A Portrait of How the Azusa Doctrine of Spirit Baptism Shaped American Pentecostalism
By Harold D. Hunter
The 20th century witnessed the birth and phenomenal growth of what is known in North America as the classical Pentecostal movement. During the first half of the century the reactions of traditional church leaders, theologians, psychologists, and sociologists were almost unanimously negative. Many believed Pentecostals were emotionally disturbed, mentally limited, inherently sociologically deprived, and concluded that the pneumatic unction claimed by Pentecostals was not genuine. Many today hold these same views, yet the ecclesiastical landscape has been so sufficiently rearranged many traditions have reevaluated their opposition to the Pentecostal movement.
This is due largely to the metamorphosis of the Movement itself and the fact its influence has spread to much of Christianity around the world. The surprise for many in the 1960s was that this expanse included the mainline Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic Church.
The wider Christian community has also had to reckon more seriously with Pentecostalism because of the dramatic increase in the size of the Movement. Some were startled when David Barrett’s 1982 World Christian Encyclopedia named classical Pentecostalism as the largest group in the Protestant family. Most impressive has been the impact on theological inquiry. Although studies in pneumatology preceded the 20th century, some periods have been characterized by benign neglect. Today the trickle of research in pneumatology has turned into a flood. There are now lengthy bibliographies devoted solely to the Holy Spirit. Pentecostal studies were added to the curriculum of universities — Harvard, Cambridge, the University of Amsterdam, the University of South Africa, and Trinity College (Singapore) — where previously such courses were unheard of — increasingly clear that informed theologians can no longer make the Holy Spirit a mere addendum to their systems.
The following analysis shows how the teaching of initial evidence Spirit baptism spread by the Azusa Street revival changed North American Christianity. This change is well illustrated by groups in the South, especially those identified with the Wesleyan wing of the Holiness movement.
Spirit Baptism And Xenolalia
Agnes Ozman LaBerge
When Agnes Ozman spoke in tongues at the opening of the 20th century in Charles Fox Parham’s Bethel Bible College in Topeka, Kansas, she helped build the framework of the first version of the initial-evidence doctrine propagated in North America. Parham taught that subsequent to salvation a person must be sanctified and made free from all sin. Those sanctified were candidates for the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the invariable sign of speaking in tongues. These tongues were defined as known human languages, which gave rise to the technical term xenolalia. The idea that initial-evidence tongues were xenolalic was not only an irrefutable evidence of a divine act, but many also believed this meant missionaries had no need to learn new languages because they would be instantly given the language needed for their missionary endeavor.
Although it was reported that Ozman spoke and wrote Chinese for days in 1901, she would later write that at the time she did not consider tongues-speech the exclusive evidence of Spirit baptism.
Ozman did not immediately join a Pentecostal denomination. In 1911, she and her husband Philemon LaBerge joined the Oklahoma Conference of the Fire-Baptized Holiness Church. Ozman had been exposed to Fire-Baptized adherents prior to having spoken in tongues in Topeka. Parham met Fire-Baptized enthusiasts in Topeka on his arrival in 1898 and encountered FBHC founder B.H. Irwin sometime before 1901.
Xenolalic Spirit baptism was taught at the Azusa Street revival and then spread around the globe. Pentecostal Holiness Church leaders such as G.B. Cashwell and G.F. Taylor encouraged potential missionaries to trust God to provide the necessary languages. Cashwell believed learning foreign languages in colleges would take too long and Jesus would come soon. Taylor ridiculed “scholarly clergymen and high-steeple officials” who wondered how to spread the gospel as being “19 centuries behind the times.” So, while Pentecostal churches and periodicals struggled to spread their message throughout the Southeast, they also solicited collections for foreign missions.
Shortly after Cashwell’s 1907 revival at Dunn, North Carolina, laypeople and leaders set out to places such as China, Japan, and India. Among those was phc minister T.J. McIntosh.
McIntosh, who apparently was the first Pentecostal missionary to reach China, was the test case that revised a critical piece of this emerging formula. McIntosh was one of many who believed his xenolalic tongues were Chinese. Once in China he lamented in the Bridegroom’s Messenger, “Oh! How we would love to speak to these poor people. Of course, God speaks with our tongues, but not their language.” Reports that McIntosh and other missionaries were unable to communicate with people because God did not miraculously provide them with a foreign language caused considerable discomfort for Pentecostals. This news also elicited further criticism from their opponents.
The teaching on Spirit baptism was modified in Cashwell’s inaugural issue of The Bridegroom’s Messenger 1:1 (1 October 1907).Here he specifically contrasted xenolalia with languages learned at colleges for evangelizing the world. He called the “gift of tongues” (1 Corinthians 12) xenolalic in contrast with initial-evidence tongues or glossolalia. Cashwell argued that McIntosh and others who thought they had the gift of tongues were pure in their motives, but mistaken. Cashwell criticized the disunity these misunderstandings were causing, and called on Pentecostals to pray that missionaries would attain the necessary gift. As for himself, Cashwell realized that he had only obtained manifestations of tongues, but he continued to expect the gift of tongues just as much as he expected to see Jesus. In subsequent years, the phc greatly escalated its missionary outreach, but also made concessions by adopting stringent requirements for its missionaries, utilizing translators, and sponsoring a more traditional approach to acquiring foreign languages.
The Invariable Sign
As various Holiness denominations were introduced to the fledgling Pentecostal movement through accounts of the Azusa Street revival or by their own members who went to Los Angeles, they uniformly grappled with the doctrinal consequences of this new spiritual dynamic. Many realized they must abandon the idea that they had been baptized in the Spirit when they were sanctified. This transition was met with strong resistance by some, yet many were willing to seek the Pentecostal baptism in the Spirit.
Holiness Pentecostals were extremely interested in how Spirit baptism could enhance their ministry. When one considers their long-standing emphasis on the practical outworkings of Holiness theology, their fixation on Holy Spirit empowerment seems natural.
Pentecostal Holiness Church)
For African-American Holiness Pentecostals such as W.J. Seymour and C.H. Mason, emphasis was also placed on racial reconciliation. After the temple is cleansed, reasoned these warriors, it must be filled. Here glossolalia was the initial physical evidence and empowerment was the prize. Also, the congregation was expected to accept public manifestations of tongues-speech, particularly the charism of tongues.
What did not remain without controversy, however, was the belief that Pentecostal baptism in the Spirit was always evidenced by speaking in tongues. When Taylor of the phc adopted the new teaching, he judged that tongues as initial evidence was scripturally sound. He believed that when groups refused to accept this position, it was grounds for division in the Holiness movement. And Taylor was not disappointed when his own church and other like bodies suffered losses due to including the new Pentecostal dimension of spirituality to their strict Holiness statement of faith.
Pentecostal Holiness Church)
A.B. Crumpler embraced the name Pentecostal Holiness Church as early as 1898. Apparently, Crumpler appropriated this name from a series of books devoted to the Holiness Movement. Published in Cincinnati, Ohio, by Martin Wells Knapp, the books were known as the Pentecostal Holiness Library.
The convention of the phc, which met in Magnolia, North Carolina, in 1901, decided to change the name of the church. Many members, wishing to avoid social embarrassment, did not include the word holiness when referring to their church. Instead they claimed to be members of the Pentecostal church. The official deletion of the word Pentecostal — which was opposed by Crumpler — was designed to force adherents to be more straightforward about their commitment to holiness. After that convention the official name was The Holiness Church of North Carolina. After many members received the baptism in the Spirit according to Acts 2:4, the word Pentecostal was restored to the church’s name on November 25, 1909, at Falcon, North Carolina. The church then returned to its original name, the Pentecostal Holiness Church.
Another example is the Nazarene Church founded by Phineas F. Bresee. It was first known as the Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene. The term Pentecostal, however, was dropped after the Azusa Street revival.
The commitment to the emerging, initial-evidence teachings can be measured by what was written at the time about the Spirit baptism of persons who could not hear or speak. The first issue of The Apostolic Faith 1:1 (September 1906) refers to Esquimaux as a language for the hearing and speech impaired. By contrast, the early PHC paper, The Holiness Advocate, 15 May 1906, reported on the hearing and speech impaired who were Spirit baptized but did not speak in tongues. Yet, Taylor firmly stated in The Spirit and the Bride that hearing- and speech-impaired believers must speak in tongues to be certifiably baptized in the Spirit. King’s The Apostolic Evangel 1:1 (15 February 1909) reprinted a report from Confidence claiming a hearing- and speech-impaired woman “began to speak under the power of the Spirit. She began to speak in Hindustant and testified to Mohammedans. Afterwards she lost Hindustani and got the Telegu, her native language.”
More potent illustrations of the reactions to Spirit baptism dogma arising from the Azusa Street revival can be found among well-known Holiness groups in the South including the Church of God in Christ, the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), the phc, and the FBHC.
Forgotten Roots Of The Azusa Street Revival
Writing during the glow of the Azusa Street revival, V.P. Simmons claimed to have 42 years of personal exposure to those who spoke in tongues. Published in 1907 by Bridegroom’s Messenger and circulated as a tract, Simmons chronicled the history of Spirit baptism from Irenaeus (2nd century) up to and including a group from New England whom he personally observed manifesting tongues-speech as they continually partook of a spiritual baptism.1 Identified as Gift People or Gift Adventists, they were widely known for their involvement with spectacular charisms.Early Pentecostal periodicals reported that tongues-speech was known among these groups since the latter part of the 19th century. Some groups were said to number in the thousands.2
William H. Doughty, who, by 1855, had spoken in tongues while in Maine, was counted among that number. Elder Doughty moved to Providence, Rhode Island, in 1873 and assumed leadership among those exercising the gifts of the Spirit.3 Doughty’s mantle was passed on to Elder R.B. Swan who, reacting to the Azusa Street revival, wrote a letter explaining that the Gift People in Rhode Island had experienced speaking in tongues as early as 1874–75. (See “The Work of the Spirit in Rhode Island.”)B.F. Lawrence followed Swan’s letter describing an independent account of a woman who spoke in tongues in New York, perhaps prior to 1874, a result of her contact with the Gift People.4 (See “A Wonderful Healing Among The Gift People.”)
Stanley H. Frodsham quotes Pastor Swan’s claim to having spoken in tongues in 1875. Swan speaks of great crowds drawn from five states and specifically mentions his wife — along with Amanda Doughty and an invalid hunchback who was instantly healed — among those who spoke in tongues during this time.5
Pentecostal Holiness Church)
Simmons said that Swan’s group adopted the name “The Latter Rain” after the advent of the Pentecostal movement. Their activities extended throughout New England states, especially Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Connecticut, with the 1910 Latter Rain Convention held October 14–16 in Quakertown, Connecticut.6 Frank Bartleman frequently referred to joint speaking engagements with Swan, specifically recounting a 1907 tour that included a convention in Providence, Rhode Island, where he spoke 18 times.7
Previously overlooked in related investigations is whether the Doughty family counted among the Gift People overlap with the Doughty who traveled with Frank Sandford. Lawrence attests that Swan’s circle included William H. Doughty’s daughter-in-law, Amanda Doughty, and her unnamed husband, an elder in the Providence congregation.8 Simmons says that William H. Doughty had two sons, the oldest, Frank, who was ordained. Could the unnamed brother of Frank be Edward Doughty, who at the end of the 19th century was part of Sandford’s entourage?9 So it seems.
Daniel Awrey and family
Pentecostal Holiness Church)
S.D. Page and F.M. Britton (right)
Pentecostal Holiness Church)
Most of the groups named here have similar stories. For example, among the Fire-Baptized Holiness ranks was Daniel Awrey who had spoken in tongues in 1890 in Ohio. His residence was in Beniah, Tennessee, where an outbreak of speaking in tongues was reported in 1899. F.M. Britton wrote about people speaking in tongues in his Fire-Baptized revivals that predated the Azusa Street revival. Also, a revival in Cherokee County, North Carolina, in 1896, that gave the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) many of its early leaders reported an outburst of speaking in tongues among several of the adherents.
Given the above accounts, there is some debate as to whether Parham first heard speaking in tongues while at Sandford’s Shiloh in Maine or while he was among Fire-Baptized enthusiasts.
Cashwell Storms The South With The Message Of Azusa
Pentecostal Holiness Church
Crumpler, founder of the phc, learned of the Pentecostal mission from Bartleman’s reports of the Azusa Street revival that were published in 1906 in J.M. Pike’s Way of Faith.Cashwell, a North Carolina preacher in Crumpler’s church, traveled to Los Angeles and obtained the Pentecostal experience firsthand.
After a hasty return to his hometown of Dunn, North Carolina, Cashwell rented a large tobacco warehouse and announced plans for a New Year’s Eve revival. Along with many laypeople, most of the ministers of the phc, the FBHC, and the Free-Will Baptist Churches sought and accepted the Pentecostal experience.
Cashwell preached Seymour’s doctrine. Crumpler made his opposition to Cashwell clear. Although Crumpler was willing to accept speaking in tongues, he did not accept the fact it was the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Through his paper, Crumpler insisted that tongues-speech was only one of many gifts of the Spirit that could accompany a spiritual Baptism. Crumpler was fighting a losing battle. In the same 15 May 1906 issue of the Holiness Advocate in which he unconditionally attacked the new doctrine, more than a dozen testimonies from Holiness people who had obtained or hoped soon to receive the tongues experience appeared, including one that scolded Crumpler for helping Satan and hurting God’s work by denying the essentiality of tongues.
Pentecostal Holiness Church)
Two parties developed in the phc: Pentecostal and non-Pentecostal. An issue developed in the 1907 annual meeting with Crumpler, the president, leading the attack against the Pentecostal faction, and Vice President A.H. Butler defending them. Crumpler and Butler were both re-elected and the issue was put off for another year. The climatic battle occurred at the 1908 convention that met in the Holiness Tabernacle at Dunn, North Carolina, on November 26, 1908. Crumpler, who was unanimously re-elected, finally brought the matter to a head by walking out of the convention. Only a small portion of the church supported him. He soon returned to the Methodist Church in Clinton, North Carolina, where his ministerial license was restored in 1913, and he served as a supply pastor for several years. The convention ended with Butler as president. Under Butler’s leadership, a Pentecostal view of Spirit baptism was incorporated into the phc Articles of Faith in 1908.
Fire-Baptized Holiness Church
While visiting Canada, J.H. King, general overseer of the FBHC, learned about the Azusa Street revival from a friend, A.H. Argue.Argue told him about the revival and gave him a copy of Seymour’s The Apostolic Faith. King put it away for later reading.
Pentecostal Holiness Church)
The reaction to Cashwell’s message among Fire-Baptized members was mixed. Many Fire-Baptized members were excited to hear Cashwell. Several members from King’s Toccoa, Georgia, congregation went to Dunn, North Carolina, where they, along with several more Fire-Baptized people, received the Pentecostal experience.
King did not go to the meeting, but in January he spent 10 days fasting for divine guidance. Apparently, some in King’s congregation accepted the initial-evidence doctrine before he returned to his church after his fast or had ever spoken favorably of it. It was not tongues-speech itself, but the initial-evidence doctrine that troubled him. King withstood Cashwell, in private as well as in public, during his first 3 days at Toccoa. King felt he had bested the new doctrine at each confrontation.
King put together an issue of Live Coals (13 February 1907) prior to Cashwell’s arrival at Toccoa. The issue included an article written by J. Hudson Ballard that refuted the initial-evidence doctrine. Attention was drawn to the Book of Acts to support the argument that some passages refer to tongues in connection with Spirit baptism while other passages do not. Further, the article noted that tongues are not mentioned as an evidence in the Epistles. Also, tongues could not be the exclusive evidence since this would exclude an untold number of Christians throughout Church history from the blessing. The article pointed out that the group mentioned most in connection with tongues, the Corinthians, were barely saved, and certainly unsanctified. Last, if the gift were for all Christians, it would have been included in the lists of spiritual gifts in Romans 12:6–8 and Ephesians 4:11–13. The study concluded that tongues should be used privately, that the church needs unction for evangelism instead of tongues, and that love is the chief evidence of the grace of God.
On February 14, though, King made a study of key New Testament Greek words. To his surprise, he found that neither Acts nor the best commentators available to him — Dean Alford’s Critical Notes on the New Testamentand Adam Clarke’s Commentary — supported his anti-initial-evidence arguments. He was particularly impressed with Acts 8:18 that says Simon Magus “saw.” The Greek term idon translated “saw” can also mean “hear.” So, Simon Magus must have heard speaking in tongues. Although Alford’s work did not support the idea of initial-evidence Spirit baptism (especially involving permanent xenolalia), he did argue that both the Ephesian Pentecost and this episode in Samaria included speaking in tongues. With his arguments now refuted, King, that night, sought for the Pentecostal baptism. On February 15, 1907, King received the baptism and spoke with other tongues.
In the April 1908, Anderson, South Carolina, meeting of the FBHC, the denomination changed the Basis of Union to incorporate the doctrine of Pentecost “according to its scriptural aspect.”
Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee)
A.J. Tomlinson, the first general overseer of the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), faithfully recorded in his 1913 The Last Great Conflict, how he became enlightened on Spirit baptism theology in January 1907. No source is given, but the papers by Seymour and Pike that influenced other Holiness leaders in the South are the likely source.
According to The Last Great Conflictand B.F. Lawrence’s The Apostolic Faith, in June 1907, Tomlinson and M.S. Lemons met with M.M. Pinson who was then under Cashwell, in Birmingham, Alabama. Cashwell went to Cleveland, Tennessee, in January 1908, and it was there that Tomlinson spoke in tongues, which he described as 10 different languages. Tomlinson had already begun to preach on the Azusa version of Spirit baptism, but after the Cleveland meeting he had experienced it himself. He combined his typical picturesque manner of expression and his interest in ecclesiology to suggest that Seymour was the recent originator of this crucial doctrine. He stated:
“Where did Martin Luther get the doctrine of justification by faith? From the Church of God. Where did John Wesley get the doctrine of sanctification as a definite and instantaneous experience subject to justification? From the Church of God. Where did Dr. Simpson get the doctrine of divine healing? The Church of God. Where did Dr. Seamore [sic] get the doctrine he preached in Los Angeles, California, a few years ago, that not only stirred that city and our own beloved America, but also the countries across the deep blue sea, yea, and many parts of the world. Where did he get the doctrine — the baptism in the Holy Spirit and the speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance as the evidence? From the Church of God.”
An incident in 1909 further reflects resistance to the Azusa version of the Spirit baptism theology in Cleveland, Tennessee. In 1909, Tomlinson, the pastor of a local Church of God in Cleveland, left the congregation in the care of John B. Goins while he traveled overseas. Goins began preaching that tongues should not be singled out as the only evidence of Spirit baptism. In his absence, Tomlinson was excommunicated and a fight ensued in the congregation. Tomlinson’s return to Cleveland led to court action, and Goins was able to keep many of the people for some time.
In 1910, Tomlinson was serving as general moderator of the Church of God when on 1 March 1910 he began publishing a periodical entitled The Evening Light and Church of God Evangel. The heading of the first issue quotes Act 2:1,4; 10:46. This issue and the one following dated 15 March 1910, contain accounts of people speaking in tongues due to their Spirit baptism. More than once these issues and many that follow refer to tongues as the Bible evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This Pentecostal emphasis is in stark contrast to Tomlinson’s previous paper known as The Way(1904–05).
Azusa Pits Mason Versus Jones Over The Future
Of The Church Of God In Christ
Pentecostal Holiness Church)
In early 1907, the news of the Azusa Street revival came to C.H. Mason and C.P. Jones,founders of the Church of God in Christ. They reacted differently. Mason, convinced from an early age that “God endowed him with supernatural characteristics, which were manifested in dreams and visions,” felt strangely drawn to investigate the Pentecostal services in Azusa.
Mason says these supernatural phenomena ended after his Spirit baptism. Jones — who may have known Seymour personally — was cool to the idea of going to California, but two other men went along with Mason.
Mason said, “The first day in the meeting I sat to myself. I saw and heard some things that did not seem scriptural to me ... when I heard some speak in tongues I knew it was right.”
Five weeks later, Mason and his party left California having all spoken in tongues. Mason’s friendship with Seymour may have begun prior to the Azusa Street revival, but after Azusa Street, Mason and Seymour remained lifelong friends. Clearly, they both affirmed racial inclusivism.
On their return to Memphis, Tennessee, Mason and his followers found that another Azusa Street veteran, Glenn A. Cook, a native white of Los Angeles, had preceded them with the Pentecostal message. The intrusion of Pentecostal doctrine under Cook’s and Mason’s leadership alienated Jones, who was then general overseer and presiding elder.
In 1907, the General Assembly of the Church of God in Christ was preoccupied with the Pentecostal issue. After a lengthy discussion, the Assembly withdrew from Mason. Those who promulgated the doctrine of speaking with tongues were denied the right hand of fellowship. Thereupon, Mason and most of the preachers and membership of the church withdrew from the Assembly. Jones remained in control of the non-Pentecostal faction. The name of his group was changed to The Church of Christ (Holiness) usa. Jones’ group never did achieve great size, especially compared to Mason’s group. However, some of the songs he wrote such as “All I Need” are still sung in Pentecostal churches.
Later in 1907, the Pentecostal faction met with Mason for their reorganization. The name Church of God in Christ was retained and the Pentecostal distinctive was incorporated into the articles of faith.
Pentecostal Tenets Account For Both Unity And Division
Holiness bodies that became Pentecostal adopted other Pentecostal tenets of faith that made them uniquely Pentecostal. Prominent among them were teachings such as healing was provided in the Atonement, the soon return of the Lord, some added feet washing to Communion services, constant praying and much fasting, daily extended study and memorization of Scripture, mutual accountability, several days and nights spent in regular worship services, revivals, conventions, retreats, camp meetings, witnessing, evangelism, world missions (including the legendary one-way ticket missionaries), visiting those in prison, and helping the poor.
Influential ecumenists are quick to point to the four classic marks of the Church, but in ecumenical dialogue the greatest emphasis lies on unity and catholicity. Pentecostals who are true to their Azusa roots ask why there is a tendency to play down the marks of holiness and apostolicity. Talk about apostolic tradition among conciliar ecumenists usually excludes charismatic gifts. The Pentecostal movement has clearly released somecharisms that were repressed. This is the result of life-transforming encounters with the Holy Spirit that engender a passion for truth and a willingness to break barriers of class, race, gender, and age. Some Pentecostals even propose evangelization as a fifth mark of the Church. This kind of emphasis left the pioneers open to tying permanent xenolalia to Spirit baptism. At all times, however, Scripture was the ultimate authority.
For generations Holiness Pentecostals were known for the fervency of their faith, and their complete resolve to hold tenaciously to common beliefs in the face of opposition. Frequently they were victims of verbal and even physical persecution.
On one hand, the in-breaking of Pentecostal spirituality into Holiness groups brought new organizations into existence. Such was the case with Free-Will Baptists who were exposed to the Azusa Street revival through the preaching of Cashwell in Dunn, North Carolina, and elsewhere. Free-Will Baptist conferences such as Cape Fear (incorporated in 1855) that later accepted the Pentecostal message evolved into the Pentecostal Free-Will Baptist Church headquartered inDunn, North Carolina.
On the other hand, division would not be absent among Holiness Pentecostals. By 1918, a group of whites in the phc who were originally part of the FBHC prior to its merger with the phc in 1911 resisted the idea of wearing ties and eating pork. They withdrew and reorganized themselves as the Pentecostal Fire-Baptized Holiness Church. This group exists today, but its numbers have steadily declined through the years.
Bishop W. E. Fuller, Sr.
Pentecostal Holiness Church)
In 1908, the FBHC suffered a division along racial lines as Jim Crow laws, court decisions such as those resulting from the Plessey versus Ferguson case (known as Separate but Equal), the Ku Klux Klan, and other forms of institutional racism gained ground in the South. Bishop W.E. Fuller, Sr., believed even to his death that he was treated fairly by Bishop J.H. King, general overseer of the FBHC. Fuller’s group met in Anderson, South Carolina, on 1 May 1908 and adopted the name Colored Fire-Baptized Holiness Church. The church is now led by Bishop W.E. Fuller, Jr., and has been known as the Fire-Baptized Holiness Church of God of the Americas since 1926. Bishop Fuller, Jr., has warmly embraced the current IPHC general superintendent James D. Leggett. So, the message of racial reconciliation that accompanied Spirit baptism, and that rang out loud and clear from the Azusa Street Mission, is still heard in Pentecostal circles today.
1. V.P. Simmons, “History of Tongues,” Bridegroom’s Messenger, 1:3 (December 1907): 2; idem, Bridegroom’s Messenger, 34 (15 March 1902): 2; idem, Bridegroom’s Messenger, 46 (15 September 1909): 2.
2. The Apostolic Faith [Los Angeles], 1:4 (1906): 3; V.P. Simmons, “History of Tongues,” Bridegroom’s Messenger, 1:3 (December 1907): 2; Bridegroom’s Messenger, 34 (15 March 1909): 2; Bridegroom’s Messenger, 46 (15 September 1909): 2; B.F. Lawrence, The Apostolic Faith Restored (St. Louis: Gospel Publishing House, 1916), 39–43; Charles Shumway, “A Critical History of Glossolalia,” (Ph.D. diss., Boston University, 1919), 109; The Apostolic Faith [Baxter Springs], 2:6 (June 1926): 1–7.
3. V.P. Simmons in Bridegroom’s Messenger, 24 (15 March 1909): 2. V.P. Simmons, “Forbid Not To Speak With Tongues,” Bridegroom’s Messenger, 3:51 (1 December 1909): 3, refers to a Rhode Island camp meeting run by Elder W.H. Doughty “many years ago” that featured “much talking in tongues.”
4. The letter, reproduced in Lawrence, Apostolic Faith Restored, 38ff, concluded: A large number have [already] received their baptism and fillings, and on 9 April 1906, when the Holy Spirit fell at Los Angeles, we were holding a convention on the same day and God’s blessing was present, one assembly was on the Pacific coast and the other on the Atlantic coast.
5. Stanley H. Frodsham, With Signs Following (Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1946), 10f.
6. V.P. Simmons in The Bridegroom’s Messenger, 34 (15 March 1909): 2; Word and Work, 32:11 (November 1910): 338f; Lawrence, 39. It was specifically noted that the group in Rhode Island included African Caribbeans.
7. Frank Bartleman, How Pentecost Came to Los Angeles, 2d ed. (Los Angeles, 1925), 126,101,105f.
8. Lawrence, 39.
9. See: Tongues of Fire, 4:21 (1 November 1898): 168; Frank S. Murray, The Sublimity of Faith (Amherst: Kingdom Press, 1981), 232,247; William Hiss, “Shiloh, Frank W. Sandford, and the Kingdom,” (Ph.D. diss., Tufts University, 1978), 247; James R. Goff, Jr., Fields White Unto Harvest: Charles F. Parham and the Missionary Origins of Pentecostalism(Fayetteville, Arkansas: University of Arkansas Press, 1986), 57. Murray counts Edward Doughty among “the seventy.”