had instituted . . . a system of prayer . . . for a special outpouring of the Spirit. He and other devout friends assembled at Albury, and there was, they believed, such a miraculous answer, that it was to them as a second Pentecost. Some began to speak under spiritual influences, and through these persons, endued, they believed, with the prophetic gift, a most beautiful Church system was organized, not, they said, by their own will or wisdom, but by the Spirit of God.
They believed the Lord was soon to return [that is, in 1868], and that a new body of apostles and faithful disciples were called out to receive Him. They called this the Elias ministry. . . . They believed apostles were appointed supernaturally to rule the Church universal. Prophets were inspired to teach and evangelists sent forth with power [now that these offices had been restored in their religious organization; before that time] the prophetic gift was unknown, and the apostolic universal ministry had been lost. . . . [T]his [was a] really splendid ideal of a Church. . . . [It greatly influenced] my husband’s religious development.
The kindled hope of the Lord’s speedy approach, the calling out of Apostles, and of an elect body to meet Him, greatly quickened our spiritual life. We attended their beautiful services, we listenened to [their] eloquent and fervent appeals[.] . . .
We hung on Mr. Drummond’s words for hours, while he described to us this wonderful ideal[.] . . . He was indeed one of the last men . . . whom one could suspect of any fanaticism or spiritual aberration. . . . Imagine such a man an Apostle . . . bringing in the Kingdom of God. . . . This was the new world in which we found ourselves, and very kindling and entrancing it was!
I was carried away by it[.] . . . It deeply moved William, but he did not feel called to leave the place and the duties to which he was attached. . . . [W]hat remained to us of the teaching and blessing of this time [was,] [f]irst of all, the revival of spiritual life [that is, the Higher Life]; then, a much wider view of the Church . . . includ[ing] all who have been baptized . . . comprising therefore the members of the Roman and Greek Churches, and all Nonconformists [as well as] Quakers [as] the descendants of those within the covenant of baptism. . . . [S]pecial truth [was] confided to . . . the Unitarians . . . [while] the Friends [received the] . . . special truth . . . [of] the Inner Light . . . the Wesleyans [of] . . . perfection, etc. All one body . . . [Drummond] taught us also the meaning of Symbols, and of Ritual . . . [t]he members of the Apostolic Church hold that the Lord is truly present in Holy Communion[.] . . . So it was, that without joining the Apostolic Church, William always felt much indebted to the teaching we received [from them] at Albury[.]
Thus, from Irving’s Catholic Apostolic cult, the Cowper-Temples were encouraged in ecumenicalism, continuationism, post-conversion Spirit baptism with miraculous results, the Inner Light, the Real Presence, perfectionism, and the Higher Life, all of which flourished at their Broadlands Conferences and at the Keswick Conventions which developed from them.
Spiritualism was at the root of the Higher Life beliefs of Mr. and Mrs. Mount-Temple. Mrs. Cowper-Temple explained that, having first heard of spiritualism in 1857 and becoming fully initiated by 1861, she led her husband also to embrace the occult, so that Mr. Mount-Temple “gathered all the good he could from spiritualism, and was helped . . . leading us to a higher life.” The couple attended a vast number of séances, seeing there great marvels performed by, as they thought, the dead who had been conjured up. They learned, contrary to 1 Corinthians 15, that the true resurrection is not that of the body, but the rising into the realm of the spirits—the Higher Life. They not only were spiritualists themselves, but sought—successfully—to lead others into their fellowship with devils, as they were “always ready to introduce” their friends, such as Hannah W. Smith, “to influential people among the spiritualists.” They greatly advanced the careers of self-professed “Christian spiritualist” ministers such as H. R. Haweis. They “studied the . . . writings of Swedenborg,” “the great spiritualist of the eighteenth century,” and Swedenborg’s writings and friends were continued influences at Broadlands and its Conferences. Indeed, spiritualism was promoted at the Broadlands Conferences, where it fit well with the doctrine of the erotic spiritual Baptism: “Each meeting included discussions on the uses of Spiritualism, the role of entrancement, the role of prayer, and the mission of God in the world.” The Mount Temples’s longing for restored miracles and a Higher Life was satisfied by the spirits with whom they became familiar through séances. For example, they conversed with the spirit of Frederick Lamb, a Viscount, who told Mr. Mount-Temple where he could find assorted letters and speeches and commanded that they be published. Lord Palmerston, who had been dead for 13 months, similarly told Mr. Mount-Temple where important memoranda could be found. They worked with mediums who “engaged in extensive automatic writing . . . and . . . often left [their] body to traverse the spheres,” while also working wonderful cures [of sickness].” At various séances, and in the company of other spiritualists, including those they had proselyted into spiritualism, the Mount-Temples experienced the supernatural signs and wonders that they had been seeking:
[Prophetic] message[s] . . . [were given through using] a ouija board[.] . . . [A] wonderous demonstration [took place] of a table dancing in tune with music played on a piano apparently by invisible hands [for a while until they] heard departing footsteps and the [spirit’s] farewell, “Dear earthly friends, good night.” . . . [T]able rapping and spiritual music . . . table tilting and levitation . . . psychical responses sent through clairvoyant visions or spirit writing moving [one’s] fingers when . . . in a state of trance [were experienced]. . . . [G]uests pressing their fingers lightly to the tops of two tables, [Mr. Temple recorded,] “the large table danced in time to a country dance & the little table rose & being suspended in the air the feet be[in]g about 1 foot from the ground & it rapped against the edge of a sofa . . . it also heaved as if at the top of a wave & tilted to the side.” . . . [Séances were discussed where] fresh eggs, fruit, and flowers would descend from the ceiling . . . [although some were] amazed with the triviality of the manifestations. . . . [S]pirits moving about the room [caused] ferns [to] shake[.] . . . [A medium] elongating his body by some six to eight inches in a trance [was also] summoning luminous forms visible to guests. . . . [O]bjects materiali[zed] without the aid of a medium[.] . . . [Many] messages from the dead [were delivered.]
While the Mount-Temples led many to adopt spiritualism, some of their converts came to suspect the true source of the manifestations. For example, one who had been converted to spiritualism by the Mount-Temples and attended numerous séances with them wrote to Mrs. Mount-Temple in April 1868:
Could anything more perfectly answer the description of a “familiar or household spirit” [Leviticus 19:31; 20:6, 27, etc.]—than that thing—if a true thing—that came . . . and answered the question—“Have you any News?[”]—“I haven’t got any”? Think of it! [If the Testament is true,] I have no doubt that it is your duty at once to abstain from all these things . . . [and] to receive what you have seen of them [the spirits] as an awful sign of the now active presence of the Fiend among us.
The manifestations, this more discerning convert recognized, were “beneath the dignity of an intelligent God”—therefore, “have done with ‘Mediums.’” However, the Mount-Temples, despite being confronted with the plain warnings of Scripture, did not take heed to this advice. Mr. Mount-Temple continued to be so enchanted with spiritualism that he was even nursed by a medium in his last illness. He never decided to reject them as Satanic, for they were among “the great cloud of witnesses encircling the world.” Besides, “the presence of unseen heavenly ones added to the deep gladness that was felt” at the Broadlands Conventions, so the spirits of the dead must have been good because they made people feel the happiness of the Higher Life. Likewise, Mrs. Mount-Temple, even to the end of her life, was never freed from the influence of mediums. After all, as she had learned from them, “Spiritualism [was] . . . the handmaid of Christianity.” Mrs. Mount-Temple even exercised supernatural powers herself; for example, one day when a man was suffering from a sickness, she threw a lady into a trance so that the cure for the disease could be obtained by prophecy, and then brought the lady out of the trace—“another bit of witchery.” In the 1870s, when the Higher Life meetings at Broadlands were founded and Mr. and Mrs. Mount-Temple were promoting Robert and Hannah Pearsall Smith, as well as cultists like Laurence Oliphant, the “Cowper-Temples . . . met the best-known mediums of this decade,” bringing “the greatest of the English mediums, with whom they had been attending séances . . . to Broadlands . . . [b]y 1874,” the very year Mr. Mount-Temple asked the spirits during a séance for permission to become a medium himself to further his spiritual growth. Thus, in 1874 Mr. Mount-Temple, seeking the Higher Life, both asked for permission to become a medium and thrust the Pearsall Smiths into the limelight in that fateful Higher Life Conference on their property. Indeed, the Mount-Temples were “one of the earliest” to explore “spiritualism” in England. Broadlands truly was a very spiritual place—mediums validated that “all manners of ghosts [were] about the house,” since “[c]ontact with ghosts helped shape both Lady and Lord Mount Temple’s futures and day-to-day living.” The day after the 1874 Broadlands Conference that germinated the Keswick theology, Mrs. Cowper-Temple had reached such a spiritual height in her Higher Life that she attended a séance to see if more of the spirit of a dead man, John King, would materialize than in the last attempt to contact him—previously, only his head had materialized, and Mrs. Cowper-Temple was hoping for more in her post-Conference séance. Truly, Mr. and Mrs. Cowper-Temple lived a supernatural and spiritual life, and the spirits that gathered there contributed to the supernatural and spiritual Higher Life that so many led at Broadlands. Such was the place, and such were the promoters, of the Broadlands Conference for the promotion of the Higher Life that hatched the Keswick system.
Scriptural cessationism, consequently, was rejected at the Broadlands Conferences for continuationism. Pentecost, with its signs and wonders, was not a completed dispensational event, but “a sample of that dispensation of the Spirit, which was the gift of God to the Church in all generations.” Indeed, because of the Divine Seed in every man, “[a]ny hour may be a miracle hour”—such miraculous visions as “the young Isaiah” had of Jehovah on His throne (Isaiah 6), as “Moses” had on “Mount Horeb,” and as “Paul” had on the road to “Damascus,” “such hours of visio[n] come to all . . . [h]ow many, in all ages . . . have known these sacred experiences[.] . . . Such special, memorable hours, came to us, not seldom, at Broadlands.” Many “hours of vision” and “dreams . . . came to the worshippers at Broadlands.” In fact, even the poet Wordsworth had received visions like those of Isaiah, Moses, Paul, and the participants at the Broadlands Conferences. While Scripture testifies that “God . . . spake . . . at sundry times and in divers manners . . . in time past” before the coming of Christ (Hebrews 1:1-4), Broadlands testifies that “At sundry times and in divers manners God [still] speaks and manifests Himself.” Sola Scriptura and cessationism were out, while spiritualism and continuationism were in.
Those at Broadlands desired the presence of the sign gifts and healing powers, practiced the Faith and Mind Cure, and received inspiration from those demons that directed the Mount-Temples and promulgated through them the corruptions of the Higher Life theology. Supernatural beings from the angelic realm gave commands, so that voices, with music accompanying them, were heard at Broadlands Conferences. When Mr. Mount-Temple was, sick, through the Faith and Mind Cure he was restored again; both he and his wife “tried the ‘mind cure’” at times. They were conversant with homeopaths. Mr. Mount Temple’s “witness to others in the matter of healing by the prayer of faith was unceasing . . . [‘]I am anxious[,] [he said,] [‘that] . . . this form of Divine Healing . . . should be tried . . . it seems to me to be unfaithful not to have recourse to it . . . showers of healing are so plentifully falling around us . . . this valuable life should be [within] reach.[’]” During his sickness, in a manner consistent with his spiritualism, he was even able to join in prayer “with words of fervor and power as though his spirit were using his body whilst the mind remained dormant.” Dormant minds allegedly disjoined from actions on the spirit were most helpful in affecting Faith Cures.
Contrary to the truth that inspiration was complete with the canon of Scripture, but in accordance with its embrace of the Quaker doctrine of the Inner Light, Broadlands was a place where allegedly post-canonical inspiration was as plentiful as fog in London. At Broadlands, “[n]ot only . . . pastors and teachers” were present, but “prophets” also. Mrs. Mount-Temple stated that the “impulse” through which Mr. Mount-Temple offered his Broadlands estate to Hannah and Robert Smith for the foundational Conference “seemed . . . like . . . inspiration”; “thus our first Conference was initiated,” Mrs. Mount Temple declared, by a revelation and by inspiration. The Conference was then “led by Mr. Pearsall Smith” in a “wonderfully inspired way,” even as Mr. Mount Temple’s speeches were “so inspired in utterance” both at that first Conference and at other times. Mrs. Pearsall Smith had reached such a height of spirituality that “inspiration” even “came from her shining face.” Indeed, women preachers—“inspired wom[e]n”—gave “inspired addresses,” and continuationism in general, and in particular a rejection of sola Scriptura for the Quaker doctrine of authoritative continuing revelations and inspiration because of the Divine Seed in every man, were insisted upon as of primary importance and as the core of Broadlands teaching:
It was insisted on first of all, that God does actually communicate with each one of the spirits He had made: not only did He speak to human beings in the past, but does still, here and now. This fact is referred to in the Bible . . . as the light . . . as a voice . . . as a guide . . . [in] individual guidance . . . [and] also as inspiration. . . . [T]his Divine communion is not only . . . the light (that which reveals), not only . . . a voice (which lets us know from Whom the word comes), or . . . a guide (which indicates our course), but is even as the breath or life of God within our life, to inspire us[.] . . . The power to discern this Divine guidance is given to all in some measure . . . it is a gift, a faculty common to all . . . God’s voice is of the heart[.] . . . Surely this is . . . the Quaker doctrine of the Inner Light, which is the corner-stone of their belief. . . . Intuitions come at such times . . . [w]e feel within us “the breath of God, that warrenteth the utmost, inmost things of faith” . . . The vision br[ings] supreme joy . . . visionary hours may be as the steps in a rocky path, by which we climb to the pure air of the mountain-top.
Dream, vision, prophecy, spiritual imagination, call them what we will, are an essential element of human life. . . . [W]ithout the inspired spiritual element in life, man can never be truly man. . . . the highest powers of his being remain unused. . . . Every age has its seers, its dreamers of dreams, its men of [supernatural] insight . . . [such men] are needed. . . . The seer brings us new knowledge . . . as vision opens beyond vision into the depths of being and of love. . . . The seer rejoices . . . and the worker is glad of the inspiration . . . [t]hey are not disobedient to the heavenly vision.
After all, the Incarnation was not necessary so that Christ could satisfy the Law of God and shed His blood as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of men, but He came to lead people to listen to the Inner Light: “He came in the flesh, that He might get at us from the outside, because we do not listen to the inward voice.” Despite multitudes of texts like Isaiah 53:4-6 and 1 John 2:2, Hannah Smith and the Mount Temples knew that “Christ” was “not in any sense . . . appeasing the wrath of God” by His work on the cross, so having His redemptive blood personally applied through a new birth was, without a doubt, not necessary for salvation. Further revelations are necessary, because “Christianity has never yet been fully preached,” not even by the Apostles and the first century churches—the “chuches have to learn that.” Consequently, “what a power there is in vision”! Thus, at that first Broadlands Conference, as at subsequent ones, the universalist Andrew Jukes proclaimed his heresies with “inspired wisdom.” Antoinette Sterling, consistent with “her Quaker upbringing . . . seemed as much inspired in the choice of her songs as in the rendering of them,” for “she was one of the few to whom God . . . [w]hispers in the ear,” so she could “guid[e] . . . the assembly . . . to a higher, nobler plane” with her “spontaneous outpourings which seemed inspired.” After all, “the highest music is itself a revelation, a manifestation of something divine” as it “prophesies of . . . predestined good . . . [and] salvation universal,” and “[t]here is no truer truth obtainable than comes of music,” including the propositions of Scripture, which flatly deny that salvation is universal. By entering into the Higher Life “the soul . . . receives more inspiration than it can hold.” The supernatural spirits that worked so greatly in Mr. and Mrs. Mount-Temple’s lives, as they did in the Quakers to give them Inner Light, and gave them and others present at Broadlands wonders and marvels, were the source of what Mrs. Mount-Temple called “the God-inspired . . . Conferences which [Mr. Mount-Temple] inaugurated and carried through for so many years . . . at Broadlands.”
The broadness of the Mount-Temples’s views embraced not only Irvingism, continuationism, and broader spiritualism, but even and especially the filthy religion of the occult perfectionists and free-love practicioners Thomas Harris and Laurence Oliphant, since spiritualism and sexual immorality were the natural handmaids of each other. As Hannah and Robert P. Smith adopted the doctrine that the baptism of the Spirit was associated with erotic thrills, so the only way to receive the true Spirit Baptism was through sexual immorality, taught Oliphant as Harris’s disciple. “Laurence Oliphant, together with his disciples, actually carried out, to the utmost possible extent, the practices of which Robert Pearsall Smith was suspected.” However, only those initiated into the Higher Life were brought into these depths of Satan; publicly Harris and Oliphant were more vague, as were the Smiths. Nevertheless, Oliphant held that “sexual passion was the only real spiritual life.” Oliphant explained to Mrs. Smith, and to many others, at the invitation of Mr. and Mrs. Cowper-Temple, his unspeakable abominations. Hannah W. Smith explained:
[T]he Baptism of the Holy Ghost, [which we were to] seek the experience [of] for ourselves. . . . was to be the aim of our desires. . . . Mr. Oliphant . . . told me that he believed my husband was called to enter into and propogate the views he held, and he urged me to beg him not to stop short of the full consummation. . . . “Come and get into bed with me.” . . . I asked him if it were not possible to lead people into this glorious experience he spoke of without personal contact. He said no, it was not.
Such was the Higher Life Harris and Oliphant spread with the patronage of Mr. and Mrs. Mount-Temple.
It was Mr. Mount-Temple’s seeking to “gathe[r] all the good he could from spiritualism” that led him to make the acquaintance, his wife explained, of Harris and Oliphant. Mrs. Cowper-Temple, who was especially attracted to Oliphant because of his turn from materialism to spiritualism after necromantic contact with his dead father,narrated concerning the dirty duo:
[N]o one . . . ever attracted William [Mount-Temple] more . . . [than] Mr. Harris. . . . It was through him we became much allied with Laurence Oliphant, whom we first met at Broadlands . . . All there were interested in him. [Oliphant had] turned his back upon all and went off . . . to find God under the guidance of Mr. Harris. . . . [H]e always said he owed everything to Mr. Harris. . . . [Laurence] married [one from] our house [that is, one from the Cowper-Temple household], who was of one mind with himself . . . upheld by the hope of bringing others [by sexual contact] into the new and higher life . . . [They resided] with us at Broadlands [among other places].
The Mount-Temples “considered joining . . . Harris [and] his cult in New York State,” but they decided instead to simply make their “home at Broadlands a haven for . . . Harris,” from whence they “might help in [the] unfolding” of the spiritual Kingdom of which Harris was the messenger. From Broadlands Harris and Oliphant could propogate their ideas and seduce others into the Higher Life of sexual immorality and the thrills of the erotic Spirit Baptism, for Mr. Mount-Temple was zealous to promote such spiritual growth in all those whom he could influence from Broadlands. The Mount-Temples founded the Broadlands Conferences, the root of the Keswick Conventions and the capstone of their personal spiritual quest, for the purpose of promoting such Higher Life theology as that of Harris and Oliphant, and the special spiritual Baptism that accompanied it:
These [Broadlands] Conferences were established . . . to seek the outpouring of the Spirit[.] . . . A meeting . . . of universal character, all speaking as the Spirit moved them, not of doctrines or of systems, but of the wonderful things of God. . . . In 1874 a few persons were led together on this new basis . . . their participation in the same desire to lead a higher and deeper Christian life.
People sought “a tangible sign of the Spirit,” and received “ten times more [than they] expected” in his “felt presence.” Mr. and Mrs. Smith were consequently invited by the Cowper-Temples to lead that first fateful conference at Broadlands in 1874, that others also might enter into that same Higher Life and Spirit baptism that they four had experienced with all its physical thrills.
Hannah W. Smith was well aware of the spiritualism and the immoral abominations practiced and propounded by the Mount-Temples. She wrote: “Lady Mount Temple is about as sweet as a human being can be. But she is a spiritualist, and told me that nothing had saved her from absolute infidelity but the proofs she had seen in spiritualism of a life in another region . . . she . . . had so much Scripture on her side[.]” Hannah Smith believed “so much Scripture” was on the side of Mrs. Mount-Temple’s spiritualism despite the clearest and direst warnings against this demonic practice in texts such as Deuteronomy 18:11 and Isaiah 8:19. Thus, Hannah Smith allowed Mrs. Mount-Temple to introduce her to numerous spiritualists and mediums, and they sat under their teaching together. Was it not good that Mrs. Mount-Temple had been kept from agnosticism and atheism through the close communion with Satan and his devils into which she was brought as she engaged in familiar intercourse with demons pretending to be dead people who had come back from the grave? However, notwithstanding her preservation from agnosticism and atheism at the time, at a later time “Lady Mount Temple” began to “rav[e] against God one minute, and d[id] not believe there is any God the next minute.” Furthermore, “Lady Mount Temple could never grasp the difference between right and wrong; when no cruelty was involved she couldn’t see why people should not do what they like”—why they could not, as Hannah advised, “always . . . do the thing they really and seriously wanted to do . . . and . . . with a good conscience.” That such advice could lead to the most monstrous iniquities, and extreme lasciviousness, was apparent. Indeed, Mrs. Mount Temple’s “family, the Tollemaches, were a wild family, much given to misbehavior” that led many of them into “disgrace,” as a result of which they would be invited to stay with Mr. and Mrs. Mount Temple for a while. Mrs. Mount-Temple’s “only answer” when confronted with the fact that a servant of hers named Sarah, “under the almost intolerable domination” of whom she had fallen, “was the mother of a large family of illegitimate children,” was: “‘I am so glad poor Sarah has had some fun.’ . . . [A] charge of misconduct made no impression.” Indeed, Lady Mount Temple even “wrote . . . a friendly letter . . . [to] Oscar Wilde [while he] was out on bail between his two trials . . . inviting him to pay her a visit,” although Wilde was a notorious and serial pedophile, and his two trials were connected to his despicable sodomizing of countless boys and men. Lady Mount Temple also thought—as her conection with Laurence Oliphant makes most unsurprising—that it was “incomprehensible and silly” that Mr. Smith was removed from his leadership of the Keswick Convention after the Brighton meetings because of his espousal of erotic bridal mysticism: “If these good people wanted to kiss each other, what, she wondered, could be the harm in that?”
Despite, or perhaps because of, Mrs. Mount-Temple’s spiritualism, damnable heresies, immorality, and rejection of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Mrs. Smith could write to her: “I think of you as . . . sitting in a bower of heavenly love . . . our true and only [l]and is the beloved and beautiful will of God, which environs us all everywhere and in everything.” Indeed, Mrs. Smith was happy to have fellowship with a variety of other spiritualists also, as well as receiving prophecies from occult palm readers. It is unsurprising that Hannah felt that there was “something occult about” the powers that assisted her preaching ministry. She was certainly not an enemy of the Satanic spiritualism of her great Higher Life patrons.
With the Mount-Temples, Mrs. Smith fellowshipped with Laurence Oliphant, that spiritualist, perfectionist cult leader, and free-love practicioner. Oliphant taught the doctrine which had already been adopted by Mr. and Mrs. Smith some years earlier, and was publicly proclaimed at the Keswick precursor Convention at Oxford, that Spirit baptism brought erotic sexual sensations, although Mr. Oliphant affirmed with greater clarity that the actual entertainment of lustful and vile passions in acts of shameful immorality was the key and the only way to receive Spirit baptism. It was essential, Hannah knew, to receive a post-conversion Spirit baptism, for only after the Baptism does one really become a temple of the Holy Spirit and have His indwelling. And, in truth, it certainly would not be surprising if a supernatural spirit made the body of someone who received the erotic bridal Baptism his dwellingplace. In any case, Mr. and Mrs. Smith were not alone in receiving patronage from the Mount-Temples; Oliphant also was received in the like manner and given a stage upon which to proclaim his filthy abominations. Mrs. Smith wrote about their meeting:
I went to Dorking to join Lord and Lady Mount Temple at a friend’s house there to meet Laurence Oliphant. . . . He . . . has come over to England on a mission to propogate a sort of mystic spiritualism of a most peculiar kind. . . . After dinner Laurence Oliphant read us a long paper . . . [t]he next morning, however, he unfolded his ideas to me . . . similar teaching had [been adopted by] a great many good people in America.
Her letter dramatically understated matters; as other writings of hers, which she would not allow to be published until after her death, and the deaths of all those involved in the events, indicated: “Readers of her [Hannah Smith’s] Religious Fanaticism will recognize the moderation of this letter, for, as she there frankly reveals, Laurence Oliphant, together with his disciples, actually carried out, to the utmost possible extent, the practices of which Robert Pearsall Smith was suspected,” speaking of the doctrine that Spirit baptism was associated with sexual thrills, and engaging in practices suitable to such a confession; for Oliphant held that “sexual passion was the only real spiritual life.” In her more forthright and posthumous description of her visit with the Mount-Temples to sit at the feet of Oliphant, Mrs. Smith wrote:
On one occasion I was invited to go with two friends of mine . . . to meet Mr. Oliphant. In the evening, after dinner, Mr. Oliphant read us a paper about some mysterious experience that he declared was the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, and was the birthright of everyone; urging us to seek the experience for ourselves. . . . I scented out what he meant; but one of my friends did not, and she was profoundly impressed with the mysterious reference to some wonderful “it” that was to be the aim of our desires. When he closed the paper, she said in her sweet, childlike way, “What would’st thou have me to do in order to gain this?” Immediately he coloured up to the roots of his hair, and said, “I could not tell you in this company.” It flashed into my mind that if he had answered her what was really in his mind, he would have said, “Come and get into bed with me.” However, nothing more was said then, and we separated for the night, but I was convinced from the behaviour of our hostess and her daughters that they had been more or less initiated into the mystic rites of this new religion. The next morning Mr. Oliphant asked for a private interview with me, in which he told me that he believed my husband was called to enter into and propogate the views he held, and he urged me to beg him not to stop short of the full consummation. I asked what the full consummation was. He said, “You noticed the question that was asked me last night? Do you know what I would have answered? I did not tell him what I had thought, but asked him, “What would you have answered? His reply was, “If I dared to I would have said, ‘Come and get into bed with me.’” . . . I asked him if it were not possible to lead people into this glorious experience he spoke of without personal contact. He said no, it was not.
In addition to contact with Oliphant through the Mount-Temples, Hannah Smith had contact with the sect of Oliphant’s father in his filthy faith, Thomas Harris, although she professed, at least in public, that she did not adopt either of their views. However, it is clear that she sought out, learned, and “knew personally about” Oliphant’s sect and Harris’s sect, while reading some of Harris’s writings and lending them to others. On Mrs. Mount-Temple’s request, Hannah even visited Harris’s colony in California. Since Mr. and Mrs. Mount-Temple made their “home at Broadlands a haven for all sorts of prophets of new religious and utopian experiements, including the American Thomas Lake Harris . . . [and] his cult in New York State” and they seem to have “considered joining [his] American group,” Mrs. Smith’s exposure to and fellowship with Harris and Oliphant is not surprising in the least. Indeed, although he may be difficult for her to understand, “Harris” is definitely “in his senses,” as Hannah knew, a fact validated to her by her friend, the New Thought teacher Mrs. Caldwell, who considered his writings “very advanced truth”—and Hannah knew that Mrs. Caldwell was also certainly “in her senses,” with “plenty more people, too” who found Harris and his abominations attractive. Filthy fanatics like Oliphant were some of the people Mrs. Mount-Temple introduced to Mrs. Smith. Through Mr. and Mrs. Mount-Temple, Hannah W. Smith was both influenced by spiritualism and other forms of demonic activity, encouraged in the doctrine of erotic bride mysticism being promulgated by her husband and adopted, for a time, by herself also, and exalted to be the most important leader of the Higher Life movement, so as to become the founder of the Keswick theology.
The Mount-Temples’s Broadlands Conference was the launching point for the Keswick movement; all the key Keswick theological distinctives were there in place. The distinctive pattern of the later Keswick meetings of beginning with an explication of the evil of known sin, progressing through the provision made in the Higher Life for victory, and a call to the embrace of the Higher Life and its practical consequences, was pioneered at Broadlands. The positive Keswick emphases, retained from the older classical orthodox doctrine of sanctification, on the necessity of surrender to Christ, a rejection of self-dependence, and the importance of faith, were set forth. What was truly new, the deviations from classical orthodoxy among Keswick speakers and writers, was also taught. For example, Broadlands taught the Keswick idea that Christ Himself lives the Christian life for the believer. Broadlands rejected Christ’s Lordship and Biblical repentance in conversion, teaching that one receives Christ with the attitude of “some of self, and some of Thee” and only later comes to a real surrender. Broadlands taught the standard Keswick Quietism and its associated continuationism. The standard pattern of progressive daily topics at the Keswick Convention was that of Broadlands. Broadlands taught the distinctive Keswick model of sanctification. Keswick theology was consequently molded by the corruption of the gospel, confusion of Biblical sanctification, spiritualism, continuationism, ecumenicalism, the Inner Light, New Thought, the Mind and Faith Cure, feminism, Quakerism, syncretism, quietism, antinomianism, universalism, erotic sensations as Spirit baptism, and the other heresies of the Smiths and their fellow teachers of the Higher Life as taught at Broadlands. It is difficult to underestimate the influence of the teaching of Hannah W. Smith and others at Broadlands on the subsequent history and development of the Keswick movement, as the Oxford and Brighton Conventions were simply Broadlands writ large, and Keswick theology is the permanent establishment of the promulgations of these Conventions.
Thus, Mr. Mount-Temple was by no means a passive host who simply lent his Broadlands property to others for their use—on the contrary, he was the mainspring and heart of the Broadlands Conference and consequently a prime initiator of Keswick. Those who knew Broadlands best testified:
Lord Mount Temple . . . was th[e] mainspring, th[e] very heart . . . of the Broadlands Conferences[.] . . . He was the preparer and the almost hidden ruler of the feast. . . . [T]he aim of his life express[ed] itself and t[ook] visible form in these Conferences . . . it was in these that the sap of his inner ideal life . . . found issue[.] . . . I attribute . . . the felt presence of the Spirit [at the Conferences] . . . not a little, I may say mainly, to the tone and spirit of him who [was] the lord of those broad lands[.] . . . I believe the main channel of all this blessing at Broadlands was dear Lord Mount Temple himself. . . . [I]t was his heart which . . . first conceived the possibility of such meetings . . . it was his personal influence, also, . . . which kept . . . opposite elements in peace[.] . . . Broadlands . . . [was under] the . . . leadership of Lord Mount Temple.
Lord Mount Temple led the way in spiritual things, Hannah Smith testified, and called through the Broadlands message for others to follow him to his eternal dwelling place. He received rhapsodic and hagiographical praise from key Keswick men such as Charles Fox, the poet of Keswick and its closing preacher for two decades. He developed the practice of “open[ing] every meeting” at the Broadlands Conferences, where he “urged upon his hearers the need of a higher spiritual life” and promoted Quietism. Furthermore, his influence was by no means limited to Broadlands, but “he often preached” in various venues. By leading the Broadlands Conference, he was the source of the Oxford, Brighton, and Keswick Conventions that patterned themselves after and developed from it. As Hannah Whitall Smith explained out of her personal experience as a fixture and leader among the Broadlands preachers:
Mr. and Mrs. Cowper Temple . . . were among the first to open their hearts and their home to the teaching concerning the life of faith that was at that time beginning to attract attention among English Christians. The great Conferences at Oxford, later, in 1874, and at Brighton in 1875, and the long series of similar, though somewhat smaller Conferences since held for the “deepening of the spiritual life,” were all the outcome of that first Conference gathered by Mr. and Mrs. Cowper Temple at Broadlands . . . in the summer of 1874; and probably without this brave initiatory Conference of theirs those which followed, filled as they have been and still are with [Higher Life] blessings to thousands, would never have been held. This fact is not generally known, but in the great day of accounts, when the secrets of all hears are revealed . . . thousands will [recognize] these . . . pioneers for having thus opened to Christians a wide door into . . . the life hid with Christ in God.
Broadlands led directly to Keswick:
[O]n July 17, 1874, the first Broadlands Conference met. About 200 persons assembled[.] . . . After this a Conference was held at Broadlands nearly every summer till 1888, and soon after the last one, in August of that year, Lord Mount-Temple died.
Many who attended the first Conference in 1874 felt it would be well if similar meetings, open to larger numbers, could be held elsewhere, and, at the suggestion of Stevenson Blackwood, Oxford was selected as a suitable spot[.] . . . Accordingly a Conference was held in September in the lovely old city, and about 1000 men and women of all ranks of society and of various religious denominations were present.
A fortnight later a crowded meeting was held under the Dome of Brighton, to hear about the Oxford Conference, and as a result of the interest awakened, a Conference was held at Brighton in the following spring, which was largely attended. There were about 8000 strangers in Brighton, as many as 6000 attending services at the same time. . . .
The same year as the Brighton Conference, 1875 . . . the Keswick Conventions . . . [were] inaugurated . . . which have drawn great numbers . . . year after year ever since[.]
Both persons who attended and written works about Broadlands and its teaching were key in the formation of the Higher Life movement encapsulated at Keswick. Thus, “the Broadlands Conferences were the starting-point of many important movements. The great Conferences at Oxford in 1874, and at Brighton in 1875, for the deepening of the spiritual life, leading on to those held annually at Keswick and elsewhere . . . were the outcome of those at Broadlands[.]” The 1874 Broadlands Conference, at which the Smiths were key speakers, was “the germ from which Keswick was to grow, and out of which the memorable gatherings at Oxford and Brighton sprang more immediately.” The Keswick Conventions are indubitably the product of Broadlands. What is more, “the fruits of these . . . Broadlands Conferences . . . even now are seen, [even] among those who never were at Broadlands, but who have caught something of its spirit.” The deviations from orthodox spirituality in the Keswick movement developed from the foundation of the movement in the federation between the Mount Temples, the Pearsall Smiths, and other false teachers at Broadlands.
Hannah Smith’s Higher Life theology, promulgated in the Keswick movement, that sanctification produces a sort of perfection of acts, follows the teaching of the leading Quaker theologian Robert Barclay. However, Mrs. Smith came to her view of “the life of faith” in association not only with the “Quaker examples and influences” that from her youth led her to seek for entire sanctification, but also the Catholic heretics and mystical quietists “Fénelon and Madame Guyon.” Hannah described her love for a collection of their writings and its influence upon her, and her father before her, in leading them towards the Higher Life, as follows:
I knew I was not what I ought to be. My life was full of failure and sin. . . . I was continually sinning and repenting, making good resolutions and breaking them . . . longing for victory . . . but more often failing. . . . From the peaceful, restful lives of the Quakers, among whom I had been brought up . . . I had supposed of course that becoming a Christian meant necessarily becoming peaceful and good, and I had as much expected to have victory over sin and over worries as I had expected the sun to shine. But I was forced to confess in the secret depths of my soul that I had been disappointed. . . . Nothing could have described my condition better than the Apostle’s account of his own condition in Romans 7:14-23. I had entered into the salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord, and yet I knew no such triumphant deliverance from the “body of death” within me[.] . . . This feeling became especially strong after my discovery of the unlimited love of God. . . . The Quaker examples and influences around me seemed to say there must be a deliverance somewhere, for they declared that they had experienced it[.] . . . There was also another influence in my life that seemed to tell the same story. I possessed a book which distinctly taught that God’s children were not only commanded to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit, but also that they could do so; and which seemed to reveal the mystical pathway towards it. It was called “Spiritual Progress,” and was a collection of extracts from the writings of Fénelon and Madame Guyon. This book was very dear to me, for it had been a gift from my adored father, and always lay on my desk beside my Bible. . . . [Concerning it, my father also testified,] “This book proved to be of the greatest comfort to me. I carried it in my pocket, and at leisure moments read it to my everlasting profit, I trust. And I cannot but thank a kind Providence for giving me this blessed book.” . . . He valued the book so highly that, as fast as his children grew old enough, he presented each one of us with a copy, and asked us to read it carefully. Our father was so dear to us that we always wanted to please him, and I for one had made the book my special companion . . . its teachings had made a profound impression upon me[.] . . . After . . . the discovery I had made of the wideness of God’s love [universalism], I began to feel more and more uneasy. . . . And more and more I felt the inconsistency of having a salvation, which was in the end to be so magnificently complete [as every single person would be in heaven], but which failed now and here so conspiculously in giving that victory over sin and over worry . . . [until I discovered] the Methodist “blessing of holiness.”
Thus, not only Quakerism, universalism, and a self-centered eudemonism that was focused upon being free from worry and having a life of ease and rest, but also Roman Catholic mysticism was key in Hannah’s discovery of the Higher Life. In her youth Hannah had wished to “get perfectly good, just like Mme. Guyon,” and even to the limits of her old age she found various affirmations of Fénelon “everlastingly true.” She further wrote: “Fenelon’s whole teaching is to show us how to let the lower life die, and the higher life take its place[,] [that is,] . . . the ‘Higher Life’ . . . [taught in my] ‘Christian’s Secret[.]’” Likewise, Hannah Smith found “the true meaning of self abandonment” in Madame Guyon’s Commentary on the Song of Solomon, found confirmation on “the subject of guidance” by the Inner “Voice” from “Madame Guyon,” discovered her quietistic doctrine of resting on God in “naked faith” from “Madame Guyon” and “Fenelon,” and developed her doctrine of being “one with God” from them also. Indeed, she made many discoveries from this pair of Catholic mystics, who were central to her doctrine of sanctification, although other Roman Catholics were also important. Indeed, she found that not only Romanist mystics, but “[a]ll the writers on the advancing life say that a renunciation of all the activities of the soul must come before God can be all in all.” That is, quietism is the necessary prerequisite for mystical union and deification.  The Higher Life “may make us lazy on the line of ‘creaturely activity,’ for all our restless strivings and agonizings will be over, and our souls will dwell in ‘peaceable habitations’ continually,” but quietism is the truth, at least in the view of the writers on the advanced life, if not in the view of the Bible.
Both the Roman Catholic Archbishop Fénelon and the mystical Quietist and panentheist Madame Guyon, who in “all that concerns the distinction between Protestantism [and the Baptists] and Romanism . . . is wholly Romanist,” were enemies of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Madame Guyon began her last will as follows: “I protest that I die in the faith of the Catholic, apostolical, Roman Church; having no other doctrines than hers; believing all that she believes, and condemning, without restriction, all that she condemns.” She was “an outstanding proponent” of “quietism,” that “manifestation of Roman Catholic mysticism in the seveneenth and eighteenth centuries,” having adopted it from “Miguel de Molinos, a Spanish priest” who was “founder of the Quietists.” Packer describes the error of Quietism:
Quietism . . . holds that all initiatives on our part, of any sort, are the energy of the flesh; that God will move us, if at all, by inner promptings and constraints that are recognizably not thoughts and impulses of our own; and that we should always be seeking the annihilation of our selfhood so that divine life may flow freely through our physical frames. . . . by biblical standards this passiv[e] frame of reference is altogether wrong, for the Holy Spirit’s ordinary way of working in us is through the working of our minds and wills. . . . Thus, our conscious, rational selfhood, so far from being annihilated, is strengthened . . . Philippians 2:13. This is holiness, and in the process of perfecting it there is, properly speaking, no passivity at all.
David Cloud explained:
The school of mysticism that Guyon adhered to, sometimes called Quietism, was an extreme form of Roman Catholic mysticism that emphasized the cleansing of one’s inner life and included the belief that one could see Christ visibly. Before Guyon’s day, in the Middle Ages, this took strange forms in erotic “bride mysticism” with some visionaries believing they were married to Jesus. Guyon and the Quietists went further, into something called essence mysticism. They believed that their being was merged with God’s being and the two became one. This unbiblical idea survives today in the New Age and other non-Christian religions. . . . She taught that we can know of God by “passing forward into God,” going into a mindless, meditative state where we can get in touch with the Christ within the self, merge with that Christ and be lifted into ecstasy.
Guyon “won many converts,” resulting in a “belief in a vague pantheism which is closer to the South Asian religions than to Christianity,” but, nevertheless, she “felt herself so close to God that she received visions and revelations,” as did so many of her Higher Life successors who devoured her writings. Madame Guyon also, with other medieval Roman Catholic mystics, believed in the abominable heresy of deification, which was also transferred into the Higher Life and Keswick milieu. Fenélon, who “admired and defended [Guyon’s] ideas,” had many converts also—he became the Catholic “Superior of a house for recent converts from Protestantism and then led a mission to the Huguenots,” seeking to bring those French Protestants back to the fold of that religious system, centered in Rome, that the Apostle John called the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth (Revelation 17). Concerning these Quietists, Hannah W. Smith wrote: “By my Quaker education, I was exceedingly inclined towards mysticism, and the books I had read—such as Madame Guyon, Fénelon, Isaac Pennington and others, all of which lead to a life of introspection and self-abandonment—had greatly strengthened me in this, so that I honestly believed that wonderful spiritual light would come, and did come, to souls that gave themselves up to the control of their interior emotions and followed impressional guidance.” She stated: “[B]ecause of my education in the Quaker Society . . . [m]y idea of guidance . . . was of having impressed upon my mind in some miraculous way the will of God; and the teaching I received was that instant, unquestioning obedience to these impressions was the only way[.]” Quaker and Roman Catholic mysticism were at the heart of Hannah W. Smith’s Higher Life and Keswick theology.
Mrs. Smith also rejoiced in her “dear Quaker friend[s] and the Catholic Saints” who “exalted James with his justification by works.” After the death of her daughter’s Roman Catholic husband, she “covenanted that” her grandchildren from that marriage would “be educated as Roman Catholics, and she kept . . . strictly to her promise.” She wrote: “My two little grandchildren are . . . devout little Catholics, and seem to enjoy their religion, and I am glad of it. I daresay they will be saved a good many of the perplexities and difficulties that so often beset Protestant children.” She led them to celebrate Lent, to “la[y] up treasure in Heaven by giving candlesticks to a Roman Catholic High Altar” and by going to Mass and the Confessional. Hannah used the methods in “The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life” to lead “a Roman Catholic lady, a convert who was vexed by doubts about some dogma of the Church” of Rome, to an unshaken confidence in the dogma of transubstantiation. “H. W. S. wrote out on a piece of paper, ‘I undertake never to have any more doubts about the Real Presence’ (or whatever it was), and brought it to her, and made her sign it. After that the troubled spirit was utterly at rest” in the bosom of the Whore of Babylon. After all, nothing was wrong with Romanism, since because of a Quaker “opening,” one of the special revelations she received that supplemented or contradicted the Bible, Mrs. Smith came to realize that Roman Catholics were all one in God with other Christians. In any case, a Christian does not need to be justified by Christ’s imputed righteousness, nor believe what the Bible says about Jesus Christ—rather, “to be a good human being is to be the best Christian that can be made.” Mrs. Smith documents how she turned away from the doctrine she had learned from the Plymouth Brethren of judicial and forensic justification by faith alone (cf. Romans 3:28), “[a]fter . . . the discovery [she] had made of the wideness of God’s love [universalism],” adopting instead the heresy and works-gospel that justification means that “the life of Christ in our souls is a righteous life.” She thus denied the Biblical doctrine of justification, as well as holding to other corruptions of the gospel, both before and during the time when she began her influence as a Higher Life teacher and preacher, and she cleaved to a false gospel the rest of her life.
In addition to rejecting the core Biblical doctrine of justification, Mrs. Smith was very confused on the instrumental means for the receipt of the gospel. Denying that repentant faith alone was the instrumentality for the receipt of salvation, Hannah taught that “we cannot be saved until after we confess,” so that it was necessary to “make an apology” after doing wrong. Her view of faith was dangerous and heretical. She wrote: “Faith, then, is not a grace . . . Neither are there different kinds of faith. Men talk about a . . . living faith, and a saving faith, and an intellectual faith, and an historical faith, and a dead faith; but God talks about believing what He says, and this is the only kind of faith the Bible mentions.” Thus, to Mrs. Smith, saving faith was merely intellectual assent, believing facts. Furthermore, Mrs. Smith anticipated the Word-Faith heresy that positive confessions create positive realities:
Put your will then over on to the believing side. Say, “Lord I will believe, I do believe,” and continue to say it. . . . I began to say, over and over, “The Lord does love me. He is my present and my perfect Saviour; Jesus saves me, Jesus saves me now!” . . . Those three little words, repeated over and over, — “Jesus saves me, Jesus saves me,” — will put to flight the greatest army of doubts that ever assaulted any soul. I have tried it times without number, and have never known it to fail. Do not stop to argue the matter out with your doubts, nor try to prove that they are wrong. Pay no attention to them whatever; treat them with the utmost contempt. Shut your door in their faces, and emphatically deny every word they say to you. . . . Cultivate the habit of expressing your faith in definite words . . . repeat often.
Further anticipating Word of Faith error, she wrote elsewhere: “Faith, we are told, ‘calleth those things which be not as though they were.’ Calling them brings them into being,” so that exercising faith is “the law of creation[,]” misinterpreting Romans 4:17, which states that the personal, omnipotent God, not faith, calls those things which are not as though they were. Thus, Hannah believed she could do what Romans 4:17 affirms God, not the Christian, does: “[I]t is like the pangs of creation to have ‘the faith of God’ and ‘call those things which be not as though they were.’ Is not that a grand definition of faith? It is in Romans 4:17.” Nevertheless, Hannah admitted: “I see the difficulty you speak of, and I confess it does seem an odd sort of thing to do, to become satisfied by saying one is satisfied, when one is not. But is it not just what faith is described to be ‘calling those things which be not as though they were.’ And what else can we do?” She recognized that it was, indeed, very odd to simply say that things were a certain way when they were not so, but such was her view of faith, and she did not know what else to do. Her view, applied to feelings, might have had some effect as a psychological gimmick, but when applied to physical healing in the nineteenth century Faith and Mind Cure movements, and the modern Word of Faith movement, it has caused vast numbers of early deaths, while when applied to conversion and assurance of salvation, it has led to vast numbers of eternal, spiritual deaths.
As Mrs. Smith’s view of faith was heretical, so her view of conversion was terribly deficient and dangerous. Her counsel to the unconverted was:
If you are unconverted, take His message to sinners in 2 Corinthians 5:19, for instance, and make up your mind to believe it, irrespective of your feelings, or of your reasonings or of any other thing whatever. Say to yourself, “God says that He ‘was reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.’ I do not see how this can be. I do not feel as if it were so. But God says it, and I know He cannot lie; and I choose to believe Him. He is reconciled to me in Christ, and He does not impute my trespasses unto me; I was saved through the death of Christ.” Repeat it over and over, putting all the power of will you possess into it. “I will believe; I choose to believe; I do believe; I am saved.” “How do you know it?” says Satan; “do you feel it?” “No I do not feel it at all; but I know it, because God says so; and I would far rather trust His word than my own feelings, let them be ever so delightful.”
Henry Boardman rightly comments on this false view of faith by Mrs. Smith: “Can this grossly unscriptural advice be followed without deadly peril of self deception?” Saving faith is a Spirit-worked trust in the Person and cross of the Lord Jesus Christ. It possesses intellectual, volitional, and emotional elements. Repeating to oneself over and over that since Christ died for the sins of the world, one has received spiritual life, is a fearful error and a false gospel. Describing, on another occasion, how she would bring someone to “conversion,” although conversion to “a different sort of God altogether” than that of Christian orthodoxy, that is, the god of universalism, Hannah explained that the sinner does not need to recognize that he is a child of the devil (John 8:44) who is dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1-3) and then come to repentance (Luke 13:3); rather, he should simply mentally assent to the fact that he is, allegedly, already a child of God and already forgiven, just like all other sinners in the world, and then enter into the Higher Life and feel happy and free from trouble. Hannah and Robert Smith were happy to give assurance and the peace and comfort that comes with it to those without any testimony of real conversion or the life associated with it; for example, they publicly proclaimed that all their children were saved, although none of them were. She wrote:
[C]onversion comes . . . at the moment of belief, only it is belief in a different sort of God altogether. I go to a sinner now and say, “Poor soul, God loves you; God is your Father; He is on your side. He came down to this world in a human body, just to take your lot upon Him and to bear your sins and sorrows. He met your enemy and conquered him, so that you need not fear him any more. He is not angry with you. He took your sins upon Him and made your cause His own. He is reconciled to you. He declared that He forgave you when He was on earth, and He declares it still in the Record He left behind Him. He says if you will only trust Him He will get you out of all your troubles. He will beget His own spiritual life in you, and make you a partaker of the Divine nature. You shall be born of the spirit, and be filled with the spirit[.]
In light of Mrs. Smith’s confusion on the nature of saving conversion—errors in which she was followed by her husband and in which she stood with other Higher Life leaders—it is not surprising that Mrs. Smith’s son Logan could remember little about his own alleged conversion at the age of four. He had to find out what happened at the time of his professed conversion by reading a tract his father Robert P. Smith had written about it. His alleged conversion did not change his life—for such a change needed to await the second blessing, sanctification, Logan related—and he was never truly born again and so was able to apostatize from, renounce, and come to hate evangelical Christianity and the Christ set forth by it, just as his father and mother came to do, and all the other Smith children that lived to adulthood.
Mrs. Smith was able to adopt all her heresies because she was never truly born again. At the time of her alleged evangelical conversion Mrs. Smith noted that she thought that she simply “had found out something delightful about God” and the idea “that I personally was different in any way from what I had been before, never entered my head.” A member of the Plymouth Brethren, however, hearing her change in doctrinal views, told her: “Thank God, Mrs. Smith, that you have at last become a Christian,” to which she “promptly replied, ‘Oh no, I am not a Christian at all.’” However, Mrs. Smith allowed this member of the Plymouth Brethren to convice her that her doctrinal assent was equivalent to becoming a Christian, so that she came to conclude: “‘I must be born of God. Well, I am glad.’ From that moment the matter was settled, and not a doubt as to my being a child of God and the possessor of eternal life, has ever had the slightest power over me since.” Unfortunately, since she had never through repentant faith come into saving union with the crucified Christ, but had simply assented to certain Biblical truths, she never was regenerated, and thus was able to apostatize from even the evangelical doctrinal beliefs that had, for a time, captivated her interest. She refers, in her later life, to her “very evangelical days” as a time in the past that had come to an end, and she “had afterwards to discard” even the trappings of Christian orthodoxy that she held in her “extreme evangelical days.” At the time of her evangelical influence, she stated that she had not embraced the Person of the crucified and risen Christ through a repentant faith, but “what I got at was the fact of God’s forgiveness,” and since all she “got” was a “fact,” not a Person, she stated that the evangelical gospel was “a hook [about God’s forgiveness] that I had afterwards to discard. . . . The various hooks upon which I hung this fact at the different stages of my progress were entirely immaterial after all.” She could apostatize from even the evangelical truths she temporaily held to because they were simply facts assented to mentally—she had never embraced Jesus Christ as her own Lord and Savior on gospel terms. Consequently, as years passed, “[s]he found that, after all her searching and all her experimenting, she had come back very close to the position of the old Quakers from which she had started, and in her later days she was more mystical, more quietist, and at the same time less positive,” that is, more relativistic, than ever, since the “time has not yet arrived in the history of the human race when in this world we can have any absolute standard of right and wrong.” Mrs. Smith’s universalism led her to reject the necessity of the new birth and of conversion, truths to which she had intellectually assented for a short period:
[As Quakers,] [w]e were never told we had to be “converted” or “born again,” and my own impression was that these were things . . . [which] were entirely unnecessary for us, who were birthright members of the Society of Friends, and were already born into the kingdom of God, and only needed to be exhorted to live up to our high calling. I believe this was because of one of the fundamental principles of Quakerism, which was a belief in the universal fatherhood of God, and a recognition of the fact that Christ had linked Himself on to humanity, and had embraced the whole world in His divine brotherhood, so that every soul that was born belonged to Him, and could claim sonship with the same Father. . . . [T]he early Friends accepted this as true, and would have thought it misleading to urge us to become [converted or born again, since] we . . . already belonged . . . [to] the Good Shepherd. For a little time, in my Plymouth Brethren days, I looked upon this [Quaker doctrine] as a dreadful heresy; but later on I learned the blessed fact . . . that we are all, the heathen . . . heathen idolators . . . even included, “God’s offspring;” and I realized that, since He is our creator, He is of course our Father, and we equally of course are his children. And I learned to thank and bless the grand old Quakers who had made this discovery, since their teaching made it easy for me to throw aside the limiting, narrowing ideas I had first adopted [of the necessity of the new birth and conversion], and helped me to comprehend . . . that no one can shut another out [universalism].
Mrs. Smith was an unregenerate woman who professed and preached a false gospel.
Having rejected justification by faith and the new birth and having become a universalist, in association with what she learned “among the Methodists . . . [of] the ‘Doctrine of Holiness’ . . . [Hannah Smith learned about] an experience called ‘sanctification’ or the ‘second blessing’ which brought you into a place of victory.”
She explains what she learned by means of Methodist meetings on the second blessing:
[I] found . . . what Paul meant when he said, “Not I, but Christ,” and that the victory I sought, was to come by ceasing to live my own life[.] . . . I find there are some Christians who say that [we] receiv[e] Christ by faith for our sanctification, just as we received Him by faith for our justification . . . a Methodist doctrine . . . but it seems to be the only thing that can supply my needs . . . this is the Methodist “blessing of holiness.”
This new life I had entered upon has been called by several different names. The Methodists called it “The Second Blessing,” or “The Blessing of Sanctification;” the Presbyterians called it “The Higher Life,” or “The Life of Faith;” the Friends [Quakers] called it “The Life hid with Christ in God.” . . . I have most fully set it forth . . . [in my book] the “Secret of a Happy Life” . . . [where the teaching is expounded that] practical sanctification was to be obtained, like justification, by simple faith; and that, like justification, it was to be realized in any moment in which our faith should be able to grasp it.
The Higher Life “is what the Quakers have always taught. Their preaching is almost altogether about it.” Quaker men and women “receiv[ed] the blessing of full salvation or death to sin” in Quaker meetings and went on to become “very successful in holding Holiness meetings.” Indeed, Mrs. Smith thus noted that the Quakers, Methodists, and Catholics all taught the Higher Life doctrine she also embraced:
[T]his discovery, which I have tried to set forth, was the beginning of a great revival in the spiritual life of the Church everywhere . . . the life of faith [was found] not only among the Methodists, but among the Quakers and among the Catholics as well, and in fact it is I believe at the bottom of the creeds of every Church . . . The Life of Faith [is] . . . what the Quakers had always taught. . . . They were in short “Higher Life” people[.]
Hannah W. Smith refined the Higher Life perfectionism that was her Quaker birthright, not only from Roman Catholic influences, but from Methodist perfectionism also.
Mrs. Smith further developed her doctrine of sanctification by faith and the Higher Life through a discovery she stated was “more fundamental” than any other. She received this Higher Life truth through the influence of a Methodist minister who experienced demonic revelations and was a sexual predator. She explained why she was open to his twisted ideas:
[I]n my search after the deep things of God . . . I think all the fanatics in the United States must have found their way to my presence to try and draw me into their especial net, and . . . I was always ready to listen sympathetically, hoping that among them all I might at last find the truth[.] . . . I [could] be completely taken in by anyone who professed to be “guided by the Lord.” This was owing, I expect, to my early Quaker teaching about Divine Guidance. People had only to say to me that the Lord had led them into such or such a course, for me to bow down before them in profound reverence. . . . I was made to believe that . . . I should be able to understand the Divine reasons for what seemed to me violations of good sense and even of simple morality.
In contrast, concerning a local “Baptist clergyman . . . [who] preaches such a pure gospel,” Hannah affirmed, “I cannot enjoy close contact with such people,” finding preachers of a pure gospel repulsive, but fanatics of all sorts much more attractive, in keeping with her background, associations, and unrenewed nature. She stated: “My first introduction to fanaticism, if I leave out all that I got from the Quakers to start with, which was a good deal, came through the Methodist doctrine of entire sanctification. That doctrine has been one of the greatest blessings of my life[.]” This blessing came in association with Dr. Henry Foster and his Clifton Springs sanitarium; the Pearsall Smith family had known Dr. Foster since at least 1871 when Robert had stayed at the sanitarium and learned from the spiritual doctor the doctrine of erotic Sprit baptism. Hannah described her association with this Methodist minister and his family, the insight into the Higher Life she received, and evidenced her incredible spiritual blindness, as follows:
In the year 1879 we took a furnished house in Coulter Street, Germantown, for the summer. A lady who lived next door to us had lent her house to some friends who had the reputation of being wonderful Christians, and of having great revelations and marvelous experiences. As I was at that time in search of remarkable experiences, I was exceedingly interested in these people, and very soon made their acquaintance. The head of the household was a Methodist minister named J. L., and I found him to be a most impressive and interesting man. He had a way of suddenly turning to you when conversation was going on and saying that he had a message for you from the Lord[.] . . . There were also in the house two sisters named W., whose father, Dr. W., was a man of position and authority in the Methodist Church, with a great reputation for piety. . . .
From the first I was profoundly impressed by the apparent holiness and devotedness of this household, and felt that they must have been brought there on purpose to help me onward in my earnest search for a realised oneness with Christ, a oneness which they seemed to have attained in a very marvellous degree.
The thing which interested me at first was the remarkable way in which they seemed to understand the guidance of the Holy Spirit in all the little daily affairs of life. . . . I must say here that their way of looking continually, moment by moment, to the Lord for His Guidance, and their perfect certainty that He did indeed, according to His promise, direct their every step, seemed to invest them with an atmosphere of holiness and to surround them with the conscious presence of the Lord. . . . They seemed literally to live and move and have their being in God . . . hungering . . . to know the utmost possibilities of the life hid with Christ in God, [so that] it seemed [to me] that it ought to be almost like entering the very gates of Heaven to be in their presence, and I threw myself with intense eagerness into their teaching and their influence.
No one could associate with them and not believe that they thought themselves special Divine favourites. They professed to be so minutely guided in life that I was very anxious to attain the same experience, so finally I got Miss W. to give me a sample of the way in which she was guided. She said it was like this: that when she was awakened in the morning her first conscious thought was to consecrate the day to the Lord, and to ask Him to guide her every step of the way throughout the whole day. She would then ask Him whether she was to get up or not; and very often, although it was apparently very important that she should get up, the Lord told her to stay in bed. Then, perhaps, in a few minutes the voice would order her to get up. Then she would proceed to get up. As she put on each article she asked the Lord whether she was to put it on, and very often the Lord would tell her to put on the right shoe and leave off the other; sometimes she was to put on one stocking and leave off the other; sometimes she was to put on both stockings and no shoes; and sometimes both shoes and no stockings; it was the same with all articles of dress. She also said that often during the day, when she was seated at work, the Lord would tell her to get up and go out of the room, and when she got out would tell her to come back. And often she would be told to move from one chair to another, or to go and stand on the front doorstep, or to do all sorts of erratic things. She said that the object of this was to make her pliable so that she would be ready to follow the guidance of the Lord on the instant. I immediately thought that I would like to live this way, so the next morning after this conversation I began the process, and it was with the greatest difficulty that I got dressed or downstairs to my duties, as the voice kept telling me all sorts of things. Then when I did get downstairs I could hardly get through my breakfast, for the voice would suggest, just as I would get a mouthful nearly into my mouth, that I must not take it. I spent the morning running about from one chair to another, going out to the steps and coming back again, and running from one room to the other, and even going so far as to take off my shoes and stockings, and then to put them on again without any apparent cause.
I kept this up until about twelve o’clock, and then . . . I said to myself . . . [“]I have just got the ideas from what Miss W. told me, and I am making it up all out of my own head,” and I was forced sorrowfully to conclude that I had not fathomed the secret of Divine guidance yet. This did not, however, weaken my desire to know the inner depths of the experience of which I heard[.] . . .
In spite of all their evident holiness, I had been conscious all the while of something mysterious about the whole household, an intangible atmosphere of something wrong which seemed to fill the house, and to look out of the eyes of its inmates, and to be heard in the tones of their voices. There was nothing I could lay my hands upon, or could even formulate in my thoughts, and whenever the feeling forced itself upon me I blamed myself as being as yet too unspiritual fully to enter into their heights of spirituality and set myself more determinedly than ever to attain to their divine level. Believing, as they taught, that human reason must be laid aside in spiritual matters, and only the interior voice of the Spirit obeyed, I . . . tried to convice myself that I was in this way being uplifted more and more into the secret things of God’s immediate presence.
I must confess it was all very fascinating. . . . in many respects their teaching was exceedingly valuable. And I did receive during the course of the summer a real revelation of God that has made my life to me a different thing ever since [that is, the Higher Life doctrine of sanctification in greater fulness]. . . . It was the continual habit of this strange household to refer everything to God. . . . Their one universal reply to everything was simple, the words, “Yes; but then there is God”; and no arguments or questionings could turn them from this by so much as a hair’s-breadth.
As may be imagined, during my intercourse with them, because of all the unexplainable mystery accompanied by the apparent wonderful holiness that seemed to surround them, I often found myself in a good deal of spiritual perplexity, and, as I looked upon them as religious teachers deserving the highest confidence, I continually went to one or other of them with my difficulties, chiefly, however, to the oldest of the W. sisters, Miss Caroline W., who was a woman of great culture and intelligence and unusual spiritual power. I would pour out to her all my interior perplexities and difficulties and temptations, to which I must say she always listened very patiently, but when I would pause for some comforting or helpful reply, there would always ensue a moment or two of silence, and then she would always say in a tone that seemed utterly to conclude the matter, “Yes, that may all be true, but then, there is God.” . . . [M]y most impassioned or despairing stories of my spiritual woes could never elicit anything more than this. “Yes, yes,” she would say; “I know it all. But then, there is God.” . . .
Towards the end of their stay, one night, a friend who had come to sit at their feet and I had gone to be in great perplexity, full of questioning as to how it could be that God would permit people who wanted to follow Him, and were trying to walk in His paths, to wander into error. We went to sleep in this perplexity, unable to see any light; but somehow, in the morning when we met, we turned to each other and said, in the sense that we had never said it before, the single word, “God!” and with that word came to us a recognition of the all sufficiency of God in a way that has never left us. . . . It would be impossible to put into words just what seemed to come to us that morning, but it certainly was a satisfying revelation of the all-sufficiency of God, just the bare God . . . for all our needs. . . . I shall never cease to feel real gratitude to this strange household for having brought me to this, although I very soon found out some dreadful things about them. . . .
One day . . . I received a telegram from Mrs. C. in Boston, begging me to come and see her at once on a matter of vital importance. The message was so urgent that I took a night train, and arrived there the next morning. Immediately Mrs. C. told me that she thought I ought to know the state of things in this household, and she had sent for me to tell me about it. She brought in a highly respectable woman doctor, who told me the following facts.
The doctor said that she had two very intimate friends in Boston, who were ladies of very good standing, and, in fact, one of them was at the head of a large school or college, and was considered an authority on education . . . and were, in fact, devoted Christians. They had become acquainted with Mr. L., the Methodist minister, who was the head of the mysterious household next door to me . . . and had seemed to find great spiritual uplifiting from his teachings. This doctor was at that time in charge of a hospital, and these ladies would often come to see her. She noticed that one of them seemed to be losing her spirits, and to be greatly depressed, with so far as she knew no apparent reason. She seemed to be on the verge all the time of saying something to the doctor which she appeared afraid to continue, and the doctor felt that her friend had a confidence to make to her which for some reason she was reluctant to make.
One night this friend came to stay all night at the hospital and slept in the room with the doctor. As she was standing by the looking-glass arranging her hair, the doctor noticed something peculiar in her appearance, and it flashed across her mind that her friend was in the family way. She explained, “Oh, darling, what is the matter?” and her friend burst into tears. Nothing more was said; the doctor was too shocked to speak; she would as soon have expected to find the Angel Gabriel in such a plight as her friend; and they spent the night both weeping, but saying nothing till towards the morning. Then her friend opened her heart and confided in the doctor. She told her that she and her companion had been greatly impressed by the teaching of this Mr. L., to whom they had been introduced by Miss –—, a religious teacher of a great deal of spirituality, living in Boston. They had both become greatly influenced by Mr. L’s teaching, and gradually he had unfolded to them that it had been revealed to him that he was to be the father of a race of children that were to be born into the world as Christ was, and that the Lord had shown him that they themselves were to be the favoured mothers of these children. . . . Mr. L. . . . not only believed that he was Christ, but thought that he was destined to be the father of “Christ’s children,” who were to found a race that was to revolutionize the world. These children, according to him, were to be begotten in a spiritual way, without bodily contact, but his practice did not bear out his assumption. . . . [H]e succeeded in completely deluding these ladies, and in carrying out his purposes, and this poor thing was now expecting to be the mother of one of those children. The agonies of mind that she had gone through could not be described. She dared not admit the idea that it was a delusion, for her whole spiritual life seemed to depend upon believing that she had been rightly guided; for if she could think that in the most solemn moments of consecration the Lord could allow her to be so deceived, she would feel that she could never trust Him again. She clung with a deathlike grip to the belief that it was Divine guidance, and that she was greatly favoured to be allowed to be the mother of one of these wonderful children. How to get through the earthly part of it, however, was the great difficulty. But her doctor friend stepped in to the rescue; she took a house out of the city, brought her friend there, took care of her until the time came, carried her safely through her confinement and kept the facts hidden from everybody. The lady told her mother, who had been anxious about her health, that she was broken down by so much teaching, and was going to the country for a complete rest, and there was no exposure.
Mr. L. was a constant visitor at the house, as the doctor had not the heart to plunge her friend into the abyss of despair which would have been her portion if she had lost faith in him. The doctor did not like his ways at all, and herself believed that it was pure human lust. However, the thing was carried through; the doctor adopted the baby, and her friend went back to her usual avocations. She never lost her [faith in Mr. L.] during my knowledge of her. Mr. L. married the other lady, the companion who had shared in her delusion, and, soon after the birth of the baby the mother went to live with him and his wife, and for many years they formed one household.
The dear sister who had lent Mr. L. the house . . . a wealthy widow . . . came so much under his influence . . . [that] she was tempted to go away with him. . . . [He] had almost succeeded in persuading her to put all her private property into his hands, and go and live with him. We at once, in his presence, told her the whole story as we had heard it, and while he acknowledged the facts, he stuck to his position that he was commissioned of the Lord to bring forth these children, and that they were not begotten according to any natural process. We succeeded, however, in frightening him so much as to our revelations that might be made, that he himself told our friend he did not believe she was called to go with him[.] . . . How many poor souls were beguiled during that strange summer I do not know.
Of course, from that time my intercourse with these dear misguided Christians ceased, but about a year after I received a very impressive and solemn note from one of them saying that the way was still open for me to return to the Lord if I would give up my self-will and consent to be guided as the Lord led. . . . Since then, I have never seen nor heard about them.. . .
[Nonetheless, from Mr. L and his household] I did discover one truth, more important to Christians than any warnings about dangers in this world . . . and that truth was God. . . . [In] the summer . . . [of] 1879 . . . when the L. household lived next door to me[,] The Lord . . . t[aught] me very blessed lessons about the interior life[.] . . . He [had] sent some of His children to spend the summer in a house [next door]. One of them especially [was] helpful to me. She is what I call a “mystic”—one of those who know the Spirit’s voice, and who walk alone with God. . . . At last I begin to understand what this means, and I believe I am beginning to live it. . . . Definitely and forever I consent now to die as to any recognized self-life. It shall be henceforth no more I, but Christ. . . . [I]n spite of . . . [their] frightful fanaticism . . . [which made me question if I ought to be] content to know but little of the inward voice . . . [since] they have tried so faithfully to find it, and have been deluded . . . [yet] I know the truth about it must exist[,] . . . [and] I had gained from the summer’s experience a knowledge of God . . that . . . brought me into a peaceful resting in Him that has never been seriously disturbed since. . . . It may seem strange that such an acquaintance with God could have come to me out of such a hotbed of fanaticism, but there is the fact, and there is no getting around it. Whatever else these dear deluded fanatics may have been or have done they did live in the presence of God in a most unusual sense[.] . . . “Pure religion,” says Fénelon, “resides in the will alone.” And again, “the will to love God is the whole of religion.” I . . . am thankful beyond words that . . . I was brought at last to see that a quiet stedfast holding of the human will to the will of God and a peaceful resting in His love and care is of . . . great[est] value in the religious life.
Thus, Hannah Whitall Smith learned what she considered her greatest spiritual discovery, not from the study of the Scriptures, which would have prevented her from adopting such a sort of pagan spirituality, but from the demonic revelations of a Methodist minister who was a sexual predator, to whose ideas she was open because of her background in Quaker and Romanist mysticism, Methodist fanaticism, and her expectation of Quaker revelations from the Inner Voice.
The Methodist predator from whom Mrs. Smith made her most fundamental discovery of the spiritual life also believed in the doctrine, developed out of medieval and counter-Reformation Roman Catholic mysticism, that Spirit baptism brought physical sexual thrills. Visiting “the lady who had been largely instrumental in starting people . . . on the career which led them to L. [the Methodist sexual predator mentioned above],” Hannah W. Smith narrated the following:
I found her to be a quiet refined lady rather past middle age, evidently very intelligent and a Christian worker who was highly esteemed by all who knew her. I told her what I knew about the L. household [the Methodist minister and sexual predator]. . . . She said . . . that the Lord’s dealings were often very mysterious and such as the natural man could not understand, but that what God had pronouced clean no one might dare to call unclean, and that these dear saints had been most manifestly led by Him. . . . [S]he had been led into these courses and . . . she could do nothing but obey[.] . . . During the course of my conversation with this lady she said: “You may think it strange, Mrs. Smith, but I speak from experience; there have been times when, in order to help my friends to receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, I have been distinctly led of the Lord to have them get into bed with me and lie back to back without any nightgown between. And,” she added, “it has always brought them to the conscious Baptism.” . . . [S]he has been the means of leading a great many young women into the same line of things.
Another friend of mine . . . whom I had told about Dr. R., received while I was talking to her, what she believed was the Baptism, and began to experience right there thrills of rapture from head to foot, which completely carried her away. . . . [S]he [came] to spend most of her time lying on the sofa trying to induce [the thrills] to come. She also . . . felt it her duty to kiss several men, with the idea that through that means God would bestow either great blessings upon them or greater blessings upon herself. She had felt led to kiss Mr. L. [the Methodist sexual predator]. . . . [Indeed,] a great many saintly women . . . one after another . . . would in some mysterious way begin to “feel led” to give him a kiss . . . the called for kiss bestowed . . . floods of joy and peace would fill their souls. . . . She was impressed with the idea that through this performance God would bestow the Baptism of the Spirit upon the receipient of her kisses. . . . [She] was so good and pure minded that we all called her “Saint Sarah[.]” . . . At one of our meetings at Brighton [when Mr. and Mrs. Smith were preaching the Higher Life] . . . there was a great deal of talk about the Baptism of the Spirit, and many souls were hungering for it[.] . . . My friend, “Saint Sarah” . . . confided to me that she felt led to kiss . . . a refined and cultured gentleman . . . herself as a means of imparting to him the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. . . . She was in the greatest trouble about it . . . and she felt sure that she would be making herself ridiculous. . . . Days went on and she became really ill with the conflict; and at last, seeing that there was no way out of it but for her to do it, I said, “It won’t hurt; I’ll explain it to him. So just go and kiss him and be done with it!” My taking of it in this way greatly relieved her mind. I told our host what she wanted to do, and he said he wouldn’t object in the least . . . she was able to perform what she thought was her religious duty. This kiss was given[.] . . . In two or three other instances the same process was repeated [with other men]. . . .
This dear Saint was so enmoured of what she called “The Touch of God,” that she spent a large part of her time seeking for it and enjoying it, until it finally became a sort of possession . . . a very good Christian lady . . . said . . . [she] was possessed of the devil. . . . I made up my mind that she must be freed from this somehow, so I . . . went to the woman who had plunged her into the trouble [by stating “Saint Sarah” was demon possessed] and told her the dreadful effects of her former words, and said to her, “And now you must give me in writing the assurance that the devil has gone out of her,” and I bullied her into doing it. I then went back to my friend armed with this assurance, and said to her: “Now the devil has gone out of thee, and here is the proof.” She believed it, and from that moment began to recover, and has since lived a peaceful and normal Christian life.
Mrs. Smith narrates other similar and awful instances of people who were seeking Spirit baptism and the Higher Life of entire sanctification:
[Another] young woman . . . had been seeking the Baptism of the Spirit as a result of the fervent preaching of a Methodist minister in the town where she lived, and had found great spiritual help from her conversations with him. They found, she said, that when they were together they seemed to feel an especial nearness to the Lord, and the closer they sat together the more they felt it. They constantly, when in one another’s company, had wonderful waves of divine thrills going through them, especially when there was any personal contact, which thrills the preacher told her were the conscious Baptism of the Holy Spirit for which she was seeking. Of course, if this was the case, the more of these waves of delicious thrills they had the more truly filled with the Spirit they were, and they had consequently sought every opportunity of being together, and had encouraged a closer and closer personal contact, never dreaming of evil, until at last she found herself in the midst of a criminal connection with the preacher who was already a married man. . . .
[A] dear beloved saint . . . who had given up everything in life to follow the Lord, and who was considered by everybody who knew her to be one of the saints of the earth . . . had all the Quaker scruples with regard to dress, and looked as she walked about like the embodiement of ascetic piety. I greatly revered her and sat at her feet to be taught. . . . [A] friend [and I] . . . asked her to tell us her last experience. She said that . . . she had told the Lord that she wanted to make Him some New Year’s gift, and that as she had given Him everything that she possessed and everything she was, she could not think of anything new to give. Then, she said, the Lord told her that there was one thing, and that was her virginity, and that He would send a man whom she must be willing to receive in His name and surrender herself to Him. She told us that she had said, “Thy will be done,” and was now awaiting the ringing of the bell and the advent of the promised man . . . whether the man came or not, I do not know. I have heard, however, that at one of the camp meeting grounds, where she . . . held meetings, the authorities had been obliged to close her meetings on account of the dangerous tendency of her teaching.
The heresy that Spirit baptism was associated with physical sexual thrills was thus widespread in the religious background of Hannah and Robert Smith, and it is thus not surprising that they both adopted it.
Robert maintained and propogated the erotic Baptism heresy throughout his time as a preacher of the Higher Life—his promulgation of his beloved mystical abomination ended only with his fall because of scandal associated with it—while he influenced many others to adopt and practice it as a key aspect of the Higher Life theology. For example, “Miss Bonnicastle sp[oke] on this subject . . . [of] conscious union of the believer and Christ as the Heavenly Bridegroom . . . at the Oxford Ladies meetings . . . [which] quite shocked a good many.” In “the Christ-life,” another minister proclaimed, one is to “let the thrill . . . surge and thrill through all your being.” Thus, the doctrine of the sexual Baptism as a key portion of the Higher Life experience was proclaimed publicly at the Oxford Convention, that key precursor to the Keswick Conventions. Indeed, many of Robert and Hannah W. Smith’s Higher Life “evangelical and especially their Quaker friends . . . condoned . . . [Robert’s] adventures with his feminine disciples.” Nonetheless, after convincing many to adopt the heresy, Robert eventually rejected erotic bride mysticism, and “in rejecting what he himself had experienced, he could not help turning his back on all religion,” so that he turned away from his profession of Christianity to agnosticism, and then moved from agnosticism to Buddhism. Robert could not retain his profession of Christianity without his erotic bride mysticism. Robert testified at the Oxford Convention: “There has been no period since . . . [my] baptism of the Spirit . . . when God has not been more or less in my consciousness as the living Being unto Whom I looked.” At the time of his Baptism a Power came to be present with him that always accompanied him afterwards, a Power that directed all his actions as a minister of the Higher Life and was at the heart of his spiritual experience. If his erotic Baptism was a delusion, so was all of his Christianity, and agnosticism appeared to him to be a necessary consequence. The possibility that he was possessed by demons through his erotic Baptism, demons that then directed him in his subsequent Higher Life ministry, does not seem to have been given serious consideration. Hannah also eventually came to reject erotic bride mysticism later in her life after some time propogating it near the years of the zenith of her and her husband’s work as Higher Life agitators.
Describing the incident that led to Robert P. Smith’s withdrawal from public work shortly before the first Keswick convention, a headline in the Brighton Weekly stated: “Famous Evangelist Found in Bedroom of Adoring Female Follower.” In the bedroom of his disciple, Miss Hattie Hamilton, Mr. Smith had explained to her the abhorrant doctrine he had learned in 1871 while institutionalized, on account of a total nervous breakdown he had suffered, in a hydropathic and homeopathic sanatorium from the head of the facility, Dr. Henry Foster, that the baptism of the Holy Ghost was accompanied by physical sexual thrills because of the esoteric union of Christ with His people as Bridegroom and Bride, as described in the Song of Solomon. Robert Smith’s explanation of the erotic Baptism doctrine in one bedroom too many brought about the rapid fall of his previously rising star in the Higher Life movement.
Dr. Foster, while “a lifelong Methodist,” was “interdenominational” in his religious spirit. Thus:
Dr. Foster insisted upon . . . [the] chapel [at his sanitarium] . . . be[ing] purely interdenominational spirit and life. . . . He established the custom that the Holy Sacrament should be administered every month, the form for one month being that used by Episcopalians and Methodists, and alternating the next time with the form observed by Presbyterians and others. [People] counted one Sabbath morning when . . . the kneeling form [was administered, and] twenty-six religious bodies [were] represented by those partaking. Following the public service the Chaplain always administered the rite privately in their rooms to those requesting it.
Indeed, Foster’s sanatarium “ha[d] always been noted for its prevailing fairness and charity towards different types of religious belief, [so that] all grades from the highest ritualism to the simplicity of the society of Friends, have felt perfectly at home. . . . [F]requently . . . Roman Catholic Priests and Bishops . . . seemed to appreciate the place and enjoy it.” Nobody was warned about his false religion, whether the Catholic sacramental and ritualistic false gospel or the rejection of justification by faith alone based on the imputed righteousness of Christ alone taught by the Quakers. Foster “was never happier than when sharing or promoting interdenominational fellowship.” Indeed:
All the churches of the village received from [Mr. Foster] substantial help at various times. . . . When the Roman Catholics erected their new Church edifice in 1895, the Doctor made a substantial contribution, and rented a pew in it each year thereafter, which custom is continued to the present. Annual offerings were made by him to all the Protestant churches and that custom is continued to the present.
Mr. Foster loved ecumenical fellowship with false teachers of all sorts.
Dr. Foster’s religious ecumenicalism extended to an ecumenicalism of healing praxis:
“Allopathy,” “Water Cure,” “Homeopathy,” “Mind Cure,” “Faith Cure,” were to him members of a group in the therapeutic family. He . . . look[ed] for the higher unity, treating each as a segment in the full circle . . . allopathy, homeopathy, hydrotherapy, mental therapy, and the prayer of faith . . . belong[ed] to one great healing family.
Thus, Foster believed in homeopathy, although it was obviously demonic in its origin and practice, in hydropathy, although it was intimately associated with spiritualism and demonism, and in Mind Cure—which was, indeed, associated with Faith Cure—although it was likewise essentially a form of pagan and demonic medicine based upon untestable mystical energies. The nineteenth century Mind and Faith Cure movements, which were part of the warp and woof of the Keswick theology and at the root of the Pentecostal and charismatic movement, developed out of a common background in mesmerism, vitalism, homeopathy, and other pagan and demonic ideas, and cannot be separated into distinct and unrelated phenomena. Thus, despite its demonic origin, at Foster’s sanitarium “[t]he prevailing method of administering medicines was homeopathic.” Dr. Foster “became a hydropathic practitioner, then he saw in homeopathy special adaptation to chronic cases, then he awoke to the large realm of mental therapy.” He “was profoundly impressed with the effect of mind over matter. The relation of the mind or the spirit to disease, he concluded, was a subject of prime importance. . . . [T]his led to his seeking for a new place where he could establish his practice and work out his ideas unmolested,” that is, his sanitarium, where “he came with a protest and also with a purpose. . . . his highest thought was in relation to the effect of the mind over the body in disease. Discovery of the power of Mind Cure was “the greatest event in his life.” Thus, Dr. Foster taught the doctrine of Mary Baker Eddy’s cult of “Christian Science,” which “aligns itself with . . . pantheistic idea[s] . . . [and teaches that] [s]in is like sickness and death, and these are errors of the mind and can therefore be completely overcome by ‘mind cure,’” so that “thoughts are things, thoughts are forces, and therefore as a man thinks, so is he.” Dr. Foster, as an important part of the basis for the later Keswick healing theology, combined Mind and Faith Cure, saying:
Take this law and power of faith, and take the law of the influence of mind over the body, and put them together and see what you get. You get something that will work . . . It was the acceptance of this truth that decided me to try and establish a house where these truths . . . the power of the mind over the body, and the salutary effects of a constant religious faith upon the sick . . . should be enforced.
Foster “was a firm believer in the effect of mind over matter—over disease. . . . [This belief] pervaded the whole institution. . . . Whatever good there is in Christian Science [the cult of Mary B. Eddy], in the Emmanuel Movement, and in modern faith healing he brought to bear in his therapeutics[.]” Thus, “prayer to God was a force in nature, as real as the law of gravitation,” rather than simply a petitioning of that God who was above nature and does, in accordance with His will, intervene in nature. In this way, practicing “[m]ental hygiene and mental therapy . . . as well as the great therapeutic value of religious faith . . . the ‘Emmanuel Movement’ at Boston, of which so much has been said with its slogan ‘Religion and Medicine,’ was anticipated by Henry Foster.” Although the Bible taught that much of Dr. Foster’s practice was demonic in origin, his practices were confirmed to him by a vision. He stated:
I presented my whole life again to God; the entire interests of the Sanitarium, and my relations with it. While thus contemplating the work, the Holy Spirit came upon me, filling me with His presence, and I saw what seemed to be a rainbow. The base of it was there on [a] mountain inclosing me; it went up to the mercy seat; the other base came down and rested here in Clifton Springs, over the house [sanitarium]. . . . I looked at it, and I saw there were streams going up, and then there were streams going down, and resting upon me. I was re-energized, and so much so that I became astonished . . . that settled me, strengthened me, proved to me that the teaching was from God, and from God alone[.]
Surely such a vision was sufficient proof that his pagan and demonic philosophies and practices were acceptable to God.
As a result of Foster’s vision, received at the time of his “pentecostal baptism of the Holy Spirit”—physical sexual thrills because of erotic bride mysticism—he founded his Water Cure:
[He] saw that his pentecost was not for its own sake, but was given to prepare him for such a work. He prayed, and light came. He had a vision of the institution God would give him,—just as definite a vision as Moses had of the Tabernacle in the Mount; and as Moses was to make all things according to the pattern showed him in the Mount, so God had in vision outlined the work he was to do, and he must follow the pattern.
When Mr. Foster experienced his “real baptism of the Holy Spirit and of power” he also gained “a vision like Paul’s when he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, a call and a commission like that of the prophet Jeremiah, or of Isaiah in the temple—an imperative call when his whole soul was filled and thrilled,” and in this manner the spirit world led him to “the beginnings of the Sanitarium and of this pentecostal baptism” that was both its its erotic origination and an element of its religious proclamation. At his hydropathic and homeopathic healing house, he sought to bring especially “Christian workers, such as clergymen, teachers, and missionaries who are peculiarly liable to physical and nervous breakdown . . . [that they might] come to his institution and remain long enough for a cure.” Consequently, “at least seventy or eighty thousand” patients came to the sanitarium, including “presidents of colleges, professors, lawyers, judges, ministers, bishops, all classes of men, literary men and literary women, some of the most renowned in the land. There have been [there] thousands of the foremost cultivated men and women of America, and some from other lands,” so that a vast “spiritual influence,” more, in the mind of some, than from “any institution” else, went out to influence the “intellectual and moral” climate of America, and, indeed, the world, as the sanitarium “bec[a]me a center of missionary interest and activity. Dr. Foster’s invitation to foreign Missionaries of all Mission Boards to come to the Sanitarium for needed rest and treatment, and his concessions as to cost . . . brought hundreds of them.” Note the Pearsall Smiths alone, but other Keswick leaders, such as A. T. Pierson, could praise “Dr. Henry Foster, of Clifton Springs, N. Y.[,]” for “all who came in contact with him bear testimony to the elevating effect of his spirituality of life” and his “benevolence . . . [to] the cause of missions.” After all, “for some years the International Missionary Union . . . held . . . [at] Clifton Springs . . . its annual sessions.”Many came, and, like Robert and Hannah Smith, also left with both Dr. Foster’s love for Faith and Mind Cure and his vile doctrine of physical bridal-union in mystical Spirit baptism.
Hannah W. Smith chronicled Dr. Foster’s communication of his views to herself and another lady as follows:
Never shall I forget that interview. He began by telling us that “The Baptism of the Holy Spirit” was a physical thing, felt by deligthful thrills going through you from head to foot . . . and that this had been revealed to him in the following manner. He had been praying to the Lord to give him the Baptism . . . and he found that whenever he prayed especially earnestly he had physical thrills which he had thought belonged to earthly passions. He blamed himself exceedingly for this, and thought what a sensual man he must be, that in his most sacred moments such feelings should come. . . . One day . . . an inward voice seemed to say “These sensations you so much condemn are really the divine touch of the Holy Spirit in your body.” . . . Immediately, he said, he began to receive them with thankfulness and the result was that they had become so continuous that there was scarcely a moment in his life without them. . . . My friend and I had not dared to say a word while this revelation was being made to us, and when Dr. Foster left us we sat for a long while in dumbfounded silence.
Hannah Whitall Smith described how their family adopted Mr. Foster’s abominable doctrine and communicated it to others:
I was seeking to know all that could be known of the “life hid with Christ in God,” and was hungering and thirsting after an expression of entire consecration and perfect trust. . . . I had also a very mystical side to my nature which longed for direct revelations from God . . . and for many years I sought in every direction to find a satisfaction for this craving. . . . The beginning of it was was in the year 1871 or ’72, when my husband needed a course of treatment for a nervous breakdown. We took our family to a Hydropathic Sanatorium in New York State, and we stayed there for three or four months. . . . A very dear friend of mine was staying in the Sanatorium at the same time; and as we were both hungering and thirsting to know the deep things of God, we very often had long conversations about it. One day she said to me, “Hannah, I believe that Dr. [Henry Foster] knows some secrets of the divine life that thee and I ought to know: he has hinted as much to me when he has been seeing me about my health. Wouldn’t thee like to have him tell us?” Of course I agreed to this with all my heart, and she decided to ask him. When I next saw her she said she had asked him, and he had told her that he would ask the Lord whether he was to reveal the secret to us or not. A few days later he told my friend that he had received permission from the Lord to tell us the secret, and he fixed a time when were were to meet to hear it. . . . Never shall I forget that interview. He began by telling us that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit was a physical thing, felt by delightful thrills going through you from head to foot, and that no one could really know what the Baptism of the Spirit was who did not experience these thrills. He said that this had been revealed to him in the following manner. He had been praying the Lord to give him the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and he found that whenever he prayed especially earnestly he had physical thrills which he thought belonged to earthly passions. He blamed himself exceedingly for this, and thought what a sensual man he must be that in his most sacred moments such feelings should come. By fasting and prayer he would get deliverance, as he thought, and would then begin to pray again for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, but invariably, after a short time of prayer, the sensations would return, and the same process of fasting and prayer would have to be gone through. As this happened over and over he was at last almost in despair. One day, however, when, during an earnest season of prayer, these sensations were particularly strong, an inward voice seemed to say, “These sensations which you so much condemn are really the divine touch of the Holy Spirit in your body.” He said it was very hard for him to believe this, but it seemed to come with such divine authority that he dared not reject it. He asked specially for a sign that if it really were that Baptism of the Spirit for which he had been praying it might be made so plain to him that there could be no mistake. And this prayer, he said, had been unmistakably answered, and he had been convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that these very sensations, which he had condemned as being of the flesh, were actually the very Baptism of Spirit that he had longed for. Immediately, he said, he began to receive them with thankfulness, and the result was that they had become so continuous that there was hardly a moment in his life without them, and that he had found the greatest spiritual enlightenment and uplifting from the moment that he allowed himself to receive these sensations as being the touch of the Lord. This he told us was the divine secret which had been revealed to him, and which he was permitted to tell chosen souls. He urged us to take the subject before the Lord in prayer, and ask Him to enlighten us, and he warned us not to let carnal thoughts concerning this blessed experience come in to blind our eyes to the divine realities it embodied. My friend and I had not dared to say a word while this revelation was being made to us, and when Dr. [Foster] left we sat for a long while in dumbfounded silence. . . . [W]e had such absolute confidence in the holiness of this saint of God, as he seemed to us, that we were afraid our horror at what he had told us must be because we were too carnally minded, as he had said, to be able to see the deep spiritual purity of it all, and we felt that we dared not reject it without further prayer and consideration. We had several further talks with Dr. [Foster] about it, and he told us these “baptisms” were really the fulfilment of the union between Christ and His people as the Bridegroom and the bride, described in Ephesians v, 25-32, and typified in the Song of Solomon, and declared in many parts of Scripture, and that to reject it was to reject union with the Lord Himself. And he described this spiritual union as being so enrapturing and uplifting, and so full of the Lord’s actual presence, that at last we began to believe there must be something in it, and to long to know for ourselves the reality of this wonderful consecration. We could not accept all the details of the experience that Dr. [Foster] gave us, but we did begin to believe that there was a physical “touch” of God, that manifested itself in a bewildering delicious sensation of a sort of magnetic thrill of divine life pouring through both soul and body, which lifted one up into an enrapturing realization of oneness with Christ and that this was the true ‘Baptism of the Holy Ghost.’ We came to the conclusion that it must be what all the old mystics had known, and that it was the true inner meaning of that Union with Christ for which saints of all ages had longed, and into the realization of which so many of them seemed to have entered. And we both began earnestly to seek to know it for ourselves. . . . I [thought] that now at last I had found the key that would open to me the door of this mystic region of divine union. As usual, when I was interested in anything, my friends had to become interested too, and to all with whom I dared to touch on such a sacred, yet delicate, subject, I tried to tell what Dr. [Foster] had told us. And in several instances, both in England and America, those I told of it receved the baptism I described, and in each case this very baptism was the opening up for them of a life of union and communion with God far beyond anything they had ever known before. . . . In many instances the receiving of it by preachers was the beginning of great revivals in their churches, and was, in fact, the initiation of a great deal of the “Holiness” movement of thirty years ago [that is, the time when the Keswick and Higher Life theology was originated and promulgated]. This movement took hold of the upper classes, and the meetings were largely composed of the aristocracy and the rich and influential people in English Society. There was nothing sectarian in the whole [Keswick] movement; no one was asked, or in any way influenced, to leave the Church to which they belonged . . . one of the marvellous features of it was the union of people of all forms of belief, and of all denominational relationships[.] . . . Dogmas and doctrines were of no account, and were never referred to, for they were not needed in the region in which this movement was carried on. It was the region of personal experience[.] . . . But while great spiritual blesings have seemed often to be the result of this experience of union with God, very disastrous outward falls from purity and righteousness have sometimes followed[.]
Hannah Smith, thus, both adopted and promulgated the erotic Baptism doctrine and explained that it was at the root of the Holiness, Higher Life, or Keswick movement.
Hannah Whitall Smith further explained, through a representative example, how she spread Dr. Foster’s filthy doctrine to others, and its effects upon them:
One day, not long after our [Mr. & Mrs. Smith’s] stay at the New York sanatarium, I [met] . . . a very strict Friend [Quaker] . . . a most successful Christian worker, but rather self-absorbed. She . . . dressed in the strictest fashion of sugar-scoop bonnets, crossed handkerchiefs, with a dainty three-cornered shawl over her shoulders. We became very intimate[.] . . . She was very religious, and we soon discovered that we were both seekers after the mystic life, and especially after the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and we embraced every opportunity we could find of seeking for it together.
At that time some Methodists who believed in sanctification by faith were in the habit of holding in the summer what were called Holiness Camp Meetings . . . led by prominent religious preachers and teachers who believed in the doctrine of Holiness, or, in other words, of “sanctification by faith.” . . . [T]he friend of whom I speak and I myself, with a large company of congenial friends, attended one of these Camp Meetings, all of us hungering and thirsting . . . to know experimentally the conscious baptism of the Holy Spirit. The whole camp ground was exercised on this subject, and in almost every meeting wonderful testimonies would be given by those who had, as they believed, consciously received it.
Our expectations and our longings were wrought up to the highest ptich of enthusiasim, and one evening, after the public meeting under the trees was over, a few of us gathered in one tent for a special prayer meeting on the subject, determined to wrestle and agonize until the answer came. We knelt in the dark, and poured out our prayers and supplications . . . for two or three hours. . . . As the company passed out of the tent, I noticed my friend did not pass out with them, and I wondered whether she had slipped out silently before the meeting closed and gone back to her own tent. I lighted a candle to go to bed, when, to my astonishment, I found her lying across the foot of my bed in what appeared to be a swoon. I spoke to her, and immediately she began to praise God in the most rapturous way: “Oh, how wonderful! Oh, how glorious! Oh, this is the Baptism! Oh, what a blessing; ’tis more than I can bear! Oh, Lord, stay Thy hand! Flesh and blood cannot bear this glory!” And similar exclamations burst from her lips in tones of ecstasy. As may be imagined, I was overwhelmed with awe and delight, and I immediately rushed out to call in my friends to see the wonderful answer to our prayers, for I could not doubt that my friend had received the baptism of the Holy Spirit for which we were all longing. Why she had been picked out, I could not imagine, for she was not, as far as I knew, a bit better or a bit more earnest than any of the rest of us. However, there it was . . . [a] little awestruck company gathered round the bed, and eagerly drank in all her rapturous exclamations, afraid almost to breathe for fear that we should disturb the heavenly visitation. After a while she seemed to recover from her swoon sufficiently to go to her own tent, and, although very tottering and scarcely able to walk, we managed to take her there and get her undressed and into bed. . . . [E]arly in the morning I sent word to the early Prayer Meeting of the great blessing that had come to the camp ground. Immediately a deputation of the leaders of the meeting came to the tent to ask my friend whether she would not come to their large meeting and bear testimony to the blessing that had been bestowed upon her. . . . It was one of the foundation principles among believers in the definite baptism of the Holy Spirit that if you did not confess it when you had received it, it might be lost[.] . . . [The baptism] seemed to have been what the Swedenborgians call “her opening into the spiritual world,” for from that time she began to have very strange and wonderous experiences . . . [which made] ordinary religious life very humdrum and uninteresting[.] . . . I told her of my experience at the water-cure [Henry Foster’s hydropathic sanitarium], and of the secret that had there been revealed to me[.] [S]he immediatley seized upon it . . . and went to this same water-cure, and put herself under the teaching of the doctor there[.] . . . She embraced all his views, and felt led, as she fully believed by the Holy Spirit, to great lengths in the lines he taught. Among other things, she felt her duty to ask him to stand naked before her, and also to do the same thing herself before him. To what other lengths she went I have never known, but she was fully imbued with the idea that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was physical as well as spiritual, and that the great aim of religious teachers should be to excite in themselves and in others those physical thrills which accompany passion, and which she had come to believe were the manifest token of union with Christ. She took the Song of Solomon to be the exposition of the relation between the soul and Christ as the Bride and Bridegroom, and she confessed to me with great awe that she really believed that Christ had often come to her at night when in bed as the real Bridegroom, and had actually had a bridegroom’s connextion with her. She taught this doctrine to a choice circle of friends, and even tried by personal contact to produce in them those physical thrills which she believed were the actual contact of the Holy Ghost. She overawed these friends by the tremendous force of her own convictions, and in many cases obtained . . . control over them, so that they were not surprised or shocked at anything she did or said, but accepted it all as from God, and as being the avenue through which the Holy Ghost was to be poured out upon them . . . [although] the person who was acknowledged by all to be the most full of self was my friend [herself], who had apparently received the Baptism. 
Hannah had written to her husband: “There does seem to be a truth in it [Dr. Foster’s doctrine], and I feel as if it would be a great means of restoration to health to thee if thee could get fully into it. Do try.” With the leading of Dr. Foster and the encouragement of Hannah his wife, then, Robert P. Smith received such an erotic baptism, and having “received the baptism of the Spirit . . . he began to teach, preach, and propogate” the Higher Life theology publicly and the mystic baptism privately, leading many into a post-conversion Spirit baptism and the thrills of the marriage-bed that allegedly accompanied it. For example, one of Robert’s first English disciples, a woman called Lizzie Lumb, wrote Robert a series of letters between 1873 and 1875 describing the physical sensations of her “Betrothal with [a false] Christ”:
The thrill commences in the love nerves, with a great throbbing, as though a heart beat there, and rises to the regions of the chest, with a thrill and sweet confusion of union[.] . . . Most earnestly do I thank you for revealing such treasures to me, as you have in this mystery of the heavenly marriage.
Hannah Smith recognized that adoption of the Bridal Baptism doctrine led to the free acceptance and practice of sexual debauchery, or at least something very close to it. For instance, as a consequence of Robert’s preaching at one meeting, Hannah W. Smith narrated: “Boole got a great Baptism during the meeting, the unmentionable kind, and was so completely carried away by it . . . that he came near to making love to me, and actually did get into a deep and spiritual flirtation with a lady there who had left her husband because of his ill usage.” Likewise, Hannah W. Smith recounts:
I knew one dear lady who began in the purest and simplest way to give herself up to these emotions, and gradually came to spending most of her time allowing these waves of thrills to flow through her from head to foot, believing that she was in this way realizing more and more the presence of the Lord, and coming more and more into actual union with Him. And the result was most disastrous in destroying her moral nature, and launching her into a course of impurity from which in the beginning she would have shrunk with horror.
One must not be surprised that the infinitely holy and pure Holy Ghost would give over to their lusts (Romans 1:26) those who would defile His Holy Name by associating such things with His baptism. Certainly such supernatural manifestations as the erotic Baptism were manifestations of the god of this world, the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that works in and energizes the children of disobedience, the infernal Power behind Robert and Hannah W. Smith’s theology of sanctification and “Christian” living. Robert believed in his erotic Baptism “as late as 1878,” that is, until he gave up Christianity entirely, for he “thought that it was a very precious truth.”
While Mr. Smith most clearly spread Foster’s filthy doctrine in private to a variety of his followers, usually women, he did publicly proclaim with clarity the necessity of a post-conversion Spirit baptism as the climax of the Higher Life, while pointing publicly to its sexual nature only in a guarded way. Unsurprisingly, he also warned that those who entered the Higher Life should “expect revelations of the world of darkness” far greater than those experienced by those who were merely normal, uninitiated Christians. While many women, and some men, knew what Robert Smith meant when he spoke of the “phenomena of the coming of the Spirit upon individuals,” not all understood the significance of his public proclamation at the Oxford Convention:
[H]as the Baptism of the Spirit been duly pressed upon the believer? . . . Beloved Christian, let me ask you, have you had this baptism[?] . . . [M]any Christians seem to forget that this happened again and again. It was not the characteristic of the beginning only, but of the continuance of the dispensation in which we live. . . . [There are] phenomena [accompanying] the coming of the Spirit upon individuals . . . [We ought to] expect this baptism[,] [which has] been so long lost to the Church. . . . [It brings] a thrill, an intense emotion . . . [although] [y]ou may have special temptations of Satan after this time of baptism . . . [and] the highest elevations of experience involve the most fearful dangers.
Those who already had experienced the physical thrills of Baptism by the spiritual Bridegroom understood what was involved in the Higher Life doctrine of the Smiths—others were only pointed towards it by their public proclamation:
[T]here is a point in our spiritual life, in which all self-imposed barriers break down . . . [j]ust so . . . there is a certain point at which a true woman breaks through all the reserve of her nature, and lets her heart go . . . the time of the soul’s espousals, when it realises its union to the heavenly Lover. . . . [T]here will spring up a sweet soul-intercourse between your soul and Him such as you have never conceived the thought of. Often has my whole being thrilled . . . I could not understand this when I was contentious about doctrine[.] . . . Will you yield yourself to Him in this the day of your espousals? . . . [I]f earthly love be so sweet, shall not Divine love satisfy our whole being[?] . . . Earthly relationships are created but to reveal heavenly realities of union with our Lord. . . . Faith contradicts even our moral sense[.] . . . [B]reak down every barrier in your nature . . . and let your heart go[.] . . .[E]very need of a woman’s heart could be met and satisfied with the love of Christ . . . [when] the Lord reveal[s] Himself . . . as the heavenly Bridegroom, who would henceforth carry [her] in the arms of love[.] . . . [C]laim the Lord as [your] heavenly Bridegroom . . . a thrilling message [that] stirred the meeting so deeply that it seemed a necessity to give some expression to our feelings[.] . . . [Women] followed, testifiying to the same blessed experience [of the] . . . wonderous secrets of His love[.] . . . [A]s we had learned deeply the lessons of entire consecration and simple trust, we needed now to go on to consider more fully the blessed secret . . . only the soul that had entered into rest could understand . . . passages [such as] Eph v. 22-32; Isaiah lxii. 4, 5, liv. 5; Hosea ii. 16, 19, 20; Song of Sol. iv. 7-12[.] . . . The Song of Songs [contains a] blessed secret . . . that the soul is slow to understand . . . the actings of the love of espousals. . . . The believer does not fully know what Christ is until he comes to this . . . [and surrenders] throughout the whole range of our being [including the physical organism.] . . . For the consecration we have been pressing in these meetings, and the full and childlike trust, are only stepping-stones to this glorious consummation of soul-union with the Beloved[.] . . . [O]ur souls have not reached their highest destiny until it is known and rejoiced in . . . absolute abandonment . . . overmastering love. . . . Several [more] ladies followed, testifying to the joy and rest their souls had found in thus knowing Christ as the Heavenly Bridegroom . . . far more than earthly friend or husband[.] . . . Many hearts were melted . . . in view of such glorious privileges as were opened up before us. The feeling was so great, that at the close of the meeting several met more privately . . . that to each one of them this wonderous soul-union . . . might become an experimental reality. . . . [As] Boaz . . . called the claim . . . that Ruth . . . had made “showing kindness,” . . . [the] Lord delights in every claim we make upon Him for union with Himself, and calls it kindness—“the kindness of thine espousals.” . . . [Let us] make our claim for this realized union . . . [with Christ] more than any earthly friend or lover ever could be. . . . This is the consummation of all Christian experience . . . the wonderous secret . . . [to be] learned by each one experimentally for herself . . . thrilled with the sweetness of His love.
While the Smiths were somewhat reserved in public, others were more open in their proclaimation of the Bridal Baptism teaching. For example, “Miss Bonnicastle sp[oke] on this subject . . . [of] conscious union of the believer and Christ as the Heavenly Bridegroom . . . at the Oxford Ladies meetings . . . [which] quite shocked a good many,” but led many also into the knowledge of that Bridal Baptism. It was common knowledge that “the “object of the . . . Meeting at Oxford . . . was to lead Christians to . . . [be] baptised with the Holy Ghost,” and as a result of that Convention “there was so much” of “the Baptism of the Holy Ghost” that vast multitudes received physical thrills. Nevertheless, the full depths of Satan hidden in Robert Smith’s doctrine were not clearly revealed to all, but only to those fully initiated into the Higher Life. Thus, experience of erotic thrills in the Baptism was the culminating and highest point to which the Higher Life led, and many, through coming to “lie passive in His hands,” came to know “the baptism of the Spirit” as allegedly set forth in the Song of Solomon and as taught by Smith.
While Mr. Smith successfully proclaimed and led others to the erotic Baptism at Oxford and Brighton, divulgence of this Higher Life secret to Miss Hamilton in her bedroom shortly before the first Higher Life Convention at Keswick proved his public downfall—although even through this, the Smiths did not cut off contact with Mr. Foster or Clifton Springs. “Hannah found [Robert] huddled in despair in a Paris hotel room where he had fled in his collapse.” Concerning his father’s exposure, and the attempt—which was quite successful during Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s lifetime—to cover up the true reason for Mr. Smith’s downfall in his promulgation of erotic bride mysticism, Logan Pearsall Smith wrote:
“All Europe is at my feet,” . . . my poor father . . . exclaim[ed] when he stood on the platform [at the Brighton Convention]. But almost immediately an announcement appeared in the papers that he had been compelled to cancel all his engagements and to return almost at once to America. It was suggested that a fall from a horse some years before had led to the return of certain distressing symptoms which rendered absolute rest necessary. I must say that in the family we didn’t believe in that horse; at least I am certain that my mother didn’t. I don’t think she ever referred to it at all, which made people suspicious, and so universal became the gossip that my father’s friends felt it necessary to issue a further explanation. It had come to their ears, they stated, that my father had inculcated doctrines that were most dangerous and unscriptural, and that there had been conduct on his part which, though it was free, they were convinced, from all evil intention, had rendered it necessary to abstain from public work, and take the complete rest rendered necessary by the fall from his horse. That the doctrine of Sanctification and Deadness to Sin might lead to dangerous forms of Antinomianism was well known from the history of the past . . . [b]ut this was not the doctrinal quadreped from which my father slipped at Brighton. It was a much more mysterious beast which he had also brought from America, so mysterious that even the learned and profound Professor Warfield seems never to have guessed at its existence. But my mother knew it well[.] . . . What exactly was the nature of this doctrine? I cannot find that it has a name, so for convenience I shall call it the doctrine of “Loving-kindness.” It is . . . based . . . on the fact . . . that nature, in one of her grossest economies, has placed the seats of spiritual and amorous rapture so close to each other that one of them is very likely to arouse the other . . . so exactly do these two forms of ecstasy feel alike [that] . . . sometimes . . . it [is] extremely difficult to distinguish between them. From this fact it was only too easy to form the heretical belief that this heightening of religious experience, due to the mingling of the sexes, was God’s own way (and His ways were mysterious and not to be questioned by carnal reason) of bestowing His blessing upon them. When a holy preacher sat near a sanctified sister, or a female penitent close to her confessor, they became more conscious of the Baptism of the Spirit; and, as my mother sardonically expressed it, the nearer to each other they sat, the deeper and richer the consciousness became. . . . [I]t has taken . . . centuries to eliminate . . . this holy kiss—if indeed [Christianity] has succeeded in doing so completely. Certainly in my father’s time this exquisite, secret doctrine was extremely prevalent in America; and my father, in spite of my mother’s . . . warnings, would expound it to select gatherings mostly composed of spinsters of a certain age. Unluckily one of these grew jealous of another, and let the great beautiful cat out of the bag, to the scandal of the righteous, and the extreme joy of the unholy, whose jokes about the “Higher Life,” as it was called, made my father feel that it would be wise for him to cease his ministrations. . . . As people grow old, it becomes very hard for them to keep clear in their minds the important distinction beteen Right and Wrong—outlines become dim and one thing fades into another. . . . At the time, however, my father found it wise, as I have said, to cease his ministrations; though to the Cowper Temples, I think—certainly to Mrs. Cowper Temple—all this fuss seemed incomprehensible and silly. If these good people wanted to kiss each other, what, she wondered, could be the harm in that?
After the scandal in England, and the outward success of the Higher Life meetings conducted in America under the impulse of Dr. Cullis by Mr. and Mrs. Smith, despite utter lack of concern and consecration, “Robert gave up preaching, [although] his wife continued.” “Robert Pearsall Smith lost more than his occupation; he lost his faith as well. . . . [T]his disbelieving and disillusioned preacher [would have] believing disciples . . . still come for guidance . . . leav[ing] him to the awkward task of giving advice and encouragement of which he himself hardly believed a word.” Robert “went back to America and to selling glass. His spiritual life degenerated. He never again had a heart for ministry or for God. He retreated to a world of Buddhist meditation and died in 1899 a broken man.” He “began to lose his faith [more completely in] 1875-1876 . . . [by] . . . 1877 he was . . . in the process of losing his faith altogether,” so that he become an agnostic by 1883 as his “religious beliefs [were] gradually dwinding into an interest in Psychical Research.” Thus, “he gradually gave up all his Christian commitments and died alienated, but not separated, from his family. Plagued by a manic depressive nature for most of his life, he [came to be] happiest when engaged in his Buddhist meditations in his spacious tree house at the family’s home at Friday’s Hill, south of London.” As with vast numbers of Higher Life advocates, Robert Smith’s ultimate recognition that his merely fleshly and natural emotion-driven religion had nothing in it that was truly from God led him to apostatize from Christianity. A significant part of his familial alienation derived from his years of unrepentant adultery, evidencing, like his doctrinal apostasy, his unregenerate state, until he finally died in 1898 and went to his own place, where his wife joined him some years later.
Mrs. Hannah Whitall Smith was a false teacher who was deluded by Satan and her own unrenewed heart. Robert P. Smith was an unconverted false teacher also. Their writings are filled to the brim with dangerous theological errors and heresies. Alongside of the Higher Life of Keswick theology, one finds within the compositions and proclamations of Mr. and Mrs. Smith a false gospel, the Inner Light, New Thought, the Mind and Faith Cure, feminism, Quakerism, syncretism, quietism, fatalism, eudemonism, allegorical hermeneutics, passivity in sanctification, continuationism, antinomianism, universalism, works salvation, erotic sensations as Spirit baptism, and extra-biblical revelations. Hannah rejected sola Scriptura, total depravity, substitutionary atonement, justification by imputed righteousness, saving faith, the new birth, supernatural conversion, and self-examination. Mrs. Smith plainly testified that she rejected the evangelical gospel, detested Christian orthodoxy, and delighted in both being a heretic and in making others into heretics. She thought that man’s chief end was not to glorify God, but to feel happy, doing whatever one wants without any pangs from the conscience. Her exaltation as the leading teacher of the Higher Life took place in connection with spiritists and the working of demons. She testified that she gained her chief spritual insight into the “Christian” life from a sexual predator who taught, practiced, and led others into unspeakable debauchery. She was an enemy of Christ, His Word, and of true holiness of life.
As an unregenerate false teacher, Hannah Whitall Smith is someone to mark, reject, and avoid (Romans 16:17; Titus 3:10). Her heresies and writings, and those of her husband Robert, should be abhorred and detested by the godly. She is by no means someone to embrace as a font of truth on Christian living, and adoption of her ideas by others evidences a tremendous lack of spiritual discernment and the certain presence of doctrinal error.
Applications from the Life and Writings of Hannah Whitall Smith and her Husband
As believers can learn much from the life and teachings of the wicked recorded in Scripture, whether Ahab, Judas, or Diotrephes, so the negative example of the life and writings of Hannah W. Smith can teach the Lord’s people a number of important lessons.
Mrs. Smith’s false teachings—all of them—must be discerned, rejected, guarded against, exposed, and warned about. Believers should not read her writings. Christian leaders should plainly preach and teach against her heresies and warn of her by name. Churches should separate from those who have been influenced to adopt her heresies and are unwilling to repent. Her confusion on the gospel has led precious souls into the fires of hell. Her confusion on sanctification has hindered countless Christians in their spiritual walk. There is no reason to try to pick out a little spiritual good from the veritable mass of errors in her works, but a clear Biblical basis for rejecting her, root and branch.
Many lessons can be learned from the deluded career and miserable end of Robert Pearsall Smith. His life exemplifies the extreme spiritual danger of rejecting sola Scriptura in practice, even if one accepts it in theory. His abandonment of literal, grammatical-historical interpretation for experience-driven hermeneutics is also seen to be extremely dangerous. Had Mr. Smith studied Scripture more carefully and recognized it alone as the authority by which he needed to judge all experience, he could have been freed from the delusions of the devil and of his own sinful heart and come to a true saving conversion to Jesus Christ, instead of being an unconverted preacher who was both “deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13). Furthermore, he illustrates the danger when religious experience is derived from a false fanaticism rather than genuine Christian and Trinitarian spirituality. When he finally saw through his fanaticism, instead of turning to the true Christ in true faith arising from Scripture alone, he rejected Christianity altogether. What dangers and proclivities to all evil are wrapped within the depraved human heart! No one will escape from that “desperately wicked” seat of corruption or escape delusion from that fountain of lies that is “deceitful above all things” (Jeremiah 17:9), without cleaving to the Scriptures and receiving the protection of the Holy Spirit as a consequence of the union with Christ brought about through true conversion. Reader, do you view your heart as God does? Do you meditate on its horrible and desperate depravity and, as a result, flee to the Christ revealed in the Scriptures as your only refuge? Learn your need so to do from the deluded life and everlasting damnation of the Higher Life preacher-turned-Buddhist, Robert Pearsall Smith.
Learn also from the lives of Mr. and Mrs. Pearsall Smith life that unconverted false teachers can put on a great show of godliness and exert a tremendous influence on the spiritually unwary among the true people of God. The ideas Hanhah and Robert Smith propogated influence many millions today—millions who, in large part, have no idea that their confusion on and false doctrine of sanctification are derived from an unregenerate Quaker couple. Be sure that your beliefs and practices are truly “the faith which was once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) and the product of Scripture alone. It does not matter whether or not men who are exalted by Christendom have taught them, for such are not your authority for faith and practice. Robert P. Smith was extremely popular in the Christendom of his day—all Europe was at his feet. There are many extremely popular false teachers in Christendom today. The Antichrist will be even more popular in the post-Rapture Christendom of the future than any of his anti-christian predecessors. Place no confidence in men because of their popularity, but, within the protection of a strong independent Baptist church, let all you believe and do arise only from the Spirit-illuminated teaching of the literally interpreted Word of God.
Furthermore, since Hannah W. Smith founded the Keswick theology with her husband, and Keswick has never dreamed of repudiating and repenting of their false teachings and pernicious influence, Keswick theology should be rejected. Keswick is saturated with the ideas of Hannah W. Smith. This is not a good, but a great and fearful evil.
The tremendous influence Mrs. Smith has exerted on Christendom, so that very large numbers of true churches and Christians have been unintentionally infected with her errors, illustrates the dangers of failing to issue plain warnings, avoid ecumenicalism, and exercise a watchful and strict separatist position. Mrs. Smith has influenced millions. She created a new, and very influential, doctrine of sanctification—the Keswick theology. Through both her direct influence and her stamp upon the Keswick movement, she has precipitated the rise of the Pentecostal, charismatic, and Word of Faith heresies. How greatly the leaven of error has spread because so many preachers have refused to give plain warnings! How essential it is for pastors to be well informed about and very careful concerning what writings they recommend to the flocks over which the Holy Ghost has made them overseers! Reader, do not follow the bad example of those who blew an uncertain sound on their gospel trumpets—determine that you will, by God’s grace, for His glory, and out of love for Him, contend against all error, and for all the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3). Do not fear man—you will be called “uncharitable,” “too negative,” “narrowminded,” and all sorts of other names (Luke 6:22, 26). Instead, consider that the Apostle Paul commanded the marking and avoidance of false teachers in the context of his love for large numbers of God’s dear people. Think on the love for the Father, for His people, and for the truth that filled the soul of the Lord Jesus, and led Him to boldly and pointedly denounce error (Matthew 23). Be Christlike—go, and do likewise.
Consider also what dangers there are that yet lie buried within your fallen heart. How Mrs. Smith was led astray by trusting in her own heart, in the Inner Light delusion, and in her continuationist Quakerism! While she was totally blind because of her unregenerate state, you, oh Christian, still have the serpent of indwelling sin lying within your own bosom. How essential it is that you reject all extra-Biblical revelation, and carefully study the Bible, cleave to its every precept, and prize it as your sole authority! The Sword of the Spirit is the only offensive weapon in your spiritual armor, and the only means through which you can stand against the wiles of the devil (Ephesians 6:10-17). How important it is for you to carefully and accurately exegete Scripture, put in practice all it says with holy fear and trembling, and walk humbly with your God, trusting in Jesus only!
Consider how essential it is for you to be a functioning member of a strong, separated, independent Baptist church. Only in the Lord’s church is His special presence manifested, and the special protection Christ gives to His holy temple and beloved bride is lost to those who are not members of Biblical Baptist churches. Mrs. Smith, being without the protection afforded by a true church, and without a true pastor for spiritual protection (Hebrews 13:7, 17), was influenced by hordes of false teachers and fanatics in her spiritual journey on the broad road to destruction. Spiritual guides may be very popular in the eyes of the broad and undiscerning world of Christiandom, and may possess a great appearance of piety, and yet be vipers and wolves—but Christ’s true congregations have the spiritual equipment to discern and reject such. Had Mrs. Smith been aware of and adopted the historic Baptist doctrine of Spirit baptism, she would never have believed in the filthy perversion that led to her husband’s public disgrace and contributed to his continuing adultery and the unhappiness of her marriage. Had she accepted the clear Biblical teachings of sola Scriptura and the cessation of the sign gifts, she would not have accepted the “miraculous” validation that led her into false teaching and led her sister Mary Thomas to an early grave through the false wonders of the Faith Cure. Had she rejected feminism for the loving and God-ordained patriarchy of family and church practiced in Biblical assemblies, she would have recognized that she could, as a lady, be more easily deceived (1 Timothy 2:14), and that she needed godly, Bible-believing men at home and church to protect her from error. Had she treasured Baptist ministers who preached a pure gospel, instead of finding them repulsive because they would not allow her to feel happy in her delusion, so that she preferred as a consequence the company of heretics and fanatics, she could have been saved herself, and her family with her, from both the earthly vanity of their false religion and the inconceivably horrible eternal consequences of the unpropitiated wrath of God.
Learn from Mrs. Smith’s failures the necessity for a genuine vital piety, one which arises out of a true conversion and issues in a close walk with God. Mrs. Smith’s false piety did not convince her family—her husband and all her surviving children rejected Christianity. People read her books and looked up to her, but those who knew Mrs. Smith best rejected godliness for rebellion against Jehovah, and received eternal retribution for their sins. Have you been led by Mrs. Smith’s confusing views of faith, conversion, and salvation to settle for anything less than the supernatural new birth without which no one will enter the kingdom of God? Do you only have assurance of salvation if you compare yourself to the standard set by Hannah W. Smith, but not if you compare yourself to the standard set forth by the Apostle John in his first inspired epistle? Do not follow into hell the demons who misled Hannah W. Smith. Be satisfied with nothing less than the Biblical gospel and true conversion.
Do you want a godly seed—do you want your family, for whatever generations may be left until the return of Christ, to know and serve your Redeemer in spirit and in truth? The sham spirituality of Hannah W. Smith will never suffice. But if you reject such pseudo-Christianity and sincerely and uprightly walk with God your Father, through Christ your Redeemer, as empowered by the Holy Spirit, you can claim the promise of Proverbs 22:6: “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”
Do not turn aside to the idol of Hannah W. Smith’s “bare God.” An unconverted person who does so will be eternally damned, and to whatever extent a regenerate person turns from the God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to Mrs. Smith’s deity he will find his spiritual life much darkened and his holy Father much displeased. Genuine Christian spirituality arises out of the love of the Father, the purchase of the Son, and the applicatory work of the Holy Spirit. How sweet and precious to the saint is his dear adopted Father! How glorious is the redemptive work of Christ! How heart-melting it is to behold Him in the glory of His essential Deity, to marvel at the preciousness of His sinless humanity, and to be moved by the infinite condescension and love shown in the cross! How ineffably wonderful it is to know experientially the communion of the Holy Ghost! Do not, oh saint of God, turn aside from your own Redeemer, your own personal God who has come to you in Jesus Christ, who has supernaturally revealed Himself to you through His Word by His Spirit. What are the dregs of Mrs. Smith’s idolatry to the overflowing cup of infinite blessing found in Jehovah, the living God?
Furthermore, you should examine yourself to see if you find Mrs. Smith’s errors unbearable, horrible, and exceedingly grievous, or if you find her abominations titillating and exciting, as many ungodly people find gossip. Is it necessary to expose Hannah W. Smith’s lies and unmask her pernicious character? Yes—certainly. Should such an expose be examined as a mere intellectual exercise, a curiosity comparable to some strange gene-spliced monster that might be on display at a circus or a fair for people to gawk at? By no means.
Indeed, how sweet—how precious, glorious, and soul-refreshing it is to turn with disgust from Hannah W. Smith to behold the Lord Jesus! Here is One who is spotless in purity. Here is one who mixes, not secret corruptions with false teachings, but perfect holiness with infallibly sure guidance. Here is a perfect Prophet, a spotless Priest, a matchless King, an all-sufficient Redeemer, one who is fairer than the children of men, whose lips are full of grace. How blessed it is to see Him in His holy Word, and find in Him a true Shepherd who properly and perfectly cares for, protects, and gives His life for His beloved sheep. Let the works of Hannah W. Smith, and all her fellow false-shepherds, be put in the trash where they belong, and listen instead to the voice of this true and unerring Pastor. Hearken to His voice as you read every line of His Word in your personal Bible study—hearken to His voice as He is preached by a true man of God in the church of the living God—meditate upon His law day and night. So shall you have a truly blessed life during your earthly pilgrimage, and a rich reward in the coming life of sight for all eternity.
 Pg. 61, Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. Vinson Synan. Cf. pg. 66. The National Association was a prominent perfectionist and second-blessing advocacy organization.
 Pg. 23, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
 Pg. 23, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall; cf. pg. 179, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874. Other predecessor Higher Life and perfectionist meetings are listed on pg. 328, ibid.
 Pgs. 60-65, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith; cf. “Die Heiligungsbewegung,” Chapter 6 of Perfectionism, vol. 2, Warfield; pg. 28, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall; pgs. 271, 358, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875; pg. 225, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
 At Oxford Mrs. Smith’s Bible readings were technically for ladies, but “Gentlemen who chose to attend were not excluded, and many were present at this and the [other] hours devoted to her Scripture lessons” (pg. 65, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874).
 Pg. 149, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall.
 E. g., pg. 175, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
 Journal, May 6, 1875, reproduced in the entry for July 22 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Letter to a Friend, August 17, 1879, reproduced in the entry for September 21 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter. In her autobiography, The Unselfishness of God, Hannah Smith devotes an entire chapter to proving that the Higher Life theology was Quakerism (pgs. 275-282, “The Life of Faith Quaker Doctrine.”)
 Journal, May 6, 1875, reproduced in the entry for July 23 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter. Even after her husband’s downfall, she continued preaching widely; for example, she records that she held “some meetings in a Presbyterian Church . . . the Presbyterian synod object[s] so to women, but the minister says he will ‘whistle’ at the synod if only he can get me!” (Letter to Daughter Mary, January 8, 1878, reproduced in the entry for August 15 of ibid). On another occasion she preached at a Methodist Holiness Camp Meeting in Ocean Grove, New Jersey, where the Methodists “endorsed this meeting fully” and “called it a ‘Methodist class meeting led by a Quaker’” (Letter to Robert, August 9, 1879, reproduced in the entry for September 18 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter).
In light of Mrs. Smith’s strong advocacy of women preachers, rejection of complementarian gender roles in the family, and deep-seated feminism in general, it is not surprising that in the Conference’s early years the majority of Keswick missionaries were single women (pg. 114, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall).
 December 26-27, The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Pg. 249, “B. B. Warfield and Lewis S. Chafer on Sanctification,” Randall Gleason. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:2 (June 1997) 241-256. “Hannah Whitall Smith’s The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life is characterized as ‘one of the most remarkable settings forth of the victorious life you can find anywhere.’” “Victory in Christ,” p. 94, Trumbull, cited in “The Victorious Life,” Chapter 5 of Perfectionism, vol. 2, Warfield.
 Pg. 224, The Keswick Convention: Its Message, its Method, and its Men, ed. Harford.
 Letter to Anna, November 5, 1882, reproduced in the entry for November 28 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter. One Woman’s Christian Temperance Union leader even wished for Hannah to lead a “W. C. T. U. School of the Prophetesses” (Letter to Pricilla, October 1884, reproduced in the entry for December 24 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter).
 Hannah testified thus while writing from the Christian Temperance Union (CTU) meeting on October 25, 1882. She explained:
Every day, from eleven to twelve, right in the midst of our business meeting we have an hour for a devotional meeting when we tell the story of the life of faith to the crowds who have come in to witness our proceedings. I spoke to them yesterday on “Knowing God” for ourselves and then showing Him to others. And I was followed by a great many short words of testimony as to the blessedness of it, ever so many of them saying that they had learned the secret from my book “The Christian’s Secret.”
It is perfectly wonderful how that book has gone over this whole country. Wherever I go I am met with stories of its value and blessing. So many people even here have told me that it is “next to their Bibles.” . . . The faces are shining with peace and they tell me that it has all come through that book.
Hannah further described that CTU setting in which her book molded the spirituality and had been so very influential:
Our platform is as broad as humanity; we take in everybody, no matter what their ‘views,’ or church relationships. . . . It is such a testimony to the reality of the religion which embraces all humanity. (Letter to Mary, October 25, 1882, reproduced in the entry for November 25 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter)
A universalist, non-doctrinal religion that embraces all people, regenerate and unregenerate, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, and Hindu, despite the “C” of the CTU, in a simple desire to be happy, fit Hannah W. Smith and her Keswick classic very well.
 “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”
 December 31, The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Pg. 13, Religious Fanaticism: Extracts from the Papers of Hannah Whitall Smith, ed. Ray Strachey. New York, NY: AMS Press, 1976, repr. of 1928 London ed.
 “The ‘Higher Life’ Movement,” Chapter 4 in Perfectionism, vol. 2, B. B. Warfield.
 See January 19-20, The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Cf. the article “Justification and Sanctification” in the Orthodox Quaker Declaration of Faith Issued by the Richmond Conference in 1887 (Elec. acc. http://www.quakerinfo.com/rdf.shtml), where both a Higher Life theology is affirmed and the Quaker heresy that justification is by the impartation of righteousness rather than imputed righteousness is confessed.
 Pgs. 251-253, Religious Fanaticism: Extracts from the Papers of Hannah Whitall Smith, ed. & intr. Ray Strachey.
 Pgs. 172-174, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith. Letters to her daughter, Mary Berenson, January 1, 1905 & February 25, 1905. Italics retained from the original.
 Pg. 23, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith, reproducing a Letter to her Husband, Robert Pearsall Smith, April 27, 1875. Italics in original.
 The erotic Spirit baptism doctrine promulgated by the Pearsall Smiths will be explicated in further detail below.
 Pg. 32, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith, reproducing Letter to Mrs. Anna Shipley, August 8, 1876.
 Pg. 32, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith, reproducing Letter to Mrs. Anna Shipley, August 8, 1876.
 The use of the archaic English pronoun in this fashion was typical among the Quakers of Hannah Smith’s day.
 That is, without the Divine Seed of Quakerism.
 That is, Jesus Christ was not necessary, Mrs. Smith thought. Note that this satisfaction with a bare creative deity, a satisfication with a god other and less than the Triune Jehovah who has brought redemption through His incarnate Son, was Hannah W. Smith’s expressed doctrine immediately after the 1874-5 Broadlands, Oxford, and Brighton Conventions. One cannot maintain that she was solidly orthodox at the time she founded the Keswick theology and merely became a heretic, say, some decades later.
 That is, the adoption of the Higher Life leads to the disowning of Christian orthodoxy.
 Pgs. 32-36, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to Mrs. Anna Shipley, August 8, 1876. Italics and capitalization in original. See also Letter to a Friend, August 8, 1876, reproduced in the entries for August 2-4 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter. A portion of the letter not reproduced by Logan is found in Dieter. Hannah elsewhere wrote: “The truth is my ‘broadness’ embraces every soul that is reaching out after God and every instrumentality that helps any to find Him, no matter how different it may be from my own views and ways”—that is, as long as one is “reaching after God,” Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, animism, or any other system of belief was acceptable (Letter to a Friend, May 24, 1880, reproduced in the entry for October 10 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter).
 Logan Pearsall Smith described the natural powers of salesmanship possessed by his father Robert P. Smith as follows:
My father was a man of fine presence, and of a sanguine, enthusiastic temperament[.] . . . He was, above all, a magnificent salesman; and traveling all over the United States, and offering the firm’s wares [the glass manufacturing firm Robert worked with before he became a Higher Life preacher] to the chemists of the rapidly expanding Republic, he exercised upon those apothecaries the gifts of persuasion and blandishment, almost of hypnotization, which were destined later, in European and more exalted spheres, to produce some startling results [in his Higher Life work]. . . . My father . . . possessed the hypnotic power of swaying great audiences[.] (pgs. 32, 72 Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith)
 The sphinxlike indifference of Hannah W. Smith was radically different from the attitude of the Lord Jesus Christ. Mrs. Smith declared: “I utterly refuse to let myself indulge in grief for my children who have left me [in death.] . . . It is really disobedience . . . to indulge in grief” (Letter to Priscilla, January 28, 1882, reproduced in the entry for November 11 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter). “She had lost her elder son . . . her heart was untroubled” (pg. 49, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910). Contrast Mrs. Smith’s attitude with that of the Lord Jesus Christ: “When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled[.] . . . Jesus wept. Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!” (John 11:33-36).
 Pg. 133, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith. Letter to her Daughter, Mary Costelloe, October 29, 1896.
 Logan Pearsall Smith wrote: “After this ‘scamp meeting’ . . . as Dr. Cullis wittily called it . . . and the disillusion it brought, in spite of its success, my father became more sympathetic to my grandfather’s want of faith; and this feeling was much increased [as time continued to pass]” (pgs. 66-69, Unforgotten Years).
 One is not surprised that Hannah was also sympathetic to and ready to reject the orthodox doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon on the Person of Christ and His two natures for the heretical and idolatrous kenotic theory as expressed by Godet, that “the Church doctrine of the two natures does not perfectly set forth the sense of the Scriptures . . . the Scriptures do not teach the presence of the divine nature with its divine attributes in Jesus on earth. The expression in John 1:14 conveys the idea of a divine subject reduced to a human state, but not of two states, divine and human, co-existing” (pg. 399, The Humiliation of Christ in its Physical, Ethical, and Official Aspects, A. B. Bruce. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1900). Hannah Smith explained how the Higher Life led her against Biblical and Chalcedonian Christology:
I must read Godet . . . [for] his views of Christ . . . I am not at all shocked at what you tell me about them; and it would be just like our God to take our place really and actually, and share our lot even in its limitations. I think I would have done it if I were in His place. . . . Anna, when once the soul has begun to know God, old prejudices must go! And before the two grand facts of His justice and His love, all the old creeds and notions vanish like clouds before sunshine. . . . I cannot express how thankful I am for the relentless pressure my dear Methodist friends put me under years ago on this matter of consecration. (Letter to Mrs. Shipley, 1878, reproduced in the entry for September 8 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter).
Hannah was sympathetic to the kenotic theory, for, even if it was not taught in the Bible, she would have followed it if she were God. In any case, at least she had a Divine seed in her, as Quakerism taught.
 “Somehow my two summers out in the wilds of nature, with no meetings and no religious influences, only God and His works, have been more helpful in my interior life than any other thing I have ever known” (Letter to Anna, November 24, 1882, reproduced in the entry for November 29 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter). Contrast the attitude of King David towards the instituted worship of the Lord: “How amiable are thy tabernacles, O LORD of hosts! My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the LORD: my heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God. . . . For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand” (Psalm 84:1-2, 10).
 Her attitude toward a syncretistic blending of Hinduism and Christianity is evident in her view of Chunder Sen. “In 1857 the young Keshub Chunder Sen (1838–84) joined the society . . . Brahmo Samaj (Society of Brahma), which taught theism and rationality against the background of Indian mysticism[.] . . . Later he formed a new group, the Brahmo Samaj of India,” which combined Hindu mysticism with “social Christianity” and “adopted some Christian teachings” while remaining fundamentally Hindu (pg. 549, The Encyclopedia of Christianity, vol. 2, E. Fahlbusch & G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999-2003). Hannah Smith viewed this Hindu idolator and syncretist as a great spiritual teacher, and affirmed that, led by her Inner Light, she worshipped the same god, the god of mysticism, the god of this world (Ephesians 2:1-3), the god that spoke to the Quakers and gave them revelations that went beyond the Bible, as the Hindu mystic:
I have read Chunder Sen, and do feel just like sailing for India to see him. What a grand revelation that man has had! It stirred me to the very depths. Oh, beloved, how it shames us who have such a blaze of light all our lives long! Where did we take the fatal turning that has led us so far astray? . . . I thank God however that the light has come at last; and like Chunder Sen I say that the “residue of my independence has been swallowed up by the all-conquering all-absorbing grace of God, and I am sold forever!” How wonderful that word, “No independence” is! [That is, both Chunder Sen’s Hindu mysticism and Hannah Smith’s Higher Life mysticism practice Quietism.] It cuts down to the root of everything; and yet is so full of life, Divine life, that it seems to bring the soul out into the grandest place of liberty.
It seems just like one of God’s coincidences that I had been learning the very lessons in regard to this which Chunder Sen’s announces. I know the “I am” he knew [that is, the pagan Hindu “I am.”]. And God has said to me: “I am your church and doctrine; I am your creed and your immortality, your earth, your Heaven, your food, your raiment, your treasure here and in Heaven. Believe in Me.” To me it is a life, a free, independent, Divine life, back of all forms, an absolute, universal life, that can fit into any form, or can exist without form. [That is, any god, any worship, whether that of Jehovah or of the vilest idol, can fit into her mysticism.] It would be true then that circumcision availeth nothing, nor uncircumcision. That is, one might enter into the form or might remain without, just as led by the Spirit at the time. I cannot but think this is the deeper insight into the truth; and the more I look to the Lord about it, the clearer are my convictions. Well, I must follow the light, my light, that which is given to me, [that is, the Inner Light,] even though it separates me from all whom I love! And sometimes I think it may. . . . Am I to reckon on God and believe He has answered my prayer [for guidance apart from submission to sola Scriptura], or am I to think He has utterly disregarded it, and has left me a prey to delusions and errors? . . . [T]he Lord has had to put to death all my traditional views one after another . . . I am amazed sometimes to find out what a genuine “early Quaker” I am. (Letter to Anna, September 11, 1879, reproduced in the entries for September 22-24 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter)
Likewise, her spiritual “secret” was inquired about, she affirmed, by “Siddartha” (Letter to Anna, February 5, 1880, reproduced in the entry for October 2 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter), that is, “Siddartha Gautama” or Buddha, founder of Buddhism, which “teaches that enlightenment may be reached by elimination of earthly desires and of the idea of the self” (Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th ed., C. Soanes & A. Stevenson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). Buddha also taught the sort of Quietism affirmed by Mrs. Smith.
 The affirmation “God is love” in 1 John 4:8 is not an affirmation about an empty attribute of the generic deity with which Mrs. Smith could be satisfied. The verse speaks about the loving nature of the Father of Jesus Christ. God the Father is love, and He concretely demonstrated His character as love by giving His Son as a substitute for sinners on the cross, graciously applying the salvation purchased there to His people by the Holy Spirit (1 John 4:9-14; cf. 5:7). 1 John 4:8 is about the concretely manifested love of this particular God, the only true God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
 “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” (2 Corinthians 13:5; cf. Psalm 26:2; 119:59; 139:23-24; Lamentations 3:40; Ezekiel 18:28; Haggai 1:5-7; Matthew 7:5; 1 Corinthians 11:28-31; Galatians 6:4; Hebrews 12:15; 1 John 3:20-21).
 Letter to a Friend, 1863; April 10, 1878; Letter to Daughter Mary, May 12, 1878; Letter to Daughter, Atlantic City, May 25, 1878; reproduced in the entries for January 30, August 17, 24, 28, of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Pg. 65, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to Miss Priscilla Mounsey, January 22, 1882 & Letter To Priscilla, January 22, 1882, reproduced in the entry for November 9 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter. Hannah Smith often warned others, “Don’t indulge in self-reflective acts” (Letter to Mary Beck, May 14, 1874, Letter, 1866, reproduced in the entry for July 12 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter).
 Pg. 318, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875.
 Letter to a Friend, April 10, 1878, reproduced in the entry for August 17 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Letter to Miss Beck, December 5, 1878, reproduced in the entry for September 9 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Letter to Sisters, August 14, 1879, reproduced in the entry for September 19 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Pg. 11, Religious Fanaticism: Extracts from the Papers of Hannah Whitall Smith, ed. Ray Strachey. New York, NY: AMS Press, 1976, repr. of 1928 London ed; cf. also pg. 231 & Remarkable Relations, Barbara Strachey, pg. 19.
 See, e. g., Letter to Daughter Mary, January 1, 1882, reproduced in the entry for November 1 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter; pg. 79, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith, references Logan’s education in Quaker schools all the way through, and inclusive of, college.
 See pgs. 4-35, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith.
 Pg. 20, Remarkable Relations, Strachey.
 Pg. 36, The Secret Life of Hannah Whitall Smith, Henrie.
 Introduction, The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter; see also after January 7 for Robert P. Smith’s heritage among “prominent Philadelphia Quakers.”)
 Pg. 17, So Great Salvation, Barabas.
 Pg. 45, Remarkable Relations, Barbara Strachey.
 Pgs. 25-26, Remarkable Relations, Strachey. A German Reformed minister did, however, administer infant baptism to Mrs. Smith (pg. 35, The Secret Life of Hannah W. Smith, Marie Henry). Such an event by no means changes the plain historical fact that she was firmly entrenched in Quakerism for the entirety of her time as a public speaker, teacher of men, Higher Life crusader, and formative writer in the Keswick movement, although she was not always specifically a member of a Quaker assembly.
 Pg. 30, Remarkable Relations, Barbara Strachey; cf. pg. 55 for Hannah’s continued public speaking.
 Pg. 68, The Secret Life of Hannah Whitall Smith, Marie Henry.
 Pg. 55, Remarkable Relations, Strachey.
 Pg. 29, Remarkable Relations, Strachey; Italics in original. Compare 1 John 3:14.
 Cf. Letter to Sarah, Marcy 12, 1885, reproduced in the entry for December 25 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Letter to a Friend, August 22, 1880, reproduced in the entries for October 14-15 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Thus, for example, a few days before the Brighton Convention, Robert having just concluded his continental preaching tour in 1875, when “it seem[ed] as if the whole German and Swiss Churches were moved to their very center by his message” of the Higher Life, Mr. and Mrs. Smith would still attend the Friends Meeting with Mr. Cowper-Temple, where Hannah would preach to people who had come to town to attend the Brighton Convention (pg. 26, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to her parents, John and Mary Whitall, May 26, 1875; cf. also pg. 29). The idea that one would need to separate from and reject Quakerism as heresy to be part of the Higher Life or Keswick Conventions was absolutely unthinkable.
 Pgs. 494-497, “The ‘Higher Life’ Movement,” Chapter 4 in Perfectionism, vol. 2, Benjamin B. Warfield. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003 (reprint of 1932 Oxford ed.). Warfield downplays Robert P. Smith’s Quaker background, but it is unreasonable to do so when, for instance, Mr. Smith did not renounce the Quakerism into which he was born as a false religion and he had his “steadily more and more Quaker” wife write Higher Life articles for him, such as those which became Mrs. Smith’s bestselling Secret of a Happy Life.
 Letter to Anna, August 4, 1882, reproduced in the entry for November 18 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter. Since any deity was acceptable to Mrs. Smith, it is not surprising that the pioneering psychologist, pragmatist, and finite god proponent William James was friends with the Pearsall Smiths, nor that, in the words of Logan Smith, James “was an admirer of my mother’s religious writings” (pg. 114, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith; Logan notes that James also “enlisted my father’s assistance in the formation of an American Society for Psychical Research.”).
 “It is to be hoped I give . . . sound teaching! [For she did not know if she did or not.] At any rate it is comfortable teaching” (pg. 183, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to her daughter, Mary Berenson, February 22, 1906. Italics in original.). Compare Jeremiah 6:14; 8:11.
 Pg. 204, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith, reproducing Letter to her Daughter, Mary Berenson, November 26, 1908. Italics in original.
 pg. 376, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875. Contrast Zechariah 12:10-14; Matthew 5:4; 1 Corinthians 5:2; James 4:9-10.
 Pgs. 155-156, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith. Mrs. Smith justified this utterly unbiblical advice by a wretched abuse of Philippians 2:13, which was said to prove that God leads people to do whatever they want.
 Logan recounts the situation in which this advice was given:
I remember once when [Hannah Smith] was full of years, and famous for her religious teachings, that a party of schoolgirls from some pious school in Philadelphia visited Oxford, and the teacher who conducted the party wrote to my mother . . . to say that it would be a privilege for the little flock of maidens to have a sight of this venerable Quaker saint, and to hear from her lips a few pious words. The permission was granted; the schoolgirls assembled on the spacious lawn outside our house . . . [W]hen she opened her lips I was considerably surprised to her her say, “Girls, don’t be too unselfish.”
“Surely, Mother,” I remonstrated with her afterwards, “when those girls go home their pious relations will be dreadfully shocked by what thee said.”
“Yes,” she replied gayly, “yes, I dare say it will make them grind their teeth.” (pgs. 156-157, Unforgotten Years, Logan P. Smith)
 Pgs. 38-40, Unforgotten Years, Logan P. Smith.
 Letter to Priscilla, August 14, 1882, reproduced in the entry for August 12 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Mrs. Smith testified that she was the instrument of several healings, the character of which illustrate well many of the healings practiced in the Keswick and Pentecostal movements. Hannah recounts:
On one occasion I had a dear friend who was very nervous. She used to cry on the smallest provocation and about things which had no personal element in them, except that they upset her nerves. . . . She and I attended a little prayer meeting . . . she announced to us at the beginning of the meeting that we were to devote that meeting to her[.] . . . I confess that I had not much expectation that praying would do her any good, as I thought it was a physical condition which probably could never be alleviated. But when the time came we all knelt down to pray, and of course I knelt with them. I supposed that there would be fervent prayers offered for our friend by the others, and I did not really intend to pray myself at all, but to my astonishment the whole little company prayed all round in turns and never mentioned her case. It seemed to me that this was very impolite, and, in fact, unkind, when she had thrown herself so upon our sympathy, and so mainly, with the idea that she might not be disappointed, and simply out of an impulse of politeness and kindness, when the rest had finished I prayed for her; but, I confess, I had not the slightest idea that anything would come of it, except that her feelings would be smoothed by the recognition of her need. Imagine my astonishment when we rose from our knees and she turned to me and said, “Hannah, thy prayer is answered; I am cured.” And as a fact she was cured from that time.
Another case was once when I was attending a meeting. After I had spoken, a woman rose from the middle of the meeting and said, “If that lady who has just spoken will come and lay hands on me and pray for my recovery I shall be healed of a throat trouble that has caused me great suffering for many years, and for which the doctors declare they can do nothing.” I thought to myself, “How little that woman knows how unbelieving I am with regard to faith healing. I am certain my prayers would do her no good.” And, in fact, I was rather amused at her ignorance, and had to cover my face to hide a smile. The meeting went on for a little longer, and by the time it closed I had entirely forgotten the incident, and began to talk to a friend beside me, when someone came hastily in and said, “Mrs. Smith, that woman is waiting for you to come and pray for her, and you must come at once, for she says her throat is very bad.” Out of kindness I went, but I said to the woman as I entered the room, “You have sent for me to pray for you, but I haven’t a particle of faith that it will do the least bit of good.” “Yes it will,” she replied; “it will cure me. Kneel right down here beside me, and lay your hand on my throat and ask God to heal me, and I know I shall be healed.” Out of kindness I did as she wished, although I confess it seemed to me something of a farce. However, when we rose from our knees, to my amazement her voice was changed, and she declared her throat was cured. I hear from her quite often afterwards, and the story was always the same, that the cure was complete.
As I bade the woman farewell, she said, “Now, Mrs. Smith, you have the gift of healing, and you ought to exercise it.” . . . Another instance . . . was in the case of a friend who had become . . . a victim of the opium habit. One day when we were talking together, she said, “I believe if you would pray for me, I could be cured of this habit.” I myself had no idea that it could be done, but, of course, when a person wanted me to pray for them [sic], I should not think of refusing, so I keeled down beside her wheel-chair and prayed, and the result in her case also was a complete cure. (pgs. 253-256, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey)
Many other instances of the Faith Cure were, without a doubt, as supernatural as those Mrs. Smith experienced, and as a result of the employment of similar means.
Notwithstanding working several Faith Cures herself, elements of skepticism were engendered in Hannah concerning the Faith Cure as she saw that the Cure failed to cure disease. For example, having heard of Dr. Charles Cullis, whom she called “a most delightful Christian doctor,” she assembled a few dozen sick people at her house so that he could come and heal them. He failed to heal anybody at all (pgs. 262-263, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey). The fact that the Faith Cure led to the death of her sister Mary Thomas must also have brought doubts into Hannah’s mind. Nevertheless, she never renounced or opposed the Faith or Mind Cure but continued to believe and preach that there was truth in the practice, and she continued to recommend the Cure to others.
 Pgs. xv-xvi, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith.
 Pg. 262, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey.
 Letter to Anna, May 15, 1878, reproduced in the entry for August 22 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Pg. 89, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith, reproducing Letter to her daughter, Mary Costelloe, September 2, 1886. Not surprisingly, the Mind Cure did not work, and Hannah W. Smith still suffered from a horrible sea-sickness.
 Hannah describes the views of Cullis, and his working of a Faith Cure, in connection with a positive confession of healing, on her nephew Tom Whitall, who had suffered from overwork. The Cure did not completely cure him, and it did not work at all at first. In any case, the partially cured “overwork” of the Faith Cure is hardly the reattached limbs or raising of the dead performed by Christ and His Apostles. Mrs. Smith wrote:
We really have been stirred up on this faith healing question lately. You may have heard me speak about Saidee’s brother Tom as having broken down from overwork several years ago. For four years now he has been doing every thing possible to recover his health, but all in vain. His last venture was a voyage to the Cape of Good Hope, but he came back worse than he went.
When Dr. Cullis was here a week or two ago, Tom felt drawn to try the faith cure, as every thing else had failed, and Dr. Cullis prayed with him twice and told him to say he was healed. He began to say it, and, poor fellow, he had a hard battle, for a whole week there was no sign of any improvement. His mother and I were immersed in the deepest sympathy with him, and we all had to fight for our faith together. . . After a week, however, Tom began to improve, and there has been a most wonderful change in him in every way, and he is full of praise to the Lord. It has, of course, made a great stir among all our circle here, for Tom was always a great favorite. He has gone on to Boston now to spend a little time with Dr. Cullis to have his faith strengthened, and perhaps to help the Dr. a little in his faith work.
If he really does get entirely well I believe I will have to give up and adopt Dr. Cullis’ view of the subject. He says Matt. 8:17 teaches clearly that Christ bore our sicknesses just as much as He bore our sins, and that we may be delivered from the one by faith precisely as we are delivered from the other! If this is true, it would revolutionize the church! I am not convinced yet that it is true, but I confess that passage looks wonderfully like it. I will mail thee some little books about it. Ask thy sister Charlotte and thy cousin Mary Agnes to compare Matt. 8:17 with James 5:14, 15 and see whether they get any light on the subject for themselves.
It would be glorious, would it not, if Christians universally could dispense with all human doctors and be cured by the Great Physician alone, and could show the world a continual miracle of healing? Dr. Cullis thinks all disease is from the devil, and is a direct attack from him upon God’s children, just like temptation to sin is, and must therefore be met in the same way. There is a good deal of Scripture that seems to support his view. (Letter to Priscilla, May 7, 1882, reproduced in the entry for August 12 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter)
Nonetheless, surely Tom’s Faith Cure, while nothing like Apostolic healing, was very grand—at least until some days later, when it became apparent that he was not cured at all, causing Hannah doubts:
I went up to that invalid friend’s who has been trusting for faith healing for so long. We had a little Bible class in her sick room. She does not seem any better. And yet she sticks to the testimony that she is healed, since that is what Dr. Cullis told her she must do. It does not seem right to me somehow.
The fact is this faith healing matter grows more and more perplexing all the time. You remembers [sic] that funny friend of mine Elisabeth Nicholson, who went with us to the prayer meeting about President Garfield? She is not particularly consecrated, except in quite an ordinary fashion; she does not believe in the “Higher Life” at all, and she is very much afraid of fanaticism. And yet the other day she wrote me as follows[:] “The 31st. of May, sitting waiting for the dinner bell to ring, I talked to the Lord like this, “Lord, you know the muscles of my back are weak, and cause me much pain. You know I have inherited this through two generations; that I have been very indifferent about healing, making it an excuse for not visiting or doing anything I did not want to. But now, if it will honor you and if it will give me more strength to work for you, Lord Jesus, then I ask thee to heal me instantaneously.” It was done! From that moment I have not had a pain; nor even the soreness which often made me shift my position. It no longer seems like me, but somebody else! I have done my hardest work since then without pain. [Note: At least this is the testimony of this lady, unexamined medically, from the standpoint of two weeks later—a time frame in which Tom Whitall also thought he was cured.]
Now what are we to think when such saints as some I know can’t get healed with all their praying and all their trusting? There is a secret somewhere that we have not fathomed yet, I am convinced. Meanwhile, I would advise every sick person to try this way of prayer and faith anyhow. It cannot hurt, and it may be a grand success. My nephew Tom Whitall is not well yet. He thought he was for a few days, and was very jubilant over it, but his trouble all came back, and he has been having a hard conflict. Now he has gone to a water cure to fight it out. My heart just aches for him. I wish I understood! (Letter to Priscilla, June 16, 1882, reproduced in the entry for November 14 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter)
Indeed, Mrs. Smith’s “invalid friend” was still not better many months later, despite “declaring . . . she was healed that day” so long ago, despite still “trusting for faith healing” many months later, despite having “Dr. Cullis pray for her,” and despite believing “teaching of all kinds on the subject of faith”—despite all this, her Faith Cure “fail[ed] . . . utterly” (Letter to Priscilla, August 14, 1882, reproduced in the entry for August 12 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter). However, despite its failures, and despite the lack of exegetical evidence for it, Hannah W. Smith was so far from being willing to denounce the Cure of Cullis as a delusion that she still concluded that she “would advise every sick person to try this way” of the Faith Cure anyway.
 See her Letter to Frank, May 16, 1871, reproduced in the entry for June 5 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 See, e. g., her narrative of her “Framingham, Massachusetts meeting sponsored by Dr. Charles Cullis,” or her description of her ministry with “Dr. Cullis at his conference” in 1879 and her commending the “little book issued by Dr. Cullis” there, in her Letter to a Friend of August 8, 1876 & Letter to a Friend, August 17, 1879, reproduced in the entries for August 2-3 & September 20 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Pg. 66, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith.
 Pg. 39, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith, reproducing Letter ot Mrs. Henry Ford Barclay, April 13, 1877.
 Pg. 131, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism, Dayton.
 Pg. 32, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith, reproducing Letter to Mrs. Anna Shipley, August 8, 1876.
 See Letter to Sarah, March 7, 1881 & Letter to Sister, July 28, 1881, reproduced in the entries for October 24 & 28 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Interestingly, Hannah noted: “I find that spiritualists have all the ‘baptisms’ and ‘leadings’ and ‘manifestations’ that [continuationist] Christians have, with precisely similar symptoms. The same ‘thrills,’ the same ‘waves’ or currents of life, the same spiritual uplifts, the same interior illuminations; they even see similar visions of Christ, and hear similar interior voices . . . taken in themselves, it is utterly impossible to distinguish between them” (Letter to Carrie, July 31, 1882, reproduced in the entry for November 17 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter).
 Letter to Carrie, July 31, 1882, reproduced in the entry for November 17 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Pg. 128, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith.
 Letter to Mary, November 1, 1882,reproduced in the entry for November 27 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Letter to Mary, November 1, 1882 & December 8, 1882, reproduced in the entries for November 27 & December 1-2 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Pg. 187, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith, reproducing Letter to her Daughter, Mary Berreneson, March 5, 1907. The date of the letter validates that Mrs. Smith continued to believe in the value of the Mind or Faith Cure for the course of her lifetime; her faith in the law of the Faith or Mind Cure was no passing fancy. Note also the connection between her affirmation of the Mind Cure and of the Word of Faith idea of positive and negative confession.
 Letter to Anna, July 1, 1885, reproduced in the entry for December 28 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter. Hannah made these remarks concerning her sister Mary Thomas, who trusted in the Mind and Faith Cure, but saw “the mind cure . . . fai[l] . . . [a]nd . . . the faith cure . . . fai[l]” (Letter to Sister, March 15, 1885, reproduced in the entry for December 28 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter), so that she died of a breast cancer that the medical science the gracious God has allowed men to discover could have cured.
 For example:
Christian Scientists and Faith Healers are closely affiliated. . . . [T]hey have a common foe—the scientist and the Christian; and a more or less common practice—reaching, in a somewhat similar way, about the same sort of results. . . . [T]he adherents of the two systems often meet together in conventions, and the laity are to some extent interchangeable. . . . The two systems . . . converge in practice. (pg. 249, “Christian Science and Faith Healing,” Clyde W. Votaw. New Englander and Yale Review. New Haven, CT: Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor, 1891. However, Votaw recognizes that there are ways in which the Christian Scientist and Faith Cure advocate “diverge” markedly in their “theory,” the manner in which they speak of their systems.)
 Letter to Anna, July 1, 1885, reproduced in the entry for December 28 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter. The “newer gospel” of the faith cure, Hannah’s letter affirms, teaches that “suffering and sorrow” are not part of God’s plan for the body, just as sorrow and suffering must be eliminated from the spiritual life for a perpetual state of happiness—the secret of a happy life. However, Hannah also notes that she entertains doubts about the validity of the Mind or Faith Cure, despite the fact that it is the necessary consequence of her Keswick or Higher Life theology of sanctification by faith alone, chiefly because the Faith Cure does not seem to work. It was not evident to her that her theology of sanctification by quietistic faith alone also was contrary to the truth of God.
 Letter to Mary, May 12, 1878, reproduced in the entry for August 24 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Mary Thomas’s action, a result of her confidence in the Faith Cure, was an instance of misplaced faith and of sinful disobedience to use proper means to preserve her life.
 Pgs. 97-98, Remarkable Relations, Barbara Strachey. Italics in original. Hannah likewise queried while her sister was still alive: “Why should you have all this to suffer when you already had so much? And why the mind cure has failed with you . . . why the faith cure has failed too? And why, if you are going to get well, you do not get well faster?” (Letter to Sister, March 15, 1885, reproduced in the entry for December 26 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter).
 Letter to Priscilla, August 14, 1882, reproduced in the entry for November 19 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter. While she publicly preached the Faith Cure at the camp meeting, in her private letter to Priscilla she voiced reservations that she did not make public:
I could not bear to upset their faith by telling them of the practical difficulties I see in the subject[.] . . . But I can tell you my heart ached to hear some poor invalids there declare they were healed, when it was perfectly plain to everyone else that they were not. I do not know what will be the outcome of all this agitation on the subject of faith healing. In all parts of the church it is being made prominent, and enough wonderful results follow it to excite a continually increasing interest. And yet there are far more failures than successes, and I dread the reaction. For these failures are nearly always with the most devout Christians, and it is an awful strain on their faith.
She noted later: “It’s no wonder that doctors are provoked at the way Christians ignore the very first laws of health, and because of it bring such misery and make so much trouble for others” (Letter to Priscilla, 1883, reproduced in the entry for December 16 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter).
 Pg. 68, Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. Vinson Synan.
 Pgs. 260-261, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey. Hannah recounts:
[I]n one case it went so far that two apparently sensible people allowed their young daughter of thirteen years to go out to China . . . as a missionary, she not knowing a word of Chinese, but being led to speak gibberish in this way, and they all believed that when she got there the Chinese would understand. What really happened when she did get there, however, I have never heard, but I presume she had to come home again. (pgs. 260-261, ibid).
By the time Mrs. Smith composed those papers published posthumously by Ray Strachey, having increased in her skepticism with age, Mrs. Smith thought tongues were a “fanaticism.”
 Journal, October 29, 1866, reproduced in the entry for February 11, The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 As Hannah preached at the Broadlands Conferences: “God wishes us [Christians] to have the Holy Spirit . . . [W]hy do we not? We do not accept [Him].” The Conferences taught: “The permanence of the presence of the Holy Spirit is a surer sign of a high degree of spiritual life than any other. . . . Let us pray for the Spirit of God Himself to come to us . . . [t]he highest life[,] [to be] one with God” (pgs. 190-195, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. Italics in original.). While the permanent presence of the Holy Spirit is the sign of spiritual life, a life possessed by all believers (cf. Romans 8:9), for Mrs. Smith and the Broadlands Conferences such a permanent presence is emphatically restricted to those in the Higher Life alone.
 Forsyth, The Principle of Authority, p. 181. See also p. 183.
 Barclay, Apologia. Note Barclay’s universalism.
 Pgs. 237-239, The Holy Spirit of God, Griffith-Thomas. Note the universal Quaker equation of obligation to God and ability to obey.
 Pg. 46, Trinitarian Spirituality, Brian Kay.
 Pg. 431, “Friends, Society of,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Elwell.
 Pg. 48, Trinitarian Spirituality, Brian Kay, quoting Ted Goertzel of Rutgers University.
 It is consequently not surprising that at the Broadlands Conference Christ crucified, or the economic redemptive-historical redemption and revelation of the ontological Trinity, or justification by the shed blood of Christ, or other truly evangelical themes were not the “great topics round which our thoughts centered”—the “great topics” were ones that had nothing to do specifically with the Lord Jesus Christ and His redeeming work (pg. 122, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910).
 Indeed, Quakerism has never been strongly trinitarian. Already in the sixteenth century, John Owen wrote:
God hath revealed or manifested himself as three in one, and, therefore, as such is to be worshipped and glorified by us; — that is, as three distinct persons, subsisting in the same infinitely holy, one, undivided essence. . . . I fear that the failing of some men’s profession begins with their relinquishment of this foundation. It is now evident unto all that here hath been the fatal miscarriage of those poor deluded souls amongst us whom they call Quakers; and it is altogether in vain to deal with them about other particulars, whilst they are carried away with infidelity from this foundation. Convince any of them of the doctrine of the Trinity, and all the rest of their imaginations vanish into smoke. (A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit, John Owen, I:3)
William Penn (1644-1718), the Quaker founder of Pennsylvania and co-laborer of George Fox, blasphemed the Triune God and sought to bring others to adopt anti-trinitarian idolatry:
Before I shall conclude this head, it is requisite that I should inform thee, reader, concerning the origin of the Trinitarian doctrine: Thou mayest assure thyself, it is not from the Scriptures nor reason, since so expressly repugnant: although all broachers of their own inventions strongly endeavor to reconcile them with that holy record. Know then, my friend, it was born above three hundred years after the ancient Gospel was declared; it was conceived in ignorance, brought forth and maintained by cruelty. (pg. vi, A History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church, Hugh H. Stannus. London: Christian Life Publishing, 1882.)
Even for that minority of Quakerism that did not boldly adopt anti-Trinitarian heresy, the Triune character of the true God had very little influence on Quaker piety or devotion, for practical error on the Trinity was tied to the practices associated with of the Inner Light:
The Quaker doctrine of the inner light was a misunderstanding of both the person and the work of the Holy Spirit. The constant emphasis on the Spirit within-the-soul was a subtle form of an exaltation of the Spirit by the Spirit, especially since the Spirit rarely was understood by Quakers to point the believer back to the objective work of Christ’s sacrifice. For [orthodox Christianity, by way of contrast,] the Spirit was instead to glorify the Son, as per the words of John 16:14: “[The Spirit] shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine and shall show it to you.” The message of the Quakers was thus an inversion of the order of the divine dispensations, for the Spirit’s mission is to make the Son glorious, honourable, and of high esteem in the hearts of the believers and to shed abroad the love of God in our hearts. The Spirit’s mission is therefore parallel to the Son’s being sent by the Father to suffer at Jerusalem . . . for us and to bring glory to the Father who sent him. At its heart, the failure of Quaker worship was that it got the Trinity’s work of redemption wrong. . . . [T]o the extent that . . . William Penn can be credited with articulating Quakerism’s theological foundations, one would conclude that early on the movement had become decidely anti-trinitarian. John Punshon’s history of the Quakers admits as much, saying that the movement never formally adopted the doctrine of the Trinity, but instead, the functioning theology proper is closer to pantheism [pgs. 158-167, Portrait in Grey: A Short History of the Quakers, John Punshon. London: Quaker Home Service, 1984]. . . . A nebulous doctrine of God leads naturally to a nebulous, unstructured form of worship. . . . Quakerism . . . tended to describe the spiritual life as if the Trinity did not exist or matter. . . . [Neither] an orthodox theology of God [nor] . . . the role of the Son as a historical mediator . . . filtered down into actual spiritual practice. The [Quaker] emphasis on the “Spirit of Christ” seems to therefore have no connection to the Jesus who lived in Palestine, and the “inner light” does not particularly illuminate the saving purposes of either Father or Son. . . . Quakerism, therefore, prayed, or listened [to the Inner Light], in a way that would be largely unaffected if the Trinity were proved untrue. (pgs. 46-50, Trinitarian Spirituality, Brian Kay. Quotation marks of sources cited by Kay have been removed.)
In contrast, for a born-again believer such as John Owen, the Trinity was at the heart of Christian piety, so that his devotional books and devotional “whole . . . discourse[s] doth presuppose and lean upon . . . the doctrine of the Trinity . . . [as their] foundation” (A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit, John Owen, I:3). It is not surprising, then, that in contrast to orthodox Christianity, the piety of Hannah Whitall Smith, as a good Quaker, would be largely unaffected were the Trinity false, while the Triune God in Christ is at the heart of the piety of Christian orthodoxy. For a John Owen, Hannah W. Smith’s “bare God” would never do in resisting temptation—only the God and Father of Jesus Christ, who displayed His love through the cross, would suffice for a holy life:
[K]eep the heart full of a sense of the love of God in Christ. This is the greatest preservative against the power of temptation in the world. . . . “The love of Christ constraineth us,” saith the apostle, “to live to him,” 2 Corinthians 5:14; and so, consequently, to withstand temptation. A man may, nay, he ought to lay in provisions of the law also—fear of death . . . [and] punishment, with the terror of the Lord in them. But these are far more easily conquered than the other; nay, they will never stand alone against a vigorous assault. They are conquered in convinced persons every day; hearts stored with them will struggle for a while, but quickly give over. But store the heart with a sense of the love of God in Christ, and his love in the shedding of it; get a relish of the privileges we have thereby,—our adoption, justification, acceptation with God; fill the heart with thoughts of the beauty of his death;—and thou wilt, in an ordinary course of walking with God, have great peace and security as to the disturbance of temptations. When men can live and plod on in their profession, and not be able to say when they had any living sense of the love of God or of the privileges which we have in the blood of Christ, I know not what they can have to keep them from falling into snares. (Chapter 7, Of Temptation, Owen)
 Pg. 170, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to her Daughter, Mary Berenson, November 10, 1904).
 As documented below, the Quaker rejection of sola Scriptura, by dominating the Higher Life theology through Quakers like Hannah W. Smith, Robert P. Smith, Robert Wilson, and Jessie Penn-Lewis, contributed to the continuationist or anti-cessationist trajectory of Keswick and wider Higher Life theology into Pentecostalism and the Word of Faith movements.
 Letter to Anna, May 15, 1878, reproduced in the entry for August 23 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Letter to Anna, September 27, 1879, reproduced in the entry for September 25 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter. At the time of her letter, her love for allegorical and “spiritual” meanings of the Bible and disregard of the literal meaning of the text led her to “not want to read anything but the Gospels.”
 Pg. 122, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890. Italics in the original.
 Pg. 69, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith. Journal Letter to her Friends, August 8, 1883. Italics in original. Smyth made the Bible an authority subordinate to the “Christian consciousness” and made evolution his framework for interpreting Christian faith. (See pg. 233, The Encyclopedia of Christianity, vol. 2, Fahlbusch & Bromiley & “Review of The Christian Life: A Handbook of Christian Ethics, by Joseph Stump,” in Reviews by Cornelius Van Til, C. Van Til & E. H. Sigward. Labels Army Company: New York, NY 1997. Elec. ed. in The Works of Cornelius Van Til, Logos Bible Software.).
 Letter to Family and Friends, July 4, 1885, reproduced in the entry for December 29 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter. Of course, Farrar approved of both the Higher and the Lower criticism.
 Cf. Letter to Mary, September 4, 1882, reproduced in the entry for November 24 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 E. g., 1 John 3:2; Psalm 17:15; Hebrews 9:28; 2 Corinthians 5:6-8; Revelation 22:20.
 Letter to Anna, July 8, 1879, reproduced in the entry for September 16 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter. Concerning a dispensational approach to the second coming, she wrote in the same letter:
The Second Coming . . . all seems very spectacular and after the flesh to me. And it does not tend to spirituality say what they may. What with their seven judgments, and their two resurrections, and their rebuilding of Babylon, and their two Witnesses, and their time and times and half a time, there is such a complicated arrangement of affairs altogether, that one’s best comprehension can hardly unravel it. And since Christ has come to me in my heart I cannot care so much for His outward coming.
If this outward Coming were to usher in at once a reign of peace and joy I would long for it unspeakably; but according to the students it is to introduce first seven years of unparalleled tribulation and anguish, and I cannot long for that. Still He knows, and I shall be content; only somehow, I have the feeling that I will ask to be allowed to stay down on the earth during this tribulation to help the poor souls bear it. How can we enjoy ourselves up “in the air” when we know that our going has taken away the last restraint upon wickedness, and that we have left the poor world to an unbridled carnival of sin?
Thus, the literal interpretation of Biblical propehecy was “fleshly” to Mrs. Smith, as it did not lend itself to her sort of “spirituality,” and she hoped that she could miss the Rapture, as she did not, in any case, care so much for Christ’s return since she could experience the Higher Life now.
 Pgs. 21, 24, So Great Salvation, Barabas.
 See January 29-30, The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Letter to a Friend, May 18, 1879, reproduced in the entry for September 13 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Pgs. 146-147, Life and Labours of the Rev. W. E. Boardman, Mrs. Boardman.
 Pg. 120, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875.
 Pgs. 375-376, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875. Mrs. Smith continued: “Don’t ask the Lord and then try to find out by your own reasoning.” In line with Quaker doctrine, she taught that impressions and strong feelings were to supercede the reasoning faculty of the mind in determining the will of God.
 Pg. 249, “Christian Science and Faith Healing,” Clyde W. Votaw. New Englander and Yale Review. New Haven, CT: Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor, 1891. 18:3:249-258. Votaw gives the 95% figure for 1891 and dates the origin of the Mind Cure to Mary Baker Eddy and the year 1866.
 E. g., pg. 371, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875.
 Pgs. 43-44, Remarkable Relations, Barbara Strachey.
 Pg. 44, Remarkable Relations, Strachey.
 Pgs. 41-42, Remarkable Relations, Strachey.
 Pg. xv, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith. For example, in a letter she wrote: “Sixty pulpits were filled by our women on Sunday, and I preached 3 times. Lady Henry’s sermon was a great success. The crowds were something fearful” (pgs. 118-119, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith. Letter to her friends, November 10, 1891). Both before the fall of Robert and afterwards, she “often preached” (pgs. xvii, ibid). It was not unusual in those days for Quaker preachers to hold revival meetings, and Hannah and Robert Pearsall Smith were hardly the only Quakers to do so (cf. pg. 69, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith. Journal Letter to her friends, August 8, 1883).
 Letter to Mary, January 29, 1882, reproduced in the entry for November 10 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Letter to Frank Costelloe, 1883, reproduced in the entries for December 17-18 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Indeed, “for some years . . . [Robert] Pearsall and Mrs. Smith had no words—no relations—with each other,” and had at least seventeen years of unhappy married life, according to their son Logan (pg. 73, Remarkable Relations, Barbara Strachey). Mrs. Smith had such an antipathy towards husbands, and negative feelings about men in general, concommitants to her ardent feminism, that she wrote: “It is hard for me to believe that any husband and wife are really happy together” (pg. 218, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith. Letter to her daugher, Mary Berenson, September 28, 1910).
 Notwithstanding their truly unregenerate state, Robert P. Smith publicly proclaimed that all his children were saved (pg. 212, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875; cf. Hannah’s teaching on pg. 373). His doctrine that “consecration and conversion [are] two separate acts,” so that he had “never known one instance in which they were not distinct” (pg. 256, ibid) was almost surely a contributing factor in his children—and he himself—never truly coming to that surrender to Christ as Lord without which salvation is impossible (Mark 8:34-36). Countless multitudes who have adopted his doctrine have also been eternally damned, and misleading their children into false professions, have brought them to hell also.
 Pgs. 35, 125-128, 275, 294, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith.
 Subsequent to Robert P. Smith’s “spiritual apostasy and eventual agnosticism, after his fall from grace in England . . . the children . . . follow[ed] the same loss of faith. . . . Mary finally deserted her first husband and her two children to live in Italy with Bernard Berenson . . . Hannah had to rear the young children, Ray and Karin. Alys became the first wife of Bertrand Russell and was soon swept into his agnosticism” (December 31, The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter).
 Pg. 116, Remarkable Relations, Barbara Strachey.
 August 3-4, The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter. Note that the idea that life, not doctrine, is the true test of Christianity is itself a doctrine.
 Pg. 57, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith. Letter to Sarah Nicholson, August 13, 1881.
 Pg. 142-144, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith. Letter to her friends, August 26, 1899
 “[M]y servants . . . I simply hate them, and if it would not inconvenience me too much, I would turn them out at once!” (pg. 220, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith. Letter to her daughter, Mary Berenson, December 5, 1910. Italics in original).
 Pg. 181, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith. Letter to her daughter, Mary Berenson, February 15, 1906. See also pg. 182.
 Pg. 198, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith. Letter to her daughter, Mary Berenson, February 14, 1908. The curse word is spelled out in Mrs. Smith’s letter—the omitted letter was supplied instead here, instead of the “m,” to avoid the use of the curse word in this book.
Note also that Mrs. Smith was perfectly willing to misrepresent or conveniently omit facts in documents concerning her and her life if such misrepresentation would place her in a better light. This willingness should be kept in mind as one evaluates her writings, where her minimalization of her role in accepting and propogating the erotic Spirit baptism heresy is of dubious historicity.
 E. g., pgs. 155-156 of A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith, record her letter to her daughter Alys Russell of January 24, 1903.
 E. g., pg. 128 of A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith.
 It is noteworthy that the universalism of Mrs. Smith’s day was very open to the Higher Life and to continuationism; for example, the holiness preacher Mrs. Mary B. Woordworth-Etter, who became a leading Pentecostal after the events at Azuza Street, preached in Universalist churches, claimed she had the gift of healing, and claimed that the gift of tongues was evident in her meetings (pgs. 34-35, 249, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson). A substantial portion of Pentecostalism, at least in part through Keswick influence under the flagship Keswick universalist Hannah W. Smith, adopted universalism. The doctrine was validated to them by supernatural revelations, just as Hannah Smith had her universalism validated by extra-Biblical revelation (cf. pg. 159, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson). Rejection of the Biblical doctrine of an eternal hell also goes through Keswick men such as George Grubb to Pentecostal founder Charles Parham, whos annihilationism also spread to many others in the Pentecostal movement.
 Pgs. 196-228, The Unselfishness of God, Hannah W. Smith. Hannah’s description of her adoption of universalism is quoted extensively below.
 pgs. 160-161, Every-Day Religion.
 Pg. 181, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pg. 159, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey.
 Pgs. 82-83, The Unselfishness of God, by Hannah W. Smith.
 See pg. 148, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith, Letter to her daughter, Mary Berenson, October 26, 1901, for an example of such a revelation.
 See, e. g., pg. 40, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith, Letter to her husband, Robert Pearsall Smith, April 19, 1878, for Mrs. Smith’s description of a meeting where she preached universalism, so that others sympathetic to the heresy were “delighted at the plainness with which [she] declared Restitution.”
 She died and was cremated at the age of 79 on May 1, 1911. See pgs. 256-259, Remarkable Relations, by Barbara Strachey.
 “[In] the Gnostic system . . . [t]he Divine element is hidden in man as a spark of the Father above, as a spark of the divine self consciousness” (pg. 82, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 1, Aloys Grillmeier, trans. John Bowden. Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1975). Whatever human connections may or may not be traceable between Quakerism and ancient Gnosticism, Satan is without a doubt the author of the Divine seed heresy for both religious systems.
 Letter to her daughter, Mary Berenson, February 16, 1902, on pgs. 148-150 of A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S.” (Mrs. Pearsall Smith), ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. London: Nisbet & Co. 1949. Italics in original.
 Pg. 88, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith, Letter to her friends, August 13, 1886. All such “High Churchmen . . . seem very holy men, and I expect our Father in Heaven does not mind their little notions any more than He minds ours[.]”
 Pg. 126, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith, Letter to her friends, March 16, 1894. Mrs. Smith is here describing a priest, who even while specifically promulgating the damnable heresy of baptismal regeneration, is none the less “most saintly.”
 Pg. 52, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith, Letter to Mrs. Ford Barclay, July 23, 1880.
 See pg. 118, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith, Letter to her daughter, Mary Costelloe, November 7, 1891. In all religions “there is a knowledge of God that must be and that is more or less the same everywhere.”
 Pg. 125, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith, Letter to her friends, March 16, 1894.
 Note that this view is extremely similar to that of F. B. Meyer, and explains Meyer’s preaching of the Higher Life, rather than the gospel, to Hindus in India and the heathen in other lands; see the chapter below on F. B. Meyer.
 My Spiritual Autobiography: How I Discovered The Unselfishness of God, Hannah W. Smith. New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1903. She wrote this book at the age of 71. It was singularly fitting that the founder of the Keswick theology, which spread overwhelmingly through the influence of testimonial and not through the exegesis of Scripture, should also seek to spread her other heresies through testimonial, namely, through the story of her life and how her heresies made her happy.
 Pg. 146, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to her friends, February 18, 1901. Italics in original.
Indeed, if one loves Jesus Christ, and consequently hates heresy and does not wish to become a heretic, he would do well to avoid reading and seeking for any spiritual guidance whatsoever in Mrs. Smith’s books, and he would do well to reject the Keswick theology that she originated.
 Of course, Scripture teaches that God did not make man a sinner, but that the race freely rebelled against God and plunged itself into sin.
 Hannah here displays her rejection of the true gospel, which is not that men are made good enough to live in heaven, but that they are justified by grace alone through faith alone based on the imputed righteousness of Christ alone. Rather than the true gospel, Hannah accepts the Quaker heresy of justification by imparted righteousness.
 Mrs. Smith employs the word “evangelical” in an exceedingly loose fashion. This fact can be illustratated by the fact that although she was a Quaker who denied the gospel, accepted that Quaker revelations were on the same plane as Scripture, and believed in universalism, she considered herself to be an “evangelical” at this period of her life. The “evangelicals” she speaks of here include those spiritualists and Quakers she sought approval from, as described below.
 Pgs. 196-228, The Unselfishness of God, Hannah W. Smith. Italics in original.
 pg. 228, The Unselfishness of God.
 pg. 199, The Unselfishness of God.
 Again, Mrs. Smith has a very broad definition of “evangelical.”
 Pgs. 196-228, The Unselfishness of God. While much of this excerpt was reproduced earlier, the specific connection between Mrs. Smith’s universalism and her rise as a Higher Life preacher is here more clearly brought out and noted.
 Pgs. 21-22, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to Sarah Beck, January 22, 1874.
 The “Mount Temples” were the “Cowper Temples” for the reasons, likely related to adultery and immorality, described on pgs. 45-46, Unforgotten Years, Logan P. Smith. William Cowper Temple inherited Broadlands in 1865, at which time he became Lord Mount Temple; he possessed the estate until his death in 1888. See pgs. 22-23, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. The designations “Cowper Temple” and “Mount Temple” are generally employed in this composition as synonyms rather than with reference to specific periods in the life of the husband and wife.
 Pgs. 27-28, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith; see pgs. 116-117, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 That such an unconverted heretic and spiritualist as Mrs. Cowper-Temple could be viewed as “the queen of evangelical Christians” illustrates the utter absence of spiritual discernment in these “evangelical” circles where the Keswick theology was born.
 Pgs. 44-46, Unforgotten Years, Logan P. Smith; cf. pgs. 27-28, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith.
 Pg. 116, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 6, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982.
 Pg. 27, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 While the first Keswick Convention followed the first Broadland Conference as a continuation of Broadlands teaching, not the first Broadlands Conference only, but also the following yearly Broadlands Conferences profoundly impacted the Keswick Convention and its theology. The presence of many of the same Higher Life preachers at both events, and comparable themes and goals at the two meetings, contributed to a close symbiotic relationship.
 For example:
[T]he Gauls . . . [w]ithout the Druids . . . never sacrifice. . . . [A]s to their modes of sacrifice and divination . . . [t]hey would strike a man devoted as an offering in his back with a sword, and divine from his convulsive throes. . . . It is said they have other modes of sacrificing their human victims; that they pierce some of them with arrows, and crucify others in their temples; and that they prepare a colossus of hay and wood, into which they put cattle, beasts of all kinds, and men, and then set fire to it. (pg. 295, The Geography of Strabo, Strabo, 4:4:5)
The nation of all the Gauls is extremely devoted to superstitious rites; and on that account they who are troubled with unusually severe diseases, and they who are engaged in battles and dangers, either sacrifice men as victims, or vow that they will sacrifice them, and employ the Druids as the performers of those sacrifices; because they think that unless the life of a man be offered for the life of a man, the mind of the immortal gods can not be rendered propitious, and they have sacrifices of that kind ordained for national purposes. Others have figures of vast size, the limbs of which formed of osiers they fill with living men, which being set on fire, the men perish enveloped in the flames. They consider that the oblation of such as have been taken in theft, or in robbery, or any other offense, is more acceptable to the immortal gods; but when a supply of that class is wanting, they have recourse to the oblation of even the innocent. (Gallic War, Julius Caesar, 6:16).
 Pgs. 88-89, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. The particular profundity of the Druids discussed is both an affirmation of the Inner Light, that “God manifests Himself . . . [and] His word is uttered . . . [in the] human spirit,” and a rejection of the Biblical fact that the church, the congregation of saints, is the temple of God (Ephesians 2:20-22; 1 Timothy 3:15). For the Druids, only nature and the human spirit are allegedly such temples.
Perhaps since the word “Druid” appears to be derived from the Old English word for “tree,” and the Druidic philosophy had much alleged good in it at Broadlands that deserved to be accepted, apparently pantheistic affirmations (though not entirely clear because of their terseness) at Broadlands such as the following were less surprising: “Christ is everywhere. The blessing in everything reveals Him. Trees, one of the earliest symbols of God, worshipped” (pg. 213, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. Italics in original. There certainly is no hint of condemnation of tree-worship in the context, and pgs. 211-212 suggest that it is considered acceptable in at least certain situations.).
 Mrs. Smith stated that her spiritual “secret” was inquired about by “Siddartha” (Letter to Anna, February 5, 1880, reproduced in the entry for October 2 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter), that is, “Siddartha Gautama” or Buddha, founder of Buddhism.
 E. g., concerning the Hindu mystic Chunder Sen, Mrs. Smith stated: “I have read Chunder Sen, and do feel just like sailing for India to see him. What a grand revelation that man has had! It stirred me to the very depths. . . . I know the ‘I am’ he knew [the pagan Hindu ‘I am.’]” (Letter to Anna, September 11, 1879, reproduced in the entries for September 22-24 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter).
 Pgs. 5-16, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. While Jackson’s description of the parties above is overwhelmingly positive, unspecified “false ideals of life and religion” are mentioned (pg. 11).
 That is, the shahada, the most important article of faith for Muslims, the recitation of which is the means through which people convert to Islam. Modern transliteration of the shahada is usually slightly different than what was employed in Edwin Arnold’s poem and referenced by Mr. Mount-Temple. The second half of the shahadah was not specifically quoted.
 Pg. 169, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890. The poem Mr. Mount-Temple loved so well, as excerpted in his wife’s Memorials, was Edwin Arnold’s “After death in Arabia.”
 Pgs. 116-117, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890. Italics in original.
 Pg. 57, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith; cf. pg. 120,Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple, for Robert P. Smith’s impulse in the initiation of the Broadlands meetings. Note also that the 1874 Broadlands Conference, the one that initated the Oxford, Brighton, and Keswick Conventions, was, as Mrs. Mount-Temple testified, the pinnacle of the spirituality of Broadlands (pg. 118, ibid).
 Pg. 135, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Again, “evangelical” is very, very loosely defined, so that a heretic such as Mrs. Smith was considered one. Mrs. Smith was an “evangelical” in that she was not a High Church Anglo-Catholic.
 Pg. 28, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. At Broadlands Logan P. Smith notes that one of the speakers “taught that sin was a disease” (pg. 28, ibid), perhaps a reference to the Faith and Mind Cure.
 Pg. 22, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to Sarah Beck, February 7, 1874.
 The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, ed. Dieter, entry for December 30.
 Pg. 7, The Letters of John Ruskin to Lord and Lady Mount-Temple, ed. John L. Bradley.
 Pgs. 48ff., Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith.
 Pgs. 48, 160, etc., The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pgs. 122ff., The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pg. 135, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 “‘Each Conference,’ said Lady Mount-Temple, ‘had its distinctive character and charm, so that it was often said, ‘Surely this is the best we have had.’ I think, however, that none brought out such intimate revelations of spiritual experience as the first, or seemed more to make each one present to understand the meaning of the communion of saints,[’”] (pg. 134, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910) including, of course, in Lady Mount-Temple’s view, the dead saints that still communicated with the living through spiritualistic séances.
 E. g., pgs. 122-123, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. Cf. pg. v.
 Pg. 123, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pg. 48, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pg. 2, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910; cf. pgs. 134-135.
 Thus, for example, Mr. Cowper-Temple’s endorsement and support of the Oxford Convention was gladly accepted and publicly printed and proclaimed; see, e. g., pg. 32, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
 Pg. 53, The Keswick Story: The Authorized History of the Keswick Convention, Polluck. The Broadlands Conferences ran yearly from 1874 to 1885 (cf. pg. 141, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890; pg. 1, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910). Lord Mount Temple died in the town of Keswick, not during a Keswick Convention meeting.
 Pg. 245, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pg. 95, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pgs. 42-43, 50, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith.
 Pg. 50, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith.
 Pg. 119, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to her friends, November 22, 1891.
 Pg. 47, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith. For Logan’s connection with them also, see, e. g., pg. 166, ibid.
 Pg. 147, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to her daughter, Mary Berenson, October 26, 1901. See pgs. 27, 74, 111, 126-7, ibid, for other interactions of theirs.
 E. g., to over 3000 at a “Women’s Jubilee Meeting at a large hall in Lambeth” (pg. 90, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to her friends, May 10, 1887).
 Pg. 28, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pgs. 38-39, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pg. 44, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 E. g., note the description of his prayers on pgs. 135, 225, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910, as he “seemed to lift one into the very presence of God.”
 Cf. pgs. 156, 164, 168, 171, 184, 186, 195, 198, 208, 215, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. Lord Mount-Temple would preach elsewhere also—his public proclamations were not limited to the Broadlands Conferences (e. g., pg. 41, ibid.).
 Pgs. 4-5, 101, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple, a biography by his wife, Georgina Cowper-Temple, Baroness Mount-Temple, followed by biographical notes by other authors], G. Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 182, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 8, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982; cf. pg. 11.
 Pg. 101, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pgs. 24-25, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 94, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pgs. 8-9, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982.
 Pgs. 67-68, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pgs. 17, 27-28, 34, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890. Compare also pgs. 53, 84-85, 102, for their delight in Catholic priests and Cardinals, building of a Roman Catholic church edifice, and further endorsements of Mystery Babylon, as well as ecumenicalism and acceptance of many other false religions. Mr. Mount-Temple stated: “I have to record my thanks for the omission in my childhood of all narrow doctrines,” for that opened him up to the “teaching of Henry Drummond in intensely spiritual High Churchism . . . for [the universalist] Maurice’s broad instruction in unconventional real Christian facts . . . for the knowledge that we are all two in one—two natures in one person . . . the Divine and the human” (pg. 183, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890).
 For example, it was acceptable to preach modalism at Broadlands: “Jesus Christ is. . . the Holy Spirit, Who will dwell in us” (pg. 170, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910). Other false teachings concerning the Triune God could be found at Broadlands (e. g., pg. 195, ibid), although at times because of the woeful ignorance of theology by its participants rather than because of a conscious and active hostility to Christian Trinitarianism.
 Pg. 102, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 79, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 30, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pgs. 79, 34-35, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pgs. 157-160, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 134, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 174, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 139, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890. Cf. pg. 174.
 Pg. 133, Pgs. 108-109, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 83, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pgs. 8-9, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982.
 Pg. 103, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 182, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 106, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pgs. 106, 130, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pgs. 131-132, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pgs. 120, 173-174, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 183, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 183, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 157, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. Of course, the doctrine of pre-conception human existence fits very well with the spiritualism preached and practiced at Broadlands.
 Pgs. 158-159, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pg. 192, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. “Son of God,” not “son of God,” is intentional by the Broadlands author.
 Pg. 202, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 E. g., pg. 78, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pgs. 32-33, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. Compare also pgs. 2, 260.
 Indeed, Broadlands was part of the preparation for the one-world religion centered in Rome, the whore of Babylon, that will unite unregenerate pseudo-Christianity and all other fales religions in the future Tribulation period (Revelation 17); in truth, Broadlands is a sign of what is coming upon Christendom.
 Pgs. 249-252, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 E. g., pgs. 29, 50-52, 56ff., 165-166, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pg. 140, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. Because of the Divine Seed in every man, Broadlands proclaimed: “The deepest cry of the human heart”—not of the regenerate heart only, but of all men’s hearts, in flat contradiction to Romans 3:11—“is the cry for God” (pg. 230, ibid).
 Pg. 263, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pg. 21, Forward Movements of the Last Half Century, Pierson.
 Pg. 183, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. That is, our attitude should be that of George MacDonald: “All the poets believe in a golden age. I believe it.”
 Pgs. 140-143, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pg. 150, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. Of course, the Broadlands position is entirely false. Boldly preaching all the truth to everyone, as Christ commanded in the Great Commission, and reproving error and sin (Ephesians 5:11-13; 2 Timothy 4:2), is actually conforming to the work of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), loving one’s neighbor as oneself (Leviticus 19:17-18), and the exact opposite of using the sword to torture or murder those with other religious convictions. When Romanists or other advocates of religious persecution killed their enemies, they put an end to the opportunity to convert them.
It is worth noting that the Broadlands attempt to convince the world that it is a great sin to prosyletize is itself an act of proselytism—it is an attempt to get those who believe John 14:6 to reject their view and adopt the religious sentiment of the Conference.
 Pgs. 209-211, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. Of course, John 10:16 & 1:9 are radically misinterpreted in this quotation. Universalist sentiments such as these doubtless contributed to the early opposition of Keswick to adding a missionary meeting: “For the first few years of its existence, Keswick had no direct connection with missions. When Mr. Reginald Radcliffe pleaded [after the years of the earliest Conventions] for their admission to the programme, all he could obtain was the loan of the tent on the Saturday” (pg. 74, The Key to the Missionary Problem, Andrew Murray. London: J. Nisbet & Co, 1902). However, early Keswick reluctance to embrace missions was eventually overcome, and men such as Keswick’s first world advocate, George Grubb, and Keswick’s world embassador, F. B. Meyer, could circle the globe on missions, telling people that the lost do not burn in an eternal hell and that the heathen can be saved without personal faith in Christ.
 Pgs. 120-121, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 E. g., pg. 140, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pgs. 88-89, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. Compare pgs. 140-141.
 Pg. 137, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pg. 86, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pg. 178, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pg. 184, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pg. 9, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982. The Bible teaches an economic system that values private property (Exodus 20:15), free enterprise (Matthew 20:2), and economic freedom (Mt 20:15), rather than socialism or communism in any form. Scripture teaches that taxation on income should be below a flat 10% rate—any higher rate is a curse and a form of slavery (1 Samuel 8:6-8, 15, 17-18). “Redistributing” wealth—the government taking from one person by force through taxation to give to someone else it believes is more worthy—is ungodly (1 Samuel 8:14-15). Governments that redistribute wealth are stealing (Exodus 20:15), just like a robber who “redistributes” what a person owns. Such practices are considered in Scripture to be pagan (1 Samuel 8:19-20), tyrannical (1 Samuel 8:17-18), and oppressive (1 Samuel 12:3). Devaluing currency—as the government does by creating inflation—is also stealing (Isaiah 1:22, 25). National debt is a curse (Deuteronomy 28:12, 44). Bribery—including bribing certain classes of people to vote a certain way by promises of government handouts—is a sin and “perverted judgment” (1 Samuel 8:3), for the government is to be impartial and neither favor the rich or poor (Deuteronomy 16:19; Exodus 23:3; Proverbs 22:16). God commands individual believers and churches to generously and selflessly help the needy and poor (2 Thessalonians 3:10; Galatians 6:10; Luke 6:35), and not to do so is sinful, but for the government to employ force to extract money from people to give to either the rich or poor is the sin of stealing, not charity or generosity. Such Biblical teachings make the idea of a “Christian socialism” an oxymoron, similar to “Christian atheism” or “holy sinning.”
 Pg. 106, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pgs. 151, 171, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pgs. 173-174, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 161, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pgs. 8-9, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982.
 Compare the articles on Irving, Drummond, and the Catholic Apostolic Church in the Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, and the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. The Catholic Apostolic Henry Drummond (1786-1860) should not be confused with the later Henry Drummond (1851-1897) who worked with Moody.
 This affirmation of Mrs. Mount-Temple illustrates her utter inability to recognize fanaticism and spiritual aberration.
 Pgs. 103-105, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 The Mount-Temples’ interest in “somnambulism, believed to open a portal to the spiritual world” (pg. 752, The Encyclopedia of Christianity, vol. 4, Fahlbusch & Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), is also noteworthy (cf. pgs. 39-40, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890).
 Pgs. 107-108, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890. Mrs. Mount-Temple recounts that Lord Palmerston “disapproved of my heretical views, and feared my influence over William” (pg. 48, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890).
 Pg. 108, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 For example, a book where Mr. Cowper-Temple records material concerning his séances indicates that he attended at least 31 between 1861 and February 23, 1864, sitting with numerous prominent mediums; see pgs. 9-10, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982. They continued for years to attend very many, and eventually gave up counting (pg. 18).
 “The true resurrection day” is not the day with the Triune God raises the bodies of the dead, but “the day of that great promotion from the world of matter to the world of spirit and the unlocking of the senses of the soul” (pg. 188, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890).
 See, e. g., Letter 9 10, 13, pgs. 30-32, 36-37, The Letters of John Ruskin to Lord and Lady Mount-Temple, ed. John L. Bradley, where one can find discussions of learning things from ghosts and casual and familiar references to seeing, asking questions of, and conversing with spirits of the dead that have been raised up. See also pgs. 7-8, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982.
 Pg. 18, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982. Compare Mrs. Smith’s description of her visit to a spiritualist medium on pgs. 155-156 of A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith.
 Haweis believed and taught: “Spiritualism fitted very nicely on to Christianity; it seemed to be a legitimate development, not a contradiction, not an antagonist. . . . Spiritualism had rehabilitated the Bible. . . . They [spiritualistic phenomena] occur every day in London as well as in the Acts of the Apostles” (pgs. 176-177, “Modern Spiritualism Briefly Tested by Scripture,” The Fundamentals 4:12, A. J. Pollock). When the Mount-Temples heard Haweis preach, were impressed with his “ability and largeness of view,” and “thus Mr. Haweis became our friend,” they stated, so that Mr. Mount-Temple “asked him to revive” the “Church in Westminster” where Haweis was, by “William’s gift,” able to preach spiritualism and other damnable heresies to “crowded services in the restored Church” (pgs. 106, 182, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890) and was elevated to a place of prominence in England.
 Pg. 108, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 161, An Elusive Victorian: The Evolution of Alfred Russel Wallace, Martin Fichman. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2004; cf. pg. 128, Emanuel Swedenborg: His Life and Writings, William White, 2nd. rev. ed. London: Simpkin, Marshall, & Co., 1868.
 At Broadlands the Mount Temples and their Conference guests “me[t] as one brotherhood” with the “Swedenborgians” and other heretics (pg. 32, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910; cf. pgs. 78, 82). Of course, these facts do not mean that everything taught by Swedenborg was followed to the least letter at Broadlands by everyone (e. g., pg. 78, ibid).
 Pg. 51, Altered States: Sex, Nation, Drugs, and Self-Transformation in Victorian Spiritualism, Marlene Tromp. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2006.
 Pg. 12, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982.
 Pg. 10, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982.
 Pg. 18, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982.
 Pg. 23, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982.
 The triviality of spiritualistic marvels was indeed a very notable contrast with Biblical miracles.
 Pgs. 12-24, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982.
 Pgs. 19-20, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982. Italics in original.
 Pg. 20, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982.
 Pg. 24, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982. Mr. Mount-Temple was born in 1811 and died in 1888 (pg. 179, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890).
 Pg. 21, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982.
 Pg. 262, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pgs. 22, 27, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982.
 Pg. 16, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982.
 Pgs. 23-24, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982.
 Pg. 22, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982.
 Pg. 53, Altered States: Sex, Nation, Drugs, and Self-Transformation in Victorian Spiritualism, Marlene Tromp. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2006.
 Pg. 19, The Keswick Story: The Authorized History of the Keswick Convention, Polluck.
 Pgs. 25-26, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982.
 Pg. 53, Altered States: Sex, Nation, Drugs, and Self-Transformation in Victorian Spiritualism, Marlene Tromp. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2006.
 Pg. 113, Christmas Story: John Ruskin’s Venetian Letters of 1876-1877, John Ruskin, ed. Van Alan Burd. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1990.
 Pg. 125, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pgs. 218-220, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. A record of an alleged vision “from the first Conference” is recounted immediately following the quotation reproduced above—however, unlike the Scriptural and truly miraculous visions with which the marvels at Broadlands were compared, the Broadlands marvels “do not sound much in the telling” (pg. 226), while the miraculous visions of Scripture sound like very much, in the telling, because they truly were.
 Pg. 266, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. Italics in original.
 In Wordsworthean fashion, Broadlands also testified: “Look up at these trees and sky . . . and God will speak to us through these . . . they . . . tell of much” (pgs. 223-224, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910). Personal messages, speech “to us” in particular, could come through nature, although, as pgs. 223-224 explain, there is more than just nature through which God speaks—the Inner Voice, for example.
 Pg. 218-220, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. The fulsome exaltation of false visions, and the yet more fulsome downgrade of Biblical inspiration, is evident in the placing of what God gave the Apostles and prophets on a comparable level with what was allegedly given to those at Broadlands and to Wordsworth.
 Pg. 233, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. That is, the past tense “spake” of Scripture is altered to the present tense “speaks” at Broadlands.
 Pgs. 129-130, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 85, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890. In the particular case mentioned on pg. 85, the Mind Cure was self-confessedly a failure.
 Cf. Pg. 8, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pgs. 108-109, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pgs. 136-137, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pgs. 117-118, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 186, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pgs. 108-109, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 123, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pgs. 71-73, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 That is, post-canonical inspiration is not limited to the regenerate, but all men receive it, because all have the Divine Seed; in truth, there is no need to pass from darkness to light through a truly evangelical conversion and new birth, but all will ultimately be saved without one.
 Note that Scripture does not warrant the utmost, inmost things of faith for those at Broadlands—on the contrary, the Inner Voice provides the warrant. In the words of Hannah W. Smith and other Broadlands preachers: “Within us is an intense life which nothing can touch”—the Divine Seed in every man. Consequently: “Our law of life is within; we must love to follow it” (pgs. 180-181, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910).
 That is, men who do not experience inspiration from the Divine Seed in them are missing out on what is most important in life.
 That is, inspiration is not limited to the production of Scripture or to the Apostolic era, and, as the sentence explains, such additional revelations are not even simply available but optional—they are “needed.”
 That is, truths not found in Scripture are revealed by the Inner Light.
 Pgs. 144-145, 226-228, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. Italics in the original.
 For, indeed, in the orthodox sense of the word, Broadlands affirmed that there was no propitiation for sin; on the contrary, “‘Propitiation’ . . . mean[s] [only that] . . . He was altogether merciful to sin” (pg. 188, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910).
 Pgs. 214-215, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Letter to Anna, September 3, 1876, reproduced in the entry for August 8 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Pg. 192, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. Italics in the original.
 Pgs. 52, 129, 135-136, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. Jukes adopted the universalist heresy in 1867.
 Pgs 62, 113, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pgs. 113, 266, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pg. 115, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pg. 170, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pg. 184, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890. As is frequently the case with those who accept extra-Biblical inspiration for post-canonical periods, the character of genuine inspiration is also downgraded in claims for the inspiration of persons, messages, and so on associated with the Broadlands Conferences. Thus, not all the claims that the Conferences, Mrs. Smith, and so on, were “inspired” were necessarily affirmations that the persons or things in question were vebally, plearily, and infallibly dictated by the Holy Ghost, as Scripture truly was.
 Perhaps the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Mount-Temple “loved to prove that faults are but twisted virtues” (pg. 141, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple) contributed to the facility with which they adopted the ideas and practices of Harris and Oliphant.
 The connection between sexual immorality and spiritualism is clearly evident historically, so that the Broadlands doctrines of an erotic Spirit Baptism and of familiar intercourse with demonic spirits are naturally connected. For example:
Mr. T. L. Harris, once a Spiritualistic medium, testifies that the marriage vow imposes no obligation on the Spiritualistic husband. They have been known to abandon their own wives, and prefer the company of those of whom the spirits told them that they had a closer spiritual affinity to them. Mrs. Woodhull, elected three years in succession as president of the Spiritist Societies in America, often lectured in favor of free love; and advocated the abolition of marriage (“forbidding to marry”), stigmatizing virtue and responsibility as the two thieves on the cross. She said: “It was the sublime mission of Spiritism to deliver humanity from the thraldom of matrimony, and to establish sexual emancipation.” (pg. 178, “Modern Spiritualism Briefly Tested by Scripture,” The Fundamentals, Pollock, 4:12).
 Pg. 86, A Religious Rebel: the Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith.
 Pg. 223, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey.
 Pgs. 225-226, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey.
 Pgs. 107ff., Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 “Oliphant, Laurence (1829-1888). Author; born in Cape Town, Africa, in 1829. Lord Elgin made him his private secretary in 1853, and in 1865 he was elected to Parliament, but he resigned in 1868 in obedience to instructions from Thomas L. Harris, leader of the Brotherhood of the New Life, a spiritualistic society of which both Oliphant and his wife were members” (pg. 4316, Harper’s Encyclopedia of United States History, B. Lossing, Ed. Medford, MA: Perseus Digital Library, elec. acc. Logos Bible Software).
 Pg. 108, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890; pg. 18, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982; cf. pg. 21.
 Pgs. 108-109, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890. Compare pg. 87.
 Pgs. 6-7, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982.
 Pgs. 108, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Cf. pg. 109, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890. What the Cowper-Temples termed spiritual growth might, by those who hold to Christian orthodoxy, perhaps be better termed cancerous growth.
 Pg. 115, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pgs. 115-116, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pgs. 127, 148, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890. Italics in original. Note the reference to bridal union with Christ a handful of lines after the quotation from pg. 127 on the top of pg. 128.
 Pgs. 116ff., Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pg. 67, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to Priscilla Mounsey, January 10, 1883.
 E. g., pg. 27, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982; a goodly amount of the material in Mrs. Smith’s Religious Fanaticism came from the fellowship with spiritualists and mediums she partook of with Mrs. Mount-Temple.
 Likewise, in a letter to Mrs. Mount-Temple, Ruskin indicates that the conversations with the spirits of the dead that have been raised up through spiritualistic necromancy have also convinced him “that there is a spiritual state” (Letter 13, pg. 36, The Letters of John Ruskin to Lord and Lady Mount-Temple, ed. John L. Bradley).
 Pg. 132, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to her daughter, Mary Costelloe, October 3, 1896.
 Pg. 47, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith.
 Pgs. 155-156, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith.
 Pgs. 48-49, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith. Logan Smith illustrates the wild behavior of Mrs. Mount Temple’s family with one relative who had left her husband for an adulterous relationship, and who consequently “had been placed under Lady Mount Temple’s roof.” There, along with exhortations to some kind of morality, Mrs. Mount Temple composed a letter to send to the man the lady was committing adultery with, so that he could come and join her, as the adulteress was “feeling so lonely without” the man for whom she had betrayed her holy vows to God and her husband (pg. 48, ibid).
 Pg. 49, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith.
 Pg. 47, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith. Compare Hannah W. Smith’s receipt of revelation from seeing Oscar Wilde on pg. 170, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to her Daughter, Mary Berenson, November 10, 1904.
 Robert Smith also thought that he would be able to continue to lead the Convention and expected “encouragement to continue his ministry” after his confession of teaching erotic bride mysticism (pg. 36, The Keswick Story: The Authorized History of the Keswick Convention, Polluck).
 Pg. 65, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearasall Smith.
 Pgs. 105-106, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to Lady Mount Temple and Mrs. Russell Gurney, October 3, 1889. Logan Smith comments: “Mrs. Russell Gurney, Lady Mount Temple, and H. W. S. formed themselves as a holy band” (pg. 105, ibid). “Emilia Gurney was among Mrs. Cowper-Temple’s best friends . . . [w]ith Hannah Smith these three ladies called themselves the “Trins,” a holy band comparable to the five mystic birds of ancient Philadelphia. Mrs. Gurney was at least sympathetic with Mrs. Cowper-Temple’s interests . . . [in] spiritualism . . . and acquainted with members of the spiritualist circle, including Mrs. Acworth” (pgs. 121-122, Christmas Story: John Ruskin’s Venetian Letters of 1876-1877, John Ruskin, ed. Van Alan Burd. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1990.
 E. g., pgs. 155-156 of A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith, record her letter to her daughter Alys Russell of January 24, 1903, where Mrs. Smith discusses her time with a spiritualist named Podmore, who saw spirits materialize and talk with each other, and who believed that both Cardinal Newman and Napoleon appeared to him.
 E. g., pg. 128 of A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith, records her discussion of the prophecy of a “Palmist” in her letter to Mrs. Lawrence of May 12, 1895. She claimed that she was skeptical of his prophecy.
 Pg. 133, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith. Letter to her Daughter, Mary Costelloe, October 29, 1896.
 Compare the references to the Mount Temples on pgs. 310 & 313 of The Memoir of the Life of Laurence Oliphant and of Alice Oliphant, His Wife, by Margaret Oliphant, William Blackwood & Sons: London, 1892.
 For example, during Mr. Laurence and Mrs. Alice Oliphant’s “missionary” work in the Middle East, “Mrs. Oliphant felt compelled into high-minded but unreticent intimacy with Arabs, ‘no matter,’ as H. W. S. writes, ‘how degraded and dirty they were’” (pg. 86, A Religious Rebel: the Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith). Mrs. Smith enjoyed reading “some of Mrs. Oliphant’s books” (pg. 196, A Religious Rebel: the Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to her Daughter, Mary Berenson, February 14, 1908.), referring to the works of Laurence Oliphant’s cousin, Mrs. Margarent Oliphant, who wrote the Life of Irving, a biography of that earlier continuationist fanatic and heretic, Edward Irving.
 The author begs the pardon of the reader for reproducing such blasphemous trash as the following examination of Mrs. Smith’s confusion of the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit of God with sexual sensations. Although it is so unbelievably ridiculous and appalling, it constitutes a key part of the historical development of the nineteenth century Higher Life and Keswick doctrine of sanctification. It consequently seemed necessary to this writer to reproduce at length the evidence that Hannah W. Smith, her husband, and others adopted it, that the reader might not dismiss the facts as impossible because of their evidently Satanic, fanatical, and delusional character.
 At least Oliphant was clearer, and the doctrine adopted by Mr. and Mrs. Smith somewhat more moderate and less crude and vile, if Mrs. Smith’s declarations are to be believed—that is, if she did not wish, in describing the erotic Spirit baptism espoused, experienced, and promulgated by both Robert and herself, to make her family and her own person look better than they actually were. Only if what she wrote about herself in this connection was nothing but unvarnished and brutal truth, to be conveyed without diminution to the public, was Oliphant’s teaching worse than the Pearsall Smiths’s views. However, the historical record provides clear evidence of Hannah “adjusting” and distorting the facts to cover up and mitigate her and her husband’s adoption and promulgation of the erotic Baptism doctrine. Oliphant himself publicly proclaimed only a vaguer version of his doctrine, concealing the real depths of Satan in his teachings from the masses—he reserved them for those he privately initiated into immorality.
 Compare her explaining her own receipt of a post-conversion Spirit baptism and her call to the Ladies Meeting at Brighton to do so also on pgs. 376-377, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875.
 Hannah wrote that through “the baptism of the Holy Ghost” one received “the full indwelling of the Spirit, whereby we become, not judicially, but really and actually the temples of the Holy Ghost, filled with the Spirit!” (Journal, April 29, 1868, reproduced in the entry for April 15 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter).
 It is noteworthy that leading Pentecostal historians connect their doctrine of gibberish-speech as the essential evidence of Spirit baptism with Hannah and Robert P. Smith’s doctrine of erotic thrills in Spirit baptism (cf. pg. 51, Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. Vinson Synan; pg. 64, “Wesleyan-Holiness Aspects of Pentecostal Origins: As Mediated through the Nineteenth-Century Holiness Revival,” Melvin E. Dieter, pgs. 55-80 in Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. Synan; cf. pgs. 84-85, A Theology of the Holy Spirit: The Pentecostal Experience and the New Testament Witness, F. D. Bruner, for the Pentecostal “passion . . . to know even physically” that they have received the Baptism). Supernatural spirits can indeed possess many unconverted people who receive such Baptisms.
 See, e. g., Letters 59, 96, 118, 121, pgs. 117, 181, 223-224, 228-229, The Letters of John Ruskin to Lord and Lady Mount-Temple, ed. John L. Bradley. Note also the discussion of Thomas Harris and his writings in Letter 112, 121, pgs. 212-214, 228-229.
 Mrs. Smith does not specify who these “good people” are in her letter; they included her husband and herself, who both adopted the erotic Spirit baptism heresy from the “good” Dr. Foster in America, and also many others, some of whom are described in her book Religious Fanaticism, which she allowed to be published only after her death and the death of all parties mentioned in it. In her letter, on the contrary, she affirms that she told Oliphant: “I told Oliphant of the dangers which I saw in his teachings[.]”
 Pgs. 85-86, A Religious Rebel: the Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to her friends, Dorking, August 1, 1886.
 Pg. 86, A Religious Rebel: the Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith.
 Pg. 223, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey.
 Mrs. Smith knew of what Oliphant spoke for she had herself adopted, with her husband, the erotic Baptism doctrine years earlier.
 Pgs. 225-226, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey.
 Pgs. 213-239, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey.
 Pg. 219, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey.
 Cf. Letter to Sister, July 28, 1881, reproduced in the entry for October 28 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Pg. 112, Christmas Story: John Ruskin’s Venetian Letters of 1876-1877, John Ruskin, ed. Van Alan Burd. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1990.
 Pgs. 6-7, Ruskin, Lady Mount-Temple and the Spiritualists: An Episode in Broadlands History. Van Akin Burd. London: Brentham Press, 1982.
 Letter to Sister, July 28, 1881, reproduced in the entry for October 28 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Oliphant was by no means the only deluded fanatic Mrs. Mount-Temple introduced to Hannah W. Smith. For example, Mrs. Smith wrote:
As usual Lady Mount Temple is full of interesting things, and today she introduced me to a mysterious creature, a man he looked like, who is the leader of a strange sect called the “Temple,” and who declared to me that he had not slept a wink for 8 years, but had every night got out of his body and travelled around the world on errands of service for the Lord!! He declared that he sees angels as plainly as he sees men, and knows them all apart, and that Michael has light flaxen hair, and Gabriel dark eyes and hair, and they all live in the sun! (pg. 102, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to her friends, June 10, 1888)
 Compare the references in “An Analysis and Critique of Keswick Theology as Set Forth Particularly in So Great Salvation: The History and Message of the Keswick Convention, by Stephen Barabas,” below.
 Pgs. 21ff., Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874. The Broadlands and Keswick emphasis upon the renunciation of “known sin” to receive the second blessing carried over directly into Pentecostal theology (cf. pg. 95, A Theology of the Holy Spirit: The Pentecostal Experience and the New Testament Witness, F. D. Bruner).
 Pg. 23, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
 Pgs. 25-26, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874; pg. 126, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890; pgs. 191-193, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. The confused Higher Life gospel became a very famous Keswick hymn written by Monod at Broadlands (cf. pgs. 53-54, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910).
 E. g., Lord Mount Temple taught that in seeking the Higher Life one is to “respond to the impulses and impressions” allegedly from Christ outside of the Bible and “overcome all allurements to . . . independent action,” (pg. 184, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890) rejecting what is apparently a temptation to study the Bible think about it, and obey it instead of following passively received suggestions and impulses; for to the Mount Temples, the spirit can use the body while the mind remains dormant (pg. 186, ibid).
 Pgs. 124-125, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Cf. e. g., the testimony that Oxford was but a larger scale of Broadlands on pgs. 27-28, 31, 146-147, 243, 321, 354, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874; Brighton was just Oxford intensified (cf. pgs. 321, 344-346, ibid.).
 Pgs. 132-134, 148-150, 172-174, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890. Italics in original.
 Pg. 175, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 For example, consider an excerpt of Charles Fox’s in memoriam poem addressed to and concerning Lord Mount Temple (pg. 135, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple):
The world is colder since thy sun went down,
Went down in splendor noiseless as thy life,
Thou noble-hearted banisher of strife,
Thou tender traveller betwixt Cross and crown.
Heaven’s own simplicity was thine,—a light,
The light of early dawn instinct with dew,
Healing all sundered souls, thou didst diffuse,
Like summer twilight linking day and night.
Thy name was fraught with human brotherhood,
Thy words down-lighting softly everywhere,
Like snowflakes fell, but straight unveiled there stood
Truth’s dauntless snowpeaks, towering crystal-fair!
Thy life soul-luminous, transparent, just,
Seemed God’s own signature in human dust!
This was the praise of Keswick for the unconverted man who was both the founding impulse for their movement and among the most prominent of the promoters of familiar intercourse with demons in spiritualism.
It is natural that Fox was an honored guest not at Keswick alone, but at the Broadlands Conferences also (pgs. 118-119, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890).
 Andrew Naselli notes:
Charles Armstrong Fox (1836–1900)[,] Keswick’s Poet[,] an Anglican minister, spoke at the Brighton Convention in 1875, and Harford-Battersby and Wilson were so impressed with him that they invited him to speak at the first Keswick Convention just three weeks away. He was constantly ill, which inhibited him from speaking at the Keswick Convention until 1879, but he was then able to speak there every year through 1899 (except for 1897 because of illness). . . . After Fox’s first convention, he gave the closing address on the final evening of each convention he attended. . . . The Keswick Mission Council passed a resolution on 18 December 1900 noting the Keswick Convention’s “irreparable loss” in Fox’s death: “As its saintly poet, he lent distinction to the Convention from the first, and to him by general consent in the days of his prime was entrusted the address on the Friday evenings, in which the whole series of meetings culminated.” (pgs. 128-129, Let Go and Let God? A Survey and Analysis of Keswick Theology, Naselli)
 Pg. 184, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890. Mrs. Cowper-Temple specifically speaks of her husband’s practice at the Conference of 1888—she does not specify how far back it goes, but pg. 124, ibid, provides evidence that Lord Mount-Temple’s practice was by no means limited to the 1888 Conference.
 Pg. 124, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890. Lord Mount-Temple’s promotion of Quietism is evident in, e. g., his address’s declaration that, to experience the Higher Life, not only must “our carnal will . . . be subdued” but “our natural will must die,” not only must “carnal wishes” be removed but “emptying ourselves of human desires” must take place. While both the Son of Man, Jesus Christ, and unfallen Adam had sinless human desires and a sinless natural will, for Higher Life Quietists such as Lord Mount Temple and Hannah W. Smith not sin alone, but human nature itself is the enemy—it is not surprising, therefore, that for Lord Mount Temple, as for the Gnostics of old, “the true resurrection” is not that of the body, but “promotion from the world of matter to the world of spirit” (pg. 188, ibid).
 Pg. 183, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 E. g., she was not only leading at the first Conference, but testified: “As a Quaker, I have attended many of these Conferences,” and was present and preaching even at the last one (pgs. 132, 174, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890).
 Pgs. 171-172, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 Pgs. 16-18, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910. Cf. pg. 25, Forward Movements, Pierson.
 Pg. 27, Forward Movements, Pierson.
 Pg. 24, The Life that is Life Indeed: Reminiscences of the Broadlands Conferences, Edna V. Jackson. London: James Nisbet & Co, 1910.
 Pgs. 61-62, Evan Harry Hopkins: A Memoir, Alexander Smellie); cf. the account on pgs. 57-60, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith. At Brighton it was indisputable and assumed that the teaching was that of Broadlands (e. g., pgs. 8, 23, 176, 343, 419 Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875) and Oxford (e. g., pgs. 6, 89, 94, 111, 143, 145, 200, 242, 259, 292, etc., ibid), for at Mrs. Cowper-Temple’s residence at “Broadlands the first such English gathering was held . . . Oxford and Brighton have been their successors” (pg. 19, ibid.). Keswick indisputably developed from these meetings (cf. pg. 123, The Keswick Convention: Its Message, its Method, and its Men, ed. Harford).
While Mrs. and Mr. Smith were the center of the Broadlands, Oxford, and Brighton Conventions, men such as Asa Mahan and William Boardman were present and preached also; cf. pg. 73, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874, etc.
 Pg. 147, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890.
 That is, “the necessary consequence of consecration and faith . . . is a present and complete deliverance from sinning. If my soul is really entirely surrendered to the Lord Jesus and if I am really trusting Him to work all the good pleasure of His will in me, I must be delivered from sinning” (Journal, February 16, 1869, reproduced in the entry for May 12 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.).
 Barclay wrote:
This most certain doctrine then being received, that there is an evangelical and saving light and grace in all . . . as many as resist not this light, but receive the same, in them is produced an holy, pure, and spiritual birth, bringing forth holiness, righteousness, purity, and all these other blessed fruits which are acceptable to God; by which holy birth (to-wit, Jesus Christ formed within us, and working his works in us) as we are sanctified, so are we justified in the sight of God. [Barclay thus teaches that sanctification and justification are received exactly the same way, and that justification is not by Christ’s imputed righteousness, but by becoming inwardly holy, a rejection of the gospel, in which Hannah W. Smith follows him; cf. pgs. 193-194, Every-Day Religion, or The Common-Sense Teaching of the Bible, Hannah W. Smith. New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1893.] . . . In whom this holy and pure birth is fully brought forth, the body of death and sin comes to be crucified and removed, and their hearts united and subjected unto the truth, so as not to obey any suggestion or temptation of the evil one, but to be free from actual sinning, and transgressing of the law of God, and in that respect perfect. Yet doth this perfection still admit of a growth; and there remaineth a possibility of sinning, where the mind doth not most diligently and watchfully attend unto the Lord. (pgs. vii-viii, cf. pgs. 87ff., Proposition 7, “Concerning Justification,” and Proposition 8, “Concerning Perfection,” An Apology for the True Christian Divinity: being an Explanation and Vindication of the Principles and Doctrines of the People called Quakers, Robert Barclay)
Hannah Smith cites Barclay repeatedly and positively in her writings; see, e. g., her Journal from 1849, reproduced in the entry for January 3 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 See, e. g., her Journal from 1849 & 1861, reproduced in the entry for January 2 & 29 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 pg. 232, The Unselfishness of God. Methodist influences were also present, as explained below.
 Hannah adopts the Higher Life view of the passage that considers it as a description of Paul in self-dependent defeat. She goes on to give the standard Keswick argument that Paul must pass out of defeat in Romans 7 into victory in Romans 8 because of Romans 7:25a, ignoring Romans 7:25b, Paul’s actual conclusion in Romans 7:14-25.
 That is, after she rejected eternal torment and became a universalist.
 That is, the Higher Life and Pelagian doctrine of the equation of obligation and ability, here taught to Hannah Smith by Guyon and Fénelon.
 Pgs. 172-176, 185, The Unselfishness of God, Princeton, NJ: Littlebrook Press, 1987.
 Pg. 2, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith, reproducing Letter to her Cousin, Annie Whitall, 1850. Hannah was 18 at the time. Her writings contain other references to being “much helped” by Madame Guyon (cf. pg. 164, The Unselfishness of God, Hannah W. Smith, Princeton, NJ: Littlebrook Press, 1987).
 Pg. 213, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith, reproducing Letter to her Daughter, Mary Berenson, March 25, 1910. Hannah was 78 at the time.
 Letter to Daughter Mary, October 9, 1881, reproduced in the entry for October 30 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Journal, Millville N. J., August 27, 1865; reproduced in the entry for February 3 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Letter to Abby, Millville N. J., September 6, 1865; reproduced in the entry for February 4 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Letter to Carrie, March 12, 1881; reproduced in the entry for October 25 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Letter to Carrie, March 12, 1881; reproduced in the entry for October 25 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter. Guyon and Fénelon also assisted Hannah move all the further away from literal interpretation of Scripture to the “inner sense” of allegorical, mystical, and non-literal interpretation that supported the doctrines she was imbibing from the Romanists.
 Compare Letter to Sarah, March 7, 1881; Letter to Priscilla, 1883; Letter to a Friend, January 17, 1883, Providence, R.I., reproduced in the entries for October 24, November 16, & December 7 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 For example, Hannah enjoyed the works of Frederick W. Faber, who journeyed with Cardinal Newman from the false gospel of Anglo-Catholicism into the arms of the Roman harlot itself (Revelation 17). She quoted him favorably in chapter 22 of her Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life. Commending him to another, she likewise wrote: “I wish you had Faber’s Growth in Holiness to read a little of it as a part of your devotions. I find him very helpful” (Letter to Carrie, February 2, 1881, reproduced in the entry for October 23 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter). See further representative examples of her positive view of Faber in Letter to Robert, July 20, 1873, Letter to a Friend, September 2, 1873, Letter to Anna, September 29, 1876, Letter to a Friend, August 17, 1879, reproduced in the entries for July 2, 5, August 9, September 20, of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter, etc.
 Letter, 1880, reproduced in the entry for October 19 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter. Fenelon and Guyon were the most prominent of these “writers on the advancing life” or “spiritual writers”; cf. Letter to Carrie, March 12, 1881, reproduced in the entry for October 25 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Hannah W. Smith’s doctrine would have been in accord with her fellow preacher and founder of the Broadlands Conferences, Lord Mount Temple: “My Lord Jesus, as Thou didst take my humanity, I pray Thee impart to me Thy Divinity” (pg. 183, Memorials [of William Francis Cowper-Temple, Baron Mount-Temple], Georgina Cowper-Temple. London: Printed for private circulation, 1890).
 Letter to Priscilla, September 20, 1882, reproduced in the entry for October 25 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 pg. 376, Perfectionism, vol. 2, Benjamin B. Warfield. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003; reprint of 1932 Oxford ed.
 “Guyon, Jeanne-Marie Bouvier De La Mothe,” pg. 402 in the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, vol. 3, James Strong & John McClintock. Elec. acc. Christian LibrarySeries vol. 2. Albany, OR: AGES Software, 2006.
 Pg. 901, “Quietism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Elwell.
 “Molinos, Miguel De,” Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, John McClintock & James Strong, vol. 6, elec. acc. AGES Digital Software Library.
 Pg. 127, Keep In Step With The Spirit, Packer.
 “The Delusions of Madame Guyon,” by David Cloud. Port Huron, MI: Fundamental Baptist Information Service, November 16, 2010. It is likely that the medieval Roman Catholic erotic bridal mysticism was ultimately at the root of the theological trajectory that led to Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s reception of the doctrine, although Henry Foster was the more immediate instrument of their adoption of the heresy.
 Pg. 902, “Quietism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Elwell.
 Madame Guyon wrote: “The essential union is the spiritual marriage where there is a communication of substance, when God takes the soul for His spouse, unites it to Himself, not personally, nor by any act or means, but immediately reducing all to a unity. The soul ought not, nor can, any more make any distinction between God and itself. God is the soul, the soul is God” (cited pgs. 82-83, The “Higher Life” Doctrine of Sanctification, Henry A. Boardman). “Communication of substance” is classical Trinitarian language for the possession of the undivided Divine essence by the Son through His being eternally begotten by the Father, and of the Spirit’s possession of the undivided Divine essence by eternal procession from the Father and the Son. To affirm that the Divine substance is communicated to a human being, so that the soul is God, is horrific blasphemy. Sundry Keswick advocates, such as Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, accepted the mystical heresy of deification, which was present in the Keswick movement from the time of its genesis in the Broadlands Conferences. Since the Higher Life and Keswick theology developed out of a historical trajectory involving Guyon, Fénelon, and mystical Quietism, this acceptance of deification is natural. However, more orthodox proponents of Keswick theology agree with Stephen Barabas and deny that sanctification involves “the merger of the personality with that of God . . . [or] the destruction of the personality” (pg. 121, So Great Salvation, Barabas); those Higher Life writers who agree with Barabas have allowed Scripture to remove this particular heresy from the historical stream of Keswick theology within which they swim.
The Word of Faith movement likewise calls believers “god men” and preaches deification, as did the nineteenth century New Thought movement, which developed “the Divinity of Man” through “obedience to the Indwelling Presence which is our source of Inspiration, Power, Health, [and] Prosperity” (pgs. 106-107, A Different Gospel, McConnell). The metaphysical and Word of Faith doctrine that through “deification” men “are transformed into gods,” since “man was created with the divine nature, sinned, and was filled with satanic nature; but through the new birth, he is again infused with the divine nature,” so that “to be born again” is to receive “the nature and life of God in one’s spirit” (pg. 119-121, ibid.) is also very similar to the doctrine of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, and the Word of Faith system arose from the Higher Life antecedents that produced Pentecostalism.
 Pg. 902, “Quietism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Elwell.
 Pg. 89, “Fénelon, Francois de Salignac de Mothe,” Who’s Who in Christianity, ed. Lavinia Cohn-Sherbok.
 Pennington was a Quaker mystic and heretic. Hannah W. Smith repeately refers to him (e. g., April 23, May 6, September 9, The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life: The Unpublished Personal Writings of Hannah Whitall Smith, ed. Melvin Dieter).
 Pg. 206, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey.
 Pg. 240, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey.
 Pg. 234, My Spiritual Autobiography, Hannah W. Smith. James does not teach that one is justified in the sight of God by works, nor contradict in any way the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith alone (Romans 3:28).
 Pgs. 158, 144, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith. She would not have even “the narrowest Catholicism” taken away from her granddaughters (pg. 194, ibid). See also pg. xx.
 Pg. 139, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith. Letter to Miss Olive Seward, March 28, 1898.
 Pg. 158, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith.
 Pg. 158, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith.
 Pg. 174-175, 184, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith.
 Pg. 153, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith.
 “I had one of my ‘openings’ in regard to all the Catholic ceremonies, that took away forever my prejudices, and made me feel that it was a fact that we are all one in God. Such openings are tremendously enlightening. I love to have them” (pg. 216, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith).
 Pg. 256, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey.
 pg. 237, My Spiritual Autobiography, Hannah W. Smith.
 Pg. 193-194, Every-Day Religion, Hannah W. Smith.
 Hannah was writing, in 1870, to her son Frank, basing her false gospel upon a misinterpretation of Romans 10:9-10 (Letter to Frank, January 2, 1870, reproduced in the entry for May 22 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter). Romans 10:9-10 does not make confession of any kind a prerequisite to justification; rather it affirms that after one has believed in his heart and received Christ’s righteousness, he will confess Christ before men as a mark of his regenerate life, and so enter heaven, that is, receive ultimate salvation. See “An Exegesis and Application of Romans 10:9-14 for Soulwinning Churches and Christians,” by Thomas Ross.
 Pg. 42, The “Higher Life” Doctrine of Sanctification Tried by the Word of God, Henry A. Boardman. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle, 1996, citing Mrs. Smith’s tract “Faith,” published by the Willard Tract Repository. Pgs. 38-58 of Boardman’s book documents Smith’s unbiblical, Pelagian, and rationalistic view of faith.
 Mr. Robert P. Smith also makes affirmations that sound like the Word-Faith positive confession heresy (cf. pgs. 100-101, “The Brighton Convention and Its Opponents.” London Quarterly Review, October 1875).
 The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life, Hannah W. Smith, Chapters 3, 6, 14, elec. acc. Accordance Bible Software; cf. Letter to Anna, September 6, 1871, reproduced in the entry for June 16 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
It is noteworthy that Hannah Smith’s “Jesus saves me now” was also Robert P. Smith’s great refrain of immediate sanctification, the “watch word” of the Conventions that developed the Keswick theology (Letter to Father and Mother, June 9, 1875, reproduced in the entry for July 26 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter), and the way of entrance into a state of a perfection of acts, instantaneously obtained as a result of an act of faith directed to that end. Furthermore, “‘Jesus saves me now,’ is the refrain of more than one peculiarly ‘Keswick’ hymn,” which teach that by that immediate act of faith one obtains this second blessing (pg. 216, The Keswick Convention: Its Message, its Method, and its Men, ed. Harford); “Jesus saves me now” was enshrined in Keswick hymnody from at least the time of the Oxford Convention (pgs. 88-89, Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, Price & Randall). Compare pgs. 140, 319, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875.
 Pg. 235, The God of All Comfort, Smith.
 Letter to Daughter, February 14, 1883, reproduced in the entry for December 11 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Letter to Priscilla, January 8, 1882, reproduced in the entry for November 3 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Faith, Hannah Whitall Smith, cited pg. 55, The “Higher Life” Doctrine of Sanctification Tried by the Word of God, Henry Boardman. Italics in original.
 Henry Boardman must not be confused with the Higher Life leader William Boardman.
 Pgs. 55-56, The “Higher Life” Doctrine of Sanctification Tried by the Word of God, Henry Boardman.
 Pg. 212, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875; cf. Hannah’s teaching on pg. 373.
 Letter to Anna, January 21, 1881, reproduced in the entry for October 20 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 A brief testimony by Robert about his professed conversion appears on pgs. 168-169, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874; he came to see what Christ’s blood “had” already done for him, and recognising that fact, he testified: “I never for an hour doubted my pardon and adoption”; mention of repentance, or of actually trusting in what Christ did, is omitted; only assent to facts about Christ’s blood is stated. Furthermore, Robert believed that “consecration and conversion [were] two separate acts” and he had “never known one instance in which they were not distinct” (pg. 256, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875); that is, if his testimony is to be credited, he never knew a single instance in which a sinner repented and surrendered to Christ as Lord at the time of his professed conversion, and Mr. Smith did not surrender to Christ at the time of his own professed conversion; consequently, his salvation was spurious, as were all those of whom he testified truly.
Mr. Smith’s exceedingly weak view of conversion is also evident in that he testified: “I had asked the Lord not to send me out [in ministry] till the Divine seal had been set on my work at home—[but] when all my children, my servants, and many of my work-people had been converted, and brought to live the faith-life, it was easy to go ‘to the parts beyond’” (pg. 221, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874). Although his children, at least those who lived to adulthood, were all unconverted, he publicly proclaimed exactly the opposite—but it is not surprising that one who is unconverted himself should have great difficulty leading others to true conversion.
 For example, Jacob Abbott, commenting on William Boardman’s definition of faith in his The Higher Christian Life, notes:
We had read with astonishment, in the early part of the work, what he quoted, with an apparent endorsement, from a monk, who was directing Luther how to be saved. Said the monk: “The commandment of God is, that we believe our own sins are forgiven” (p. 25). Where do we find a warrant for so believing, and calling it saving faith? What kind of faith would that be for impenitent men . . . [to] believ[e] that their own sins are forgiven, [that they have] an assured hope of heaven, [and] an assured knowledge of the saving presence of Jesus[?] . . . Would it not be, what a great many are doing, believing a lie, that they might be damned? . . . The amount of it is, that we are to believe something about ourselves . . . [n]ow we ask, is that evangelical faith at all? . . .
What is the object of Christian faith? Is it not the salvation of Christ, the “good tidings” revealed in his word? Can anything be a proper object of justifying or sanctifying faith, what what God as recorded in his word? . . . [Assurance] springs up amind the fruits of a renewed heart [and] must not be mistaken for the faith itself, that works by love, and purifies the heart, and overcomes the world. (pgs. 515-516, Review of William E. Boardman’s The Higher Christian Life, Jacob J. Abbott. Bibliotheca Sacra (July 1860) 508-535. Note that Boardman’s account of the monk and Luther is almost certainly mythological in any case. As Abbott notes later: “[S]o far as we have the means of verifying them, there is not one of [Boardman’s testimonials from history] that stands upon the ground of historical truth” (pg. 520).)
 Pgs. 35-38, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith.
 Pg. 179, My Spiritual Autobiography, Hannah W. Smith.
 Pgs. 179-180, My Spiritual Autobiography, Hannah W. Smith.
 Pg. 180, My Spiritual Autobiography, Hannah W. Smith.
 Pg. 278, The Unselfishness of God.
 Pg. 149, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith, Letter to her daughter, Mary Berenson, October 26, 1901. The theological looseness and indulgence of various heresies that are consistent, in Mrs. Smith’s mind, with being an allegedly “extreme evangelical” should be recalled.
 Pg. 149, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith, Letter to her daughter, Mary Berenson, October 26, 1901. Italics in original.
 Pg. 15, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey.
 Pg. 159, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey.
 Pgs. 83-85, The Unselfishness of God.
 pg. 240, The Unselfishness of God. The Methodist doctrine of the second blessing or perfectionism affirms:
[In] the entirely sanctified . . . “concupiscence” has lost its evil, and [has] reverted back to . . . mere desire incident to the flesh, without any complicity or affinity with sin . . . victory is perfectly gained through the overwhelming might of the Spirit in the inner man, so that [those who have been perfected] have only to keep themselves from the external enemy who seeks to “touch” them, and to preserve or maintain the victory over self which God has given them. . . . The natural will being dead, the agony of a divided life and purpose is gone; for now our glorious motive power, God’s own will, works in us, freed from internal opposition . . . released from the inward proneness to sin. . . . God is pleased to reckon as a fulfilment of the law . . . perfect love[,] [which is] possible to the faith of the Christian. . . . “Christian perfection” was indeed a favourite expression . . . [of] Mr. Wesley[.] . . . [T]his perfection is always wrought in the soul by a simple act of faith; consequently, in an instant. But [there is] a gradual work, both preceding and following that instant. (pgs. 118-124, “The Brighton Convention and Its Opponents.” London Quarterly Review, October 1875; comparison is made to the second blessing doctrine of Robert P. Smith, which is evidenced to be very similar to that of Wesleyan perfectionism.)
 pgs. 242-243, 245, The Unselfishness of God. Italics in original.
 That is, Presbyterians such as William Boardman; Presbyterian orthodoxy rejected the Higher Life movement.
 pgs. 261, 264-265, The Unselfishness of God.
 pgs. 269-270, The Unselfishness of God.
 Letter to Priscie, reproduced in the entry for September 4 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter. Hannah Smith speaks of the Quaker woman preacher Helen Balkwell.
 pgs. 272-274, 280, The Unselfishness of God.
 Pg. 267, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey. Italics in original.
 Pgs. 194-195, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey.
 Pg. 29, Remarkable Relations, Strachey. Italics in original.
 Hannah preached and testified: “When I entered this [Higher] life . . . [t]he Lord delivered me from [judging]. . . . I feel it is not my place to judge anybody” (pg. 368, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875). Mrs. Smith was relatively consistent in her failure to judge and condemn heretics, universalists, and fanatics, despite Christ’s command to “judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24) and the Apostolic pattern of judging people for false doctrine and practice (1 Corinthians 5:3; Galatians 2:4-5). However, she seems to have made an exception for Baptists who preached a pure gospel—these, she judged, were repulsive and intolerable—a feeling reflective of her view of their Master (Matthew 10:40; John 13:20).
 Pg. 203, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey. Hannah Smith went on to warn that the Methodist doctrine had “introduced [her] into an emotional region where common sense has no chance, and where everything goes by feelings and voices and impressions,” which she did not think was good, as, at the time she was writing, she did not think that very extreme fanaticism was commendable. However, she did not go on to reject the Quaker Inner Light heresy, or the Methodist errors of entire sanctification and extra-Scriptural revelations, for a consistent sola Scriptura stand and a truly Biblical doctrine of sanctification, such truths being aborrant to her because of her unregenerate state (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:14). Thus, she remained a fanatic herself.
 Compare the chapter “An Excerpt from ‘A Warning Exhortation Against Pietsts, Quietists, and all Who in a Similar Manner have Deviated to a Natural and Spiritless Religion under the Guise of Spirituality,’ by Wilhelmus á Brakel.” Wilhelmus á Brakel describes and penetratingly warns against the pseudo-spirituality of the sort espoused by this Methodist minister which Hannah W. Smith esteemed so highly and adopted.
 Note that 1879 was by no means the first introduction of the Smiths to Clifton Springs or to the erotic Baptism doctrine; both Mr. and Mrs. Smith had learned and adopted the doctrine from Dr. Henry Foster years earlier. The fact that they still fellowshipped with him in 1879 shows that association with their mentor in spiritual eroticism was still acceptable to the family even after Mr. Smith’s downfall in England for preaching the erotic Baptism.
 Germantown was in such close proximity to Clifton Springs that Hannah could state in a letter that she was staying in Clifton Springs in the summer of 1879 (see Letter to Anna, written from Clifton Springs on July 8, 1879, reproduced in the entry for September 16 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter). It is not possible from the historical record to determine if Mrs. Smith wrote “Germantown” in her published book and “Clifton Springs” in her unpublished letter to make it more difficult for readers to associate the Methodist sexual predator whom she does not name with Dr. Henry Foster’s Clifton Springs Sanitarium. It is also very possible that she simply frequented both the adjacent locations.
 Neither, of course, had Miss W. discovered such a “secret,” and close attention to the real Divine guidance in the Word of God would have kept both women from such unhesitating submission to the suggestions of their own sinful hearts and the openness to Satanic influence that went along with it.
 The truth is that neither fallen and corrupt human thinking nor the “interior voice” was the proper authority—the sole authority in spiritual matters, and all other matters it addresses, is the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16).
 Note that this is Mrs. Smith’s description of this women even after she knew about the fleshly abominations in which she participated.
 That is, the generic god of natural and pagan religion, associated for Mrs. Smith with a merely natural and unregenerate intellectual assent to various facts about Jesus Christ, not the true God of the regenerate, the Father, who has reconciled His people to Himself through the substitutionary sacrifice of His eternal Son Jesus Christ, and regenerated and justified them through the sole instrumentality of Spirit-produced faith.
 For, truly, Boston was a hotbed of fanaticism, Faith Cure, Mind Cure, New Thought, and other wretched abominations at the time.
 Note that Robert Pearsall Smith came to exactly this conclusion—when he rejected the erotic Spirit baptism at the heart of his Higher Life ministry, he also rejected Christianity for agnosticism and Buddhism.
 For, Hannah W. Smith believed, they were indeed Christians, despite such abominable heresies and evil works—since they were the human instruments through which she came into her most fundamental knowledge of spirituality and of the Higher Life, how could they be otherwise?
 That is, Mrs. Smith believed that these deluded fanatics and filthy fornicators were sent by God to teach her spiritual truth.
 Mrs. Smith affirmed that they lived in the presence of God in an unusual sense. However, the true God describes people like them in words such as: “They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate” (Titus 1:16). Passages such as the following provide Jehovah’s view of such persons:
For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh . . . [and] speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. (Jude 4, 8-13)
Thus, the only god that these fanatics could be unusually in the presence of was the god of this world, Satan, the source of their deluded Higher Life spirituality.
 Robert P. Smith also cited this maxim of Fénelon at the Brighton Convention (pg. 140, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875).
 That is, Mrs. Smith learned, in the most fundamental way, the tremendous value of the natural and pagan “spirituality” of the Roman Catholic mysticism and quietism of Fénelon from these Methodist fornicators and fanatics; such was the spirituality of Mrs. Smith’s Higher Life.
 Pgs. 182-193, 259, 267-270, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey.
 Hannah herself recounts:
One day when I was alone reading my Bible and praying for guidance . . . suddenly, in the moment of a most solemn act of consecration to God, a voice, that seemed to be entirely distinct from my own personality, said plainly, “If you want to be entirely consecrated to God, you must kiss Mr. L.” . . . There seemed nothing for me to do but to surrender my will in the matter and to say, “Yes, Lord, if it is Thy will, repulsive as it is, I will do even this!” Perfect peace at once filled my heart[.] (pgs. 247-248, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey. Italics in original).
However, she never ended up kissing him, because when “the voice spoke again, ‘Now you must do it,’” Mr. L. told her not to (pg. 248, ibid.). However, she narrates:
I went to my dressmaker . . . an inward Voice told me I . . . must kiss the dressmaker. . . . I dared not refuse, and said to the dressmaker, “The Lord tells me to kiss you,” and proceeded to bestow a kiss upon her cheek. I must say the whole thing fell very flat. The poor woman coloured crimson with embarrassment, and I shared her embarrassment. . . . She hurried to finish her fitting and I hurried to leave the house, thankful to get alone where I could endure my mortification in silence. (pgs. 249-250, ibid.)
 Compare the commentary by this Quaker woman preacher on the book of Joshua, from which the typical Higher Life conclusions are drawn: The Fulness of Blessing; or, The Gospel of Christ, as Illustrated from the Book of Joshua, Sarah F. Smiley. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1876. In discussing the post-conversion Baptism of the Spirit, she condemned the “tendency to ignore the importance of the body, [which] proceeds from a general lack of insight into the Scriptural philosophy of nature and of spirit” (pg. 89).
 Mrs. Smith at first tried to get her to not kiss the man.
 Pgs. 194-202, 246-248, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey.
 Pgs. 196-197, 203-205, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey.
 Higher Life perfectionism, antinomianism, continuationism, and the rejection of sola Scriptura, are all related concepts which easily relate the one to the other. Lyman Atwater explains:
[M]en who esteem themselves perfect are apt to make themselves, their own subjective exercises, experiences, judgments, desires, and appetites, the measure and standard of perfection; to make these the rule and measure of rectitude, rather than God’s word; or rather to construe them as God’s voice and word, speaking in and through them. They have often maintained that as Christ was living within them, their desires, and words and deeds were Christ’s. This, of course, is the extreme of fanatical and blasphemous Antinomian pride and licentiousness. . . . [T]here are [grave dangers in] making our subjective feelings the standard of truth and holiness . . . [as] often develops in simple mysticism, in which the feeling of the subject, devout and elevated though it be, still becomes a law unto itself, and sets its own impulses and bewilderments above the law and the testimony. Against all this we cannot too sedulously guard. . . . [T]he Antinomian feature of [the Higher Life perfectionism] has strong logical and practical affinities for licentiousness[.] . . . Nor do we think it wrong or uncharitable in this connection to refer to the career of Mr. Pearsall Smith, who has been so conspicuous in Higher Life leadership. (pgs. 418-419, “The Higher Life and Christian Perfection,” Lyman H. Atwater. The Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review (July 1877) 389-419)
 Leading Pentecostal historians connect the theory of erotic Spirit baptism with the rise of their doctrine of speaking in tongues as the physical mark of Spirit baptism. For example, Donald W. Dayton, in his essay “From ‘Christian Perfection’ to the ‘Baptism of the Holy Ghost,’ which was recognized as the prizewinning submission in its category from the Society for Pentecostal Studies in 1973, references the description of Hannah and Robert P. Smith’s doctrine of physical sexual thrills in Spirit baptism in Religious Fanaticism: Extracts from the Papers of Hannah Whitall Smith, ed. Ray Strachey, and writes: “It is easy to see how the gift of tongues would fulfill this longing” (pg. 51, Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. Vinson Synan; Dayton’s essay covers pgs. 39-54). Melvin E. Dieter also notes the background to Pentecostal tongues in the erotic Spirit baptism of Robert and Hannah W. Smith, along with “the inherited . . . tendencies of a perfectionist movement and the influence of the spiritual raptures in the experiences of the Quietists and other Catholic mystics who had been widely accepted as part of the true holiness movement” (pg. 64, “Wesleyan-Holiness Aspects of Pentecostal Origins: As Mediated through the Nineteenth-Century Holiness Revival,” Melvin E. Dieter, pgs. 55-80 in Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. Synan). The doctrine of thrills in Spirit baptism could easily be passed down by the Higher Life and Faith or Mind Cure movement into Pentecostalism through innumerable continuationists such as Dr. Henry Foster and Robert P. Smith.
 Letter to a Friend, February 12, 1876, reproduced in the entry for July 30 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Pg. 158, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
 Pg. 132, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith. Logan speaks of the time when his sister was married in Oxford: “[T]o these festivities my parents invited their [Higher Life] evangelical and especially their Quaker friends, who most of them had condoned, if they had not forgotten, the scandal of my father’s adventures with his feminine disciples.”
 Letter to Carrie, February 13, 1877, reproduced in the entry for August 12 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Hannah wrote to her daughter Mary: “I have watched the growth and development of agnosticism in your father[.] . . . Your father gave in to the doubt, and has lost at last all sense of any perception of God” (Letter to Mary, January 27, 1883, reproduced in the entries for December 8-9 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter), and noted: “His unbelief is most contagious. . . . He has been pouring floods of agnosticism upon me” (Letter to Daughter, February 7, 1883, reproduced in the entry for December 10 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter).
 Pg. 253, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
 Hannah eventually concluded that “it seems impossible that anything can be the truth of God which is not fit to be publicly proclaimed” (Letter to a Friend, February 12, 1876, reproduced in the entry for July 30 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter). Note, however, that promulgation of the physical thrills doctrine and association with its other advocates continued for the Pearsall Smiths far after the time of the composition of this letter, which was more a piece of revisionist history and apologetic defense of Robert P. Smith than actual fact. Hannah not only affirmed in this letter that “it seems impossible that anything can be the truth of God which is not fit to be publicly proclaimed,” but also that “I don’t have to tell you I am sure that my dear husband is entirely innocent of the vile charges against him,” a statement which was simply false, and which casts doubt upon her repudiation of the erotic Baptism doctrine.
 pg. 82, The Secret Life of Hannah Whitall Smith, by Marie Henry. The woman, Miss Hattie Hamilton, stated that Robert P. Smith tried to commit adultery with her in her bedroom, but he denied that he had sought to do so.
 Robert, recounting his and his family’s “fearful curse of our inheritance of NERVES” in a letter to his daughter Mary, concluded: “be very distrustful of our own intellectual and moral conclusions” (pgs. 159-160, Remarkable Relations, Barbara Strachey). His conclusion that his own intellect and morals were untrustworthy appears to be most sound.
 Cf. pgs. 506-508, Warfield, Perfectionism, vol. 2. Meneghel, “Becoming a ‘Heretic,’” 227-30.
 Pg. 26, Life of Henry Foster, M. D., Founder Clifton Springs Sanitarium, Samuel Adams Hawley. Clifton Springs, NY: Sanatarium Board of Trustees, 1921.
 Pg. 98, Life of Henry Foster, Hawley. Administering the elements of the Lord’s Supper kneeling supports the Roman Catholic idea that the bread changes into God and is an error, as is giving it to people in private. The Biblical mandate for unity is that “all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Corinthians 1:10). Such unity is an essential aspect of the Scriptural celebration of the Supper (1 Corinthians 11:18-21; 10:17), but it is impossible among twenty-six denominations with different doctrines and practices—indeed, it is impossible outside the context of an individual true church.
 Pgs. 146-147, Life of Henry Foster, Hawley.
 Pg. 157, Life of Henry Foster, Hawley.
 Pg. 75, Life of Henry Foster, Hawley.
 Pgs. 26, 157, Life of Henry Foster, Hawley.
 See pgs. 263-314, Can You Trust Your Doctor? The Complete Guide to New Age Medicine and Its Threat to Your Family, John Ankerberg & John Weldon. Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991; “The New Age in Health Care,” David Cloud (Fundamental Baptist Information Service, November 3, 2008); elec. acc. Fundamental Baptist CD-ROM Library.
 Historians generally recognize the association between hydropathy or Water Cure and spiritualism:
In water cure, Spiritualists found a medical system in sympathy with their reform orientation. Also called hydropathy, water cure was a therapeutic approach imported from Europe in 1843 that relied on the internal consumption and external application of cold water for the prevention and cure of all diseases. Spiritualists . . . embraced water cure because of its appeal to the laws of nature embodied in each human being as the source of healing and because of the reform principles of its leaders. Hydropathy relied on the natural curative tendencies of the individual rather than on intervention by an authoritative medical expert. . . . Water cure establishments provided a fertile environment for the development of many of the ideas advocated by Spiritualist health reformers. (pg. 154, Radical Spirits: Spiritualism and Women’s Rights in Nineteenth-Century America, Ann Braude. 2nd ed.)
Thus, “[a]long with homeopathy and animal magnetism, hydropathy was a favorite cure among the Spiritualists” (pg. 116, Plato’s Ghost: Spiritualism in the American Renaissance, Cathy Gutierrez).
Of course, water itself is something God made, and some people who went to Water Cures just liked to get wet, while others were were simply ignorant or dupes of quacks; not all were intentional devotees of Satan.
 Dr. Foster noted: “Spiritualism had its birth just north of us” (pg. 33, Life of Henry Foster, Hawley).
 As the Mind Cure and homeopathy, which developed from mesmerism and vitalism, undergirds the Faith Cure in men like the homeopathic doctors Dr. Foster and Dr. Cullis, who were themselves roots of the Higher Life and Faith Cure doctrines of people like William Boardman and Hannah and Robert Pearsall Smith, so Mary Baker Eddy’s Christian Science developed from the “mind-cure . . . homeopathy . . . mesmerism . . . and the magnetic doctor, Mr. P. P. Quimby,” from whom “she had learned her system.” “Quimby was . . . the founder of the whole school of Mental-Healers which . . . flourished in America through the . . . half-century [of the late 1900s]” (pgs. 272-274, Counterfeit Miracles, Warfield). The Mind Cure involved one convincing himself he was not really sick, but perfectly healthy, and believing it was so, because of a healing Power; the Faith Cure likewise involved one convincing himself that he was not really sick, but pefectly healthy, and believing it was so, because of a healing Power. The Faith and Mind Cures were by no means two separated and unrelated phenomena, but were the same fundamental error and two names or emphases of one and the same movement.
For more information see, e. g., James Monroe Buckley, Faith-Healing, Christian Science and Kindred Phenomena (New York: The Century Co., 1898); Paul G. Chappell, “The Divine Healing Movement in America” (Ph. D. diss., Drew University, 1983); Heather D. Curtis, “‘The Lord for the Body’: Pain, Suffering and the Practice of Divine Healing in Late-Nineteenth-Century American Protestantism.” (Th. D. diss., Harvard University, 2005).
 Pg. 57, Life of Henry Foster, Hawley. Foster’s brother “Dr. Hubbard became an avowed and pronounced homeopathist,” and, naturally, Foster had “intimate association with his brother, Dr. Hubbard” (pgs. 17-18, ibid.).
 Pgs. 169-170, Life of Henry Foster, Hawley.
 Pg. 169, Life of Henry Foster, Hawley.
 Pg. 161, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 4: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, Herman Bavinck.
 Pgs. 23-25, Life of Henry Foster, Hawley.
 Pgs. 174-175, Life of Henry Foster, Hawley.
 Pg. 90, Life of Henry Foster, Hawley.
 Pgs. 22-26, Life of Henry Foster, Hawley.
 Pgs. 54-56, Life of Henry Foster, Hawley. Foster stated that his vision “was a mental thing, of course, but it was a reality to me” (pg. 55, ibid.)
 Pg. 27, Life of Henry Foster, Hawley; see pg. 33.
 Pgs. 18-21, Life of Henry Foster, Hawley.
 Pg. 27, Life of Henry Foster, Hawley.
 Pgs. 140-141, Life of Henry Foster, Hawley.
 Pg. 81, Life of Henry Foster, Hawley.
 Pgs. 230-231, The Modern Mission Century Viewed as a Cycle of Divine Working, Arthur T. Pierson. New York, NY: Baker & Taylor Co., 1901. The closer the contact, the higher the elevation, no doubt.
 Pgs. 34-35, Remarkable Relations, Barbara Strachey. Strachey’s book supplies ample difficult to obtain original source material.
 Hannah Smith publicly claimed that, at least at this time, she did not accept Dr. Foster’s teaching in every detail; she admits only that others did. For example, Hannah wrote about what had happened when she had explained their experiences at Dr. Foster’s sanatorium to a friend, Quaker minister Sarah F. Smiley:
When I told her of my experiences at the water cure [Dr. Foster’s hydropathic sanatorium] . . . she seized upon it . . . putting herself under the teaching of the doctor there, hoping that she might learn his strange secrets. The result was that she went into the wildest extravagences. . . . Among other things she felt it her duty to ask him to stand naked before her, and also to do the same thing herself before him. To what other lengths she went I have never known. . . . She really believed that Christ had often come to her at night when in bed, as the real Bridegroom, and had actually had a bridegroom’s connection with her. She taught this doctrine to a choice circle of friends and even tried by personal contact to produce in them those physical thrills which she believed were the actual contact of the Holy Ghost. (pg. 39, Remarkable Relations, Strachey)
However, in her narrative above, in order to make herself look better, Hannah distances herself and understates her influence in leading Sarah Smiley into the erotic Baptism heresy. Elsewhere, in a writing which was only to be circulated posthumously and in which she attempted to conceal the identify of Dr. Foster, Hannah admitted that she was the immediate instrument of Sarah’s entering into the erotic experience:
Another friend of mine . . . whom I had told about Dr. R., received while I was talking to her, what she believed was the Baptism, and began to experience right there thrills of rapture from head to foot, which completely carried her away. . . . [S]he [came] to spend most of her time lying on the sofa trying to induce [the thrills] to come. She also . . . felt it her duty to kiss several men, with the idea that through that means God would bestow either great blessings upon them or greater blessings upon herself. She had felt led to kiss Mr. L. [the Methodist sexual predator discussed above]. . . . [Indeed,] a great many saintly women . . . one after another . . . would in some mysterious way begin to “feel led” to give him a kiss . . . the called for kiss bestowed . . . floods of joy and peace would fill their souls. . . . She was impressed with the idea that through this performance God would bestow the Baptism of the Spirit upon the receipient of her kisses. . . . [She] was so good and pure minded that we all called her “Saint Sarah[.]” . . . This dear Saint was so enmoured of what she called “The Touch of God,” that she spent a large part of her time seeking for it and enjoying it, until it finally became a sort of possession . . . a very good Christian lady . . . said . . . [she] was possessed of the devil. (pgs. 194-202, 246-248, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey)
Smiley became part of what was known as the “Boston Party,” following the “outgrowth of Dr. Foster’s idea.” Smiley testified that the Boston Party was “far ahead of all other Holiness meetings she has ever attended in spirituality, direct guidance, etc.” (Letter to Robert, December 4, 1873, reproduced in the entry for July 8 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter). Smiley also set forth the typical Higher Life and Keswick allegorization of the book of Joshua, including a doctrine of post-conversion Spirit baptism, in her The Fulness of Blessing; or, The Gospel of Christ, as Illustrated from the Book of Joshua (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1876). It is noteworthy, in light of Hannah’s revelations of Smiley’s activities with Dr. Foster, that Smiley’s discussion of post-conversion Spirit baptism allegorically eisegeted into Joshua includes an extensive note decrying the “tendency to ignore the importance of the body, [which] proceeds from a general lack of insight into the Scriptural philosophy of nature and of spirit” (pg. 89).
Of course, Boston was the place from which the Faith and Mind Cures of Dr. Cullis and Mary Baker Eddy spread in the background of Higher Life teaching, rejection of sola Scriptura, fanaticism, and demonism.
 Pgs. 165-172, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey.
 Compare Hannah Smith’s description of her related experience near Clifton Springs through her surrender to the Inward Voice in her Letter to Sisters of August 14, 1879, reproduced in the entry for September 19 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, ed. Dieter.
 This principle that blessings not confessed immediately were lost carried over to the foundational pre-Keswick Conventions, into the Keswick movement, and into the Pentecostal and Word of Faith movements; thus, e. g., the Oxford Convention proclaimed: “None retain the blessing of full faith [the Higher Life], and its consequent victory, who refuse to acknowledge, on suitable occasions, what God has done for them. The saintly John Fletcher four times fell back into the old level by fearing to witness for this grace of God” (pgs. 284-285, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874). Fletcher was the central theologian of Wesleyan Perfectionism (see, e. g, “How John Fletcher Became the Theologian of Wesleyan Perfectionism, 1770–1776,” T. L. Smith. Wesleyan Theological Journal 15:1 (Spring 1980): 68–87).
 Swedenborgianism is another demonic and spiritualist cult that Hannah W. Smith viewed in a positive light, as did, among others, Mr. and Mrs. Mount-Temple.
 Pgs. 173-181, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey.
 pg. 38, Remarkable Relations, Strachey, citing a letter from October 21, 1873. Hannah later became less enthusiastic about Dr. Foster’s doctrine and then rejected it, but her husband continued to believe and promulgate it secretly until it caused his public downfall.
 Pg. 317, The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors, D. M. Lloyd-Jones. Robert had earlier received entire sanctification and a less erotic spiritual Baptism at a Methodist Holiness meeting, where he learned that “one can be sanctified by faith just as one was saved by faith” (February 5-6, The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter).
 The doctrine was a regular theme of Robert P. Smith, and many adopted it as a result of his propogation of it; cf. pgs. 233-234, 238, 251, 255-260, 466-467, 470, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875.
 Pg. 39, Remarkable Relations, Strachey.
 Pg. 48, Remarkable Relations, Strachy; cf. pg. 104.
 Pg. 50, Remarkable Relations, Strachey. This meeting took place in 1876 under Robert Smith’s preaching at a camp meeting in the United States after his downfall in England. Note that Robert was still, obviously, promulgating the doctrine of the erotic Baptism even after being forced to leave England after the Brighton Convention because of it.
Other manifestations of fanaticism ascribed to the Holy Spirit at another camp meeting the Smiths graced were similar to those experienced by early Quakerism: “The ladies . . . at our house this spring have that quaking under the power of the Spirit that gave the early Friends the name of Quakers. Mrs. Ashmead and Mrs. Bond both quake wonderfully at times. And yet neither of them are at all remarkable for any depth of natural character” (pgs. 51-52, ibid.).
 Pg. 162, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey.
 Pg. 36, The Keswick Story, Polluck.
 Letter to a Friend, February 12, 1876, reproduced in the entry for July 30 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Pg. 43, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874. Compare Jessie Penn-Lewis’s affirmations that Spirit baptism brings one to revelations of the world of darkness, discussed below in the chapter concerning her and Evan Roberts.
 Pg. 251, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874. Mr. Smith affirms that he does not wish, at that time, “to point so much to the phenomena . . . as to the reality . . . of the coming of the Spirit” (pg. 251), for an open and explicit declaration of the erotic phenomena he thought accompanied the Baptism were not fit to be proclaimed publicly.
 Robert explained that in his public discourse he did “not wish to point so much to the phenomena,” for he was not willing to explain plainly the eroticism of his doctrine to everyone present at the Oxford Convention.
 Pgs. 244-259, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
 While this writer feels it is necessary to print the following quotation, it is exceedingly grievous to His soul to have the infinitely holy God, and the perfect purity of Jesus Christ, blasphemed in the manner that it is by those who understood and accepted the Bridal Baptism doctrine. The glorious, blessed, and truly spiritual union of the Redeemer with His espoused church is a wonderful and awesome truth which it is the depths of vileness to drag into the gutter as the Bridal Baptism heresy does. This writer perfectly understands, and has great sympathy with, those who would prefer to simply pass by without reading such quotations, with their double entendres for the initiated and the uninitiated, so that his mind does not need to think upon the despicable evil intended in such public proclamations for the initiated. Singing or reading Psalm 109 might be an appropriate response by those who truly love that One before whom the seraphim sing “Holy, Holy, Holy”—or even a good preparation for the reading of the following quotation, and the rest of the quotes exposing the filthy doctrine of the Smiths and other Higher Life promulgators elsewhere in this composition.
 For, in private, the Bridal Baptism doctrine could be more openly set forth; more private explication was the practice of its advocates, whether Robert and Hannah W. Smith, Laurence Oliphant, or sexual predators who claimed that they were fathering an exalted new human race.
 Compare Logan P. Smith’s description of the erotic Baptism doctrine as “the doctrine of ‘Loving-kindness’” (Pgs. 60-65, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith).
 Pgs. 236-239, 270-271, 300-302, 306-314, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874. The Oxford Ladies’ Meetings were led by Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Boardman (pg. 289).
Once again, this writer begs the pardon of his reader for reproducing and calling to mind the trashy filth meant by the initiated into the Bridal Baptism secret. Reader, know that this writer sympathizes with you if you desire to vomit. Were such quotations introduced for an insignificant purpose, they would certainly be unjustifiable—they are reproduced only because they represent the thinking of those who have profoundly influenced the doctrine of sanctification of huge portions of Christiandom—a fact that would be almost absolutely unbelievable, apart from clear evidence such as that provided in this composition, and one which illustrates how deeply Satan has laid his deceptions.
 Letter to a Friend, February 12, 1876, reproduced in the entry for July 30 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Pg. 19, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
 Pg. 215, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874.
 Pgs. 371-372, 384-385, Account of the Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness, Held at Oxford, August 29 to September 7, 1874. Chicago: Revell, 1874. It should not be a surprise that those who pointedly affirmed, “I cannot remember . . . my conversion” were prominent among the people who “heard Mr. Smith’s address on the baptism of the Holy Spirit” and received the “conscious . . . blessing” he proclaimed (pgs. 384-385).
 Hannah called Dr. Foster’s heresy “the subtle doctrine concerning the physical manifestation of the Holy Spirit which led my dear husband astray” (pg. 48, Remarkable Relations, Strachy; cf. pg. 104). Mrs. Smith, as usual, downplays her own adoption of the erotic Baptism teaching.
 Thus, for example, Hannah Smith was staying at Clifton Springs in July 1879 (see Letter to Anna, written from Clifton Springs on July 8, 1879, reproduced in the entry for September 16 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter).
 July 27-28, The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Victorian sensibilities and the fact that Hannah Smith’s writings on fanaticism and various other writings were intentionally left unpublished during her lifetime account, in part, for the fact that early critics of the Keswick theology did not strongly identify the connection between Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s Higher Life doctrine and mystical, erotic bridal union. However, the central factor is a deliberate decision to supress this portion of her and her husband’s history, both by the Higher Life men in England who forced Robert out when he was found in Miss Hattie Hamilton’s bedroom initially, and by the Smith family themselves. Concealement was sought, rather than open repentance of and renunciation of such filthiness. Hannah certainly sought to deliberately cover up her husband’s practices and spiritual shipwreck, both at the time and during his later decline into agnosticism: “I think the thing to say about Robert when anyone asks about him is just this, that he never recovered from the nervous shock of that time in England, and that he is suffering an eclipse of faith from actual nervous collapse” (Letter to Priscilla, November 22, 1883, reproduced in the entry for August 12 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter). She similarly sought to cover up her own adoption and propogation of the erotic doctrine.
 Of course, both those who engaged in immoral debauchery, believing that such was the method through which Spirit baptism and the Higher Life were obtained, and those who taught and led others to adopt such perversions, were free from “all evil intention.” They were sincere in their indulgence of lustful passions, and their intentions were good, or so they claimed, while their actions were utterly shameful.
 That is, the mysterious declaration of Robert Pearsall Smith’s friends about unnamed “doctrines” that were “dangerous” was as far as B. B. Warfield was able to penetrate in his day when he wrote the articles that came to constitute Studies in Perfectionism; it was as much as Stephen Barabas chose to divulge in the hagiographical and revisionist history in So Great Salvation, although in Barabas’ day the truth was much more easily accessible than it was in the days of Warfield (see pgs. 26-27, So Great Salvation, Barabas & Warfield, Perfectionism, vol. 2, pgs. 505ff.). Unfortunately, the coverup of Robert P. Smith by Keswick advocates such as Barabas, despite the now clearly accessible facts, continues in the work of many other modern advocates of Keswick theology. For example, one notes the fantastic understatement on pg. 30 of Transforming Keswick: The Keswick Convention, Past, Present, and Future, by Price & Randall, that Robert P. Smith’s downfall was caused by nothing more than that he put his arm around Miss Hamilton; Price & Randall breathe not a whisper about erotic bridal mysticism. J. C. Polluck (pgs. 34-36, The Keswick Story: The Authorized History of the Keswick Convention) says that he is revealing the truth, since the “facts have lain hidden for nearly ninety years inviting sensational speculation,” and then goes on to relate that “the truth is pathetic rather than shocking,” for Smith simply told a woman a false doctrine—the character of which Polluck leaves unnamed—“with his arm around her in his hotel room.” It is difficult to think that Polluck’s claim that he is finally making the truth clear, and there is nothing “shocking” about it, and then stating that Robert Smith put his arm around Miss Hamilton, while Polluck refuses to breathe a syllable about erotic bridal mysticism, is anything other than a deliberate coverup to make Mr. Smith look better. It is similar to Polluck’s refusal to mention that Smith turned agnostic and then Buddhist. Nevertheless, the preface to Polluck’s book by A. T. Houghton, Chairman of the Keswick Council, declares that Polluck “does not cover up the failings of those whom God has used in the leadership of the Convention, nor would the Council desire to hide anything” (pg. 10). Mr. Smith’s unconfirmed self-testimony that he had good intentions (Oliphant and the whole host of fanatics advocating erotic bridal mysticism and practicing immorality as a consequence had good intentions also) when he had his arm around Miss Hattie Hamilton alone in a hotel room is mentioned; the fact that he told her of erotic bridal mysticism is unmentioned, the fact that at the Brighton Convention Miss Hamilton threw her arms around Mr. Smith and kissed him in Mrs. Smith’s presence is unmentioned, and the fact that Miss Hamilton said Robert sought to commit adultery with her is not mentioned (cf. pgs. 78-82, The Secret Life of Hannah Whitall Smith, Marie Henry; pg. 111, Let Go and Let God? A Survey and Analysis of Keswick Theology, Naselli). Keswick advocates who cover up the abominations of the founders and propogators of the Keswick theology are in plain violation of 1 Timothy 5:20: “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.” However, while they violate the Apostle Paul’s command in 1 Timothy 5:20, they practice Robert P. Smith’s view that one is to do exactly the opposite of 1 Timothy 5:20—according to Mr. Smith, a Divine “curse” falls “on those who expose the sin of their brethren or their fathers in Christ” (pg. 42, Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness Held at Brighton, May 29th to June 7th, 1875. Brighton: W. J. Smith, 1875).
 This difficulty is felt if the people involved are unconverted heretics not indwelt by the Spirit of truth, so that all their religion is not spiritual, but natural or devilish. The confusion of fornication and spirituality consequently had much in it to attract Mr. and Mrs. Pearsall Smith, although it is utterly abominable to those truly born of God.
 Mrs. Smith contributed to her husband’s adoption of erotic bridal mysticism, but she also turned away from it before he did.
 That is, Mr. Smith would especially seek to share this teaching with unmarried women of an age relatively near to his own.
 Did one of these ladies grow jealous of knowledge of this “truth,” or jealous when it was acted upon with another person with whom she wished to act upon it herself?
 Pgs. 60-65, Unforgotten Years, Logan Pearsall Smith; cf. pgs. 61-62, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Indeed, in light of the association of the Cowper Temples with Laurence Oliphant and other practicioners and promulgators of the doctrine that one must engage in immorality to receive Spirit baptism, the noble family’s inability to see anything wrong with the doctrine of the preachers at whose feet they sat, and whom they promoted, is understandable.
 See pgs. 65-69, Unforgotten Years, Logan P. Smith, and Hannah W. Smith’s mystified amazement with the Higher Life power both she and her husband still possessed although without all consecration (pgs. 251-253, Religious Fanaticism: Extracts from the Papers of Hannah Whitall Smith, ed. & intr. Ray Strachey; pgs. 172-174, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Smith. Letters to her daughter, Mary Berenson, January 1, 1905 & February 25, 1905; pgs. 32-36, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Letter to Mrs. Anna Shipley, August 8, 1876; Letter to a Friend, August 8, 1876, reproduced in the entries for August 2-4 of The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter. Mrs. Smith’s ruminations over her ability to generate Higher Life results in a state of utter unconsecration has been examined above.).
 Pg. 14, Religious Fanaticism, Strachey.
 Pgs. 61-62, A Religious Rebel: The Letters of “H. W. S,” ed. Logan Pearsall Smith. Logan explains further:
My father . . . had begun to lose his faith in the whole scheme of Salvation which he had so fervently advocated[.] . . . His situation was thus an awkward one; he had still a reputation in the religious world, he still possessed the hypnotic power of swaying great audiences, and many calls were made upon him to address meetings and administer religious instruction to souls in trouble. Invitations to preach he could avoid on the grounds of health, but the religious inquirers who called at the house, coming sometimes from as far as from Russia, were the source of greater embarrassment; and I remember how desperately he would try to keep one or the other of his children in the room to avoid the necessity of a spiritual dialogue, and how quite heartlessly we would escape from it, leaving him to grapple alone with these spiritual inquirers. This we thought great fun. (pgs. 72-73, Unforgotten Years, Logan P. Smith)
 July 27-28, The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.
 Pgs. 175, 85, The Secret Life of Hannah Whitall Smith, Marie Henry. As Logan P. Smith notes, Robert began to turn towards agnosticism when it became apparent that all the “blessing” that he had felt and experienced from the time of his consecration to preaching the Higher Life in conjunction with his erotic Baptism to his final Higher Life meeting under Dr. Cullis’s encouragement in America after his downfall following the Brighton Convention was a delusion—the presence of the identical spiritual “power” and “blessing” that characterized his best earlier Higher Life ministrations in his final meeting when in an evident state of unconsecration and ungodliness was the beginning of his final fall. Rather than recognizing that he was in need of true conversion by receiving the true gospel and coming into a true living union with the resurrected Christ so that he could have real spiritual power, Robert concluded that the marvelous effects wrought by his own natural abilities, while under the delusion that his Higher Life agitation was genuinely spiritual, were a demonstration that there could well be nothing to religion other than the psychical powers analyzable by a Psychical Research Society, and perhaps no God at all.
 Pgs. 70-71, 320, 51, Remarkable Relations, Strachey, pg. 117, The Secret Life of Hannah Whitall Smith, Marie Henry.
 Pg. 74, Remarkable Relations, Strachey.
 “Smith, Hannah Whitall & Smith, Robert Pearsall,” Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, ed. Tim Larson, pg. 617. Cf. pg. 107, Strachey, Remarkable Relations, pg. 127, The Secret Life of Hanah Whitall Smith, Henry.
 Consider the testimony in 1912 of onetime Holiness leader Harry Ironside on the evil fruits of the Higher Life and “second blessing” theology: “[T]housands are yearly being disheartened and discouraged by their teaching . . . hundreds yearly are ensnared into infidelity through the collapse of the vain effort to attain the unattainable . . . scores have actually lost their minds and are now inmates of asylums because of the mental resultant upon their bitter disappointment in the search for holiness” (pg. 6, Holiness: The False and the True).
 In his earlier years, Robert P. Smith preached erotic baptism to unmarried women. “In his later years, Robert was unfaithful to his wife” (pg. 173, The Secret Life of Hannah Whitall Smith, Marie Henry; cf. pgs. 99-105 & Remarkable Relations, Strachey, pgs. 184-187). Robert fell under the doom pronounced in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-21 & Revelation 21:8.
 Compare Romans 16:17-18 with 16:1-16.