In his article, David makes some important distinctions in the cessationist vs. continualist debate.
In other words, I am saying that I have no reason to doubt that Rutherford and Knowx and others had these experiences, but that in all likelihood, being in the Westminster Tradition, they may have recongized them for that they were - extraordinary experiences which were not normative.
This is where I think there is a disconnect between these historical figures and modern charismatics. Modern charismatics see as ordinary what those from the past saw as extraordinary. That which used to be considered unusual is now supposed to be the usual.
So, I think that, rather than modern reformed cessationism being the historical aberration, it is modern reformed charismaticism that is the aberration, at least when it seeks to turn the ordinary into the extraordinary, the unusual into the usual.
This article is worth reading no matter which side of the debate you come down on.