Sanctification and Signs #

Chapter 4

The fourth issue we shall consider comes from a widespread teaching concerning gifts of the Spirit, and their relation to Christian life as possible signs of the baptism with the Spirit. There is an important line of teaching in the New Testament relating to the gifts of the Spirit. There are numerous instances describing the exercise of these gifts. These form the scriptural background for the present-day teaching that one or more of these gifts may be considered an outward sign of the baptism with the Holy Ghost.

In our discussion of this issue, we shall rely heavily for source materials upon a book by Ralph M. Riggs entitled, The Spirit Himself.¹ The book has much to commend it. It is clear, temperate, and well documented. Mr. Riggs states his purpose in the Preface as follows:

The ministers of the Pentecostal Movement have been so busy preaching the truths vouchsafed to them in these last days, that not many writers have taken time to set down in systematic form “these things which are most surely believed among us." There are now thousands of students in our Bible Institutes and Bible Colleges who must be taught, among the doctrines of Christianity, the distinctive doctrines of our Church. Our ministers likewise are in need of additional material relating to our distinctive testimony.²

It would seem then that one might accept this volume as being fairly definitive of the position taken by one of the largest bodies of evangelical Christians who accept and teach the signs theory of the baptism with the Spirit. The position and purpose of its author would seem to justify this confidence.

The Baptism with the Spirit and Entire Sanctification #

It is in order first to consider the relationship in the New Testament between the baptism with the Spirit and the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification. These have often been separated. It has been noted that John Wesley laid little weight on the possible identity of these two operations of the divine Spirit.³ In the present day, many who stress the importance of the baptism with (or in as many of them prefer) the Holy Spirit have little or nothing to say about the effect of that baptism in relation to the problem of deliverance from sin.

It is our conviction that the New Testament gives abundant warrant for assuming that the baptism with the Spirit and entire sanctification are two aspects of one and the same work of divine grace in Christian hearts. There are five points of importance here.

1. Both Are the Heritage of Believers Only #

The baptism with the Spirit and entire sanctification are the heritage of the same class of persons, namely, those who have previously been converted. Riggs devotes two chapters⁴ to this point, and rightly affirms “that, although all believers have the Holy Spirit, yet it still remains that all believers, in addition to having the Holy Spirit, may be filled with or baptized with the Holy Spirit.”⁵ He quotes with approval the words of R. A. Torrey, first head of the Moody Bible Institute:

It is evident that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is an operation of the Holy Spirit distinct from and additional to His regenerating work. … A man may be regenerated by the Holy Spirit and still not be baptized with the Holy Spirit. In regeneration, there is the impartation of life by the Spirit’s power, and the one who receives it is saved: in the baptism with the Holy Spirit, there is the impartation of power, and the one who receives it is fitted for service.⁶

Negatively, there is nowhere in the New Testament any instance of, or promise of, any unbeliever being baptized with or filled with the Holy Spirit. Positively, every instance of, or promise of, any person being filled with or baptized with the Holy Spirit is accompanied by evidence that such a person was previously regenerated.

Similarly, the New Testament is clear on the point that only those who have been born again can experience the sanctifying fullness of the Holy Spirit. In His high-priestly prayer, a prayer devoted to the great concern that God would sanctify the disciples through His truth (John 17:17), Jesus explicitly states, I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine (v. 9); and, Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word (v. 20). The Apostle Paul addresses the Thessalonians, concerning whose status in grace there can be little question, And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray Cod your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (I Thess. 5:23).

The basic evidence that only believers can be entirely sanctified is found in the fact that all of the New Testament Epistles were addressed to those identified with the Church, and considered to be regenerated persons. Thus the score of exhortations and admonitions to sanctification, holiness, and purity of heart and life to be found therein are part of the privilege and responsibility of those who have been born again.

2. Both Are Wrought by the Spirit #

Both the baptism with the Spirit and entire sanctification are accomplished by the same agency, namely, the Spirit of God. In the case of the baptism, this is shown by the very name. To be born of the Spirit is one thing; to be baptized by the Spirit is a subsequent grace. But in each case, the efficient Agent is the Third Person of the Trinity, God’s Holy Spirit.

The same Spirit who regenerates likewise sanctifies. Consider, for example, I Pet. 1:2: Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ"; or again, II Thess. 2:13: But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because Cod hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

3. Both Are Given on the Same Conditions #

Identical conditions are set forth in the Word for receiving both the baptism with the Spirit and entire sanctification. In a chapter on “The Baptism in the Holy Spirit, How to Receive It,”⁷ Riggs sets forth four major conditions for receiving the Spirit’s fullness.

First, there must be a consciousness of salvation: “We must first pray through to a know-so salvation in which the Spirit witnesses with our spirits that we are the children of God.”⁸

Second, there must be obedience, involving “a perfect surrender to Him.” “We are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him” (Acts 5:32).

Third, we must ask in prayer, importunately. “How much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?” (Luke 11:13) Finally, we must believe. This is a gift, the author notes: “The Holy Spirit is a gracious, glorious, God-sent Gift, and we receive Him by faith and by faith alone. There is a ‘rest of faith’ into which we must enter. ‘For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his’ (Hebrews 4:10)."⁹

These are exactly the conditions set forth for the experience of Christian holiness. First, there must be a consciousness that he who seeks has been born of God. Eph. 4:20-24 shows clearly that true holiness is the privilege only of those who have learned Christ, and been taught by Him.

Second, there must be consecration, a perfect surrender to the will of God. Yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God… even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness (Rom. 6:13, 19).

Third, there must be earnest prayer in order to enter into the grace of heart holiness. In the chapter where he stresses the “greater grace" (Jas. 4:6, ASV), and says, Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye doubleminded (v. 8), James explains spiritual shortcomings in the words, Ye have not, because ye ask not (v. 2).

Finally, faith must appropriate the promise of God before the believer is entirely sanctified. Jesus commissioned Paul to preach to the Gentiles, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me (Acts 26:18). Here, as always, Without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to Cod must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him (Heb. 11:6).

4. Both Accomplish the Same Results #

The baptism with the Spirit and scriptural holiness are said to produce the same results. Riggs does not deal explicitly with the relation of the baptism with the Spirit to sin as a nature in the heart. He does indicate, however, that the Holy Spirit rebukes sin in the life, and states: “By Him also the believer is enabled to live a life of victory over sin. Holiness therefore is the outstanding characteristic of this member of the Trinity.”¹⁰ In his description of the meaning of the title “Spirit of Holiness” Riggs comments:

The Spirit of Holiness, as the spirit of judgment, uncovers and condemns all that is wrong, and as the spirit of burning, purges it out. This is a work which is not so pleasant to the believer, but is very vital to the program of God. The Bride of the Lamb must be a glorious church, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing. She must be holy and without blemish. Hence the Holy Spirit is busy sanctifying and cleansing her with the washing of water by the Word. To be filled with the Holy Spirit means to allow the Holy Spirit to search out, and condemn, and destroy all the impurities of the nature and spirit.¹¹

There is no doubt that the baptism with the Holy Spirit, so far as the Acts of the Apostles is concerned, resulted in the purifying of the hearts of those so baptized. Peter, in Acts 15:8-9, states that the coming of the Spirit resulted in “purifying their hearts by faith.”

Likewise, entire sanctification results in the purifying or cleansing of the heart. It is said in Eph. 5:25-27, that Christ “loved the church, and gave himself” to ’ sanctify and cleanse it," that it might be “holy and without blemish.” It should be noted that the word in the original translated “purifying” in Acts 15:9 is the same word as is translated “cleanse” in Eph. 5:26. There is given, then, in these two verses an equation of the baptism with the Holy Spirit, the sanctifying of the Church, and cleansing or purification of heart.

5. Both Have Similar Root Meanings #

Both baptism and sanctification have, among other root meanings, the identical meaning of washing or cleansing from impurity. To baptize is to dip, to wash, to cleanse. To sanctify is to make holy by cleansing from all defilement.

In summary, then, the baptism with the Spirit and entire sanctification are, at most, two aspects of a work of divine grace which is one and the same. The sanctified heart is baptized with the Holy Spirit. The believer who is baptized with the Holy Spirit is entirely sanctified. The baptism with the Holy Spirit is the means whereby God effects the entire sanctification of the Christian heart. This is shown in that both are wrought upon the same class of persons; by the same agency; under the same conditions; with the same results; and even the words themselves have, among other root meanings, those that are similar.

These considerations have two very practical bearings on the Christian life. First, they disprove the teaching that the baptism with the Spirit is a “third blessing” following that of entire sanctification. There is no complete holiness without the fullness of the Holy Spirit. Second, they demonstrate that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is not only for the empowering of the Christian life; it is for the cleansing of the believer’s moral nature from all depravity. The power of the Holy Spirit is the power of a clear-cut testimony backed up by a consistent life (Acts 1:8). There is power in holiness, and holiness is power (Acts 3:12).

The Evidence of the Baptism #

We turn now to that part of the so-called “Pentecostal doctrine” which presents the most clear-cut challenge to the doctrine of entire sanctification as understood in the Wesleyan tradition. It is the claim that the baptism with the Spirit is evidenced always and necessarily by an initial physical sign or proof.

Riggs concedes that “a life of intimacy with God and a walk of power in the Spirit are the best proofs that one is filled with the Spirit.”¹² He immediately goes on to say, however:

The matter which is before us now is the consideration of the initial experience of receiving the Baptism and that outward physical sign which is the evidence of this experience. The Spirit-filled realm and life is so exceedingly important for the Christian that God has arranged it so that one can know very definitely whether or not he has entered into this experience. There is no mere “hope so” or need of being deceived in the matter, for God has given a physical and an audible proof of one’s having received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.¹³

That the believer can know very definitely when he has received the fullness of the Spirit, and that there is no mere “hope so” or need to be deceived in this matter, we gladly agree. The point at issue is the character of that witness, and the question whether it is always or ever “a physical and an audible proof.”

Riggs considers prophecy to be the Old Testament physical and audible proof of the receiving of the Holy Spirit.¹⁴ However, at Pentecost, he avers, the physical and audible proof became “a divine power which could enable them to speak in other tongues, many and varied.” He says:

On the day of Pentecost there were about fifteen different nationalities present. Among the 120 disciples who were filled with the Holy Ghost and spoke in other tongues, all fifteen languages were spoken and understood by these nationals who were present.¹⁵

There is something of a mystery involved in the transition which the author makes from the 15 languages spoken on the Day of Pentecost to the type of glossolalia¹⁶ manifest in Pentecostal circles today. After describing the speaking in tongues manifest in the Book of Acts, the author concludes, “Therefore, all who receive the Baptism in the Spirit today also speak with tongues.”¹⁷

There is on the surface of this matter a problem with which Riggs does not deal. In the chapter following the one just quoted in which it is affirmed that the gift of tongues is the outward and audible proof of the baptism and that all who receive the baptism speak with tongues, our author gives as instances of those who received the baptism in the modern period of the Christian Church, Wesley, Gordon, Finney, and Moody. Yet there is not a shred of evidence that any of these ever spoke in an unknown tongue, either at the time of, or subsequent to, their baptism.

Until the beginning of the modern Pentecostal movement, which may be dated to the ministries of Charles F. Parham in Topeka, Kans., in 1901, and W. J. Seymour in Los Angeles in 1906-8, the only instances of unknown tongues occurred among sects which were either unorthodox or whose morality was questionable.

The Montanists, for example, were a second-century sect who practiced the speaking in unknown tongues, which they supposed found its inception in Corinth in New Testament times. However, the Montanists were branded as heretics by the Church, because they claimed a dispensation of the Spirit superior to that of Christ and the apostles.

The Port Royal Jansenists, and more particularly their successors known as the “Convulsionaries,” also spoke in tongues. These were French Catholics in the early days of the Protestant Reformation. Their sect was finally suppressed by the authorities because of immoralities practiced among them.

The early spiritualists likewise spoke in unknown tongues. One, a Mary Smith of Geneva, professed to speak the language of Mars. When some of this gibberish was transcribed, scholars found it a conglomeration of sounds drawn mainly from French and German with some Oriental words mixed in.

Mary Campbell in Scotland and the followers of Edward Irving in England in the nineteenth century practiced glossolalia.

In America, the “Shakers” spoke in tongues. This was a sect founded by Ann Lee, who was known to her fo lowers as “Mother Ann,” and who made a preposterous ‘o

divinity by insisting on being addressed as Ann the Wor . The early Mormons, including Brigham Young, spoke in unknown tongues and their choirs sang in unknown tongues.

These facts are stated, not to prove anything concerning the present manifestation of unknown tongues among orthodox and evangelical Christians, but to show the logical problem Pentecostals must face. It is incredible that tongue-speaking followers of the heretical sects described above should be selected as examples of those baptized with the Holy Spirit. Yet they spoke with tongues, while men like Wesley, Whitefield, Edwards, Finney, and Moody did not. If the only speaking with tongues prior to modern Pentecostalism was among heretics whose gift must be written off as spurious, and if tongues is the only and unfailing sign of the baptism, then it would appear by this token that none had the baptism from apostolic times through 19 centuries until modern Pentecostalism. This would be very difficult to believe.

The Gifts of the Spirit as Signs #

Such considerations, while important, are not crucial. The real test of any teaching for evangelical Christians must always be its conformity to the Word of God. We turn again to scripture for light on this important question.

First it is important that we give attention to the claim that the gifts of the Spirit are divinely intended for signs. Riggs contends that they are. Quoting Jesus, Believe me for the very works’ sake (John 14:11); These signs shall follow them that believe (Mark 16:17); and Heb. 2:4, God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will, he claims, “The very fact that the gifts of the Spirit are for signs is proof that they are needed today and therefore available for us today.”¹⁸

Again, concerning the multitudes gathered in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost, Riggs observes: “They overheard the disciples as they were filled with the Spirit and spoke with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. On this occasion tongues were a most convincing sign to unbelievers. There have been many other occasions since when this has happened, for tongues are set ‘for a sign.’"¹⁹

There were indeed signs and wonders done in the name of Jesus in the New Testament Church (Acts 4:30). This still does not warrant the claim that a single one of the gifts is to be regarded as proof of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Indeed, Paul would seem to be explicitly denying the sign value of tongues so far as the Church is concerned, when he quotes Isaiah: With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not (I Cor. 14:21-22). And Jesus said to those who would have a sign: An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matt. 12:39-40).

Second, there is the problem as to the nature of the tongues which might conceivably be considered a sign or evidence of the baptism with the Spirit. There are, of course, two major portions of the New Testament upon which the tongues teaching is based. One is the Acts of the Apostles, notably the second chapter; and the other is I Corinthians 12 and 14. The all-important question now arises, Are these phenomena identical? Is the tongue-speaking of I Corinthians 12 and 14 the same as that of Acts 2:4? There are, naturally, two different answers which may be given to this question. Unfortunately, either answer involves rather serious difficulties for the view that unknown tongues is an evidence of the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

1. If They Are the Same

It may be stated that the two phenomena are the same. In that case, the tongues of the New Testament is not unknown tongues at all, but languages the speaker has not learned, but which may be recognized and understood by those who have. Mr. Riggs states²⁰ that no less than 15 languages were identified at the Day of Pentecost. This, I believe, is the best view that can be taken of the account in the second chapter of Acts.

The amazement of the crowds gathered in Jerusalem on that first Pentecost was not because they listened to people talking in tongues they could not understand. Their wonder was due to the fact that they heard men whom they recognized as Galileans, people notoriously provincial and illiterate, speaking with perfect diction the languages of the countries from which they had come.

As a matter of fact, the gift manifest on the Day of Pentecost, far from being unknown tongues, was given for the precise purpose of preventing the speaking in an unintelligible language. Had the apostles spoken their native Galilean dialect, their speech would have been an unknown tongue to the multitudes gathered from foreign countries. So much the rather than being unknown tongues, this gift was given to prevent unknown tongues.

If the answer to our question as to the relation of the tongues of Acts 2:4 and the tongues of I Corinthians 12 and 14 be that these are the same, then two conclusions follow: (1) to speak with tongues as in Acts 2:4 is to speak a foreign language which is identifiable by those who understand that language naturally; and (2) this particular gift is expressly declared to be given to only a portion of believers, even among those who possess others of the range of spiritual gifts outlined in Corinthians. For Paul definitely states that in the body of Christ, wherein all are baptized by one Spirit (I Cor. 12:13), not all are prophets, apostles, teachefs, workers of miracles, endowed with gifts of healing, nor do all speak with tongues or interpret (I Cor. 12:28-30). In the light of this passage, it is absolutely false to affirm that “all who receive the Baptism in the Spirit today also speak with tongues."²¹

2. If They Are Different

However, our initial question may be answered negatively. That is, it may be affirmed that the tongues of Acts 2:4 and the Corinthian tongues are not the same—that the tongues of Acts 2:4 were intelligible languages, while the tongues of Corinth were a genuine manifestation of “unknown tongues," an angelic language or utterance which can be comprehended only by those supernaturally endowed with a collateral gift of interpretation.

We are not concerned at the moment with the nature of that Corinthian gift. Not all Bible scholars are willing to concede that it was such an angelic tongue. They point out that the word “unknown" in the King James Version is printed in italics in the first Corinthian letter. This means that there was no word corresponding to it in the original, but that it was added by the translators in the hope of making the sense more intelligible. They affirm that the clause “no man understandeth" (I Cor. 14:2) may from the context be held to mean “no man present understandeth." They state that the thrice-repeated expression unlearned (vv 16, 23, and 24), in relation to those who hear but do not understand, implies that one who was learned high y educated, as for instance Paul himself was-would recognize the language spoken. This is admittedly a very attractive interpretation.

Be that as it may, if the Jerusalein tongues and the Corinthian tongues were not the same the theory that unknown tongues is an evidence of the baptism with the Spirit is just as serious. Though the tongues of 1 Corinthians were unknown, they still are never said to have any relation to the baptism with the the Spirit. The reverse is the case. Instead of being an evidence which all Spirit-baptized believers have, the principle pertaining to gifts is directly affirmed of tongues-namely, that not all have the same gifts.

Two laws concerning the gifts of the Spirit are set forth in I Corinthians 12. The first is that the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal (v. 7). That is gifts are given for usefulness, not as a certification of Character. The second law of spiritual gifts is that different gifts are given to different people in the Church, that the body of Christ may be welded together in an indivisible unity (vv. 11-30).

The gifts of the Spirit are not in any sense a measure of the Spirit’s presence within the individual believer. The disciples of Jesus before Pentecost exercised some of the more spectacular gifts. They were sent forth with authority to heal the sick and to cast out devils Luke 9:1-6;

Though they did not at that time experience the baptism with the Spirit. The Corinthians, whose exercise of spintual gifts provoked the most extensive treatment given by Paul anywhere in his Epistles, were described as “carnal” and “babes in Christ” (I Cor. 3:1-3); were riven by sectarianism (3:4-7) and were prey to all manner of irregularities in life and worship—the very antithesis of Spirit-filled believers.

The fact is indisputable that the gifts of the Spirit are quite independent of the graces of the Spirit. It is quite without scriptural warrant to claim that any of them individually or all of them collectively are designed to serve as an evidence of the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

In fact, the choice of the gift of tongues—assuming a difference between the Jerusalem tongues and the Corinthian tongues—is an extremely unfortunate one. For in each listing of the gifts, tongues and its interpretation is listed last (I Cor. 12:4-11 and 28-30); while in the list of spiritual gifts found in Rom. 12:6-8 it is omitted entirely. There is no doubt that Paul ranked the gift as decidedly inferior to the gift of prophecy, for example (I Cor. 14:1-12). His exhortations regarding gifts are to covet the best gifts (12:31), and to seek to excel in edifying the Church (14:12). And no gift, he affirms, has any value whatsoever apart from divine love (I Cor. 13:1-3), which is “a more excellent way” (12:31).

Granting a difference between the tongues of Acts 2:4 and I Corinthians 12 and 14, we should be driven to the conclusion that the only tongues which would be a possible evidence of a Pentecostal experience would be the capacity to speak a recognizable language without having learned it. Rarely has this claim been made. The tongues manifest among those who claim the evidence as in Acts 2:4 are far from what the tongues of Acts 2:4 obviously were.

But even the capacity to speak unlearned languages, impressive as it would be, would not necessarily constitute an evidence of the baptism with the Spirit. There are six occasions in the Book of Acts where groups or individuals were said to have been baptized or filled with the Spirit.²² On three of these occasions, there was speaking in tongues. On the other three occasions, no speaking in tongues is mentioned.

An examination of the entire six instances reveals that the major point of difference between the three positive occasions and the three negative occasions is that on *e positive occasions there were men of diverse nationalities together, while on the negative occasions there were men of a single nationality or race together. This would lend strong presumptive evidence to the conclusion that the purpose of the manifestation was not to serve as an evidence of the Spirit’s baptism, but to make possible more effective communication within the group and to show that the gospel is for people of every language.

Failure of Tongues as an Evidence #

Any reliable evidence must be of such nature as to be present when its ground or occasion is present, and to be absent when its ground or occasion is absent. Dr. B. F. Neely many years ago showed that such is not the case in the relationship between tongues and the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

Pentecostal people readily admit that the gift may be “counterfeited,” that Satan may impart tongues as well as the Spirit of God. The presence of the phenomenon among the false sects mentioned earlier indicates that this is unquestionably true. It is possible for those who have never had the baptism with the Holy Spirit to speak with tongues.

Again, Pentecostal people readily admit that gifts may be retained by one who has, through sin, forfeited the presence of the Holy Spirit. One who has the gift of tongues may continue to exercise this gift long after the Spirit has departed from him. It is thus possible for those who have lost the baptism with the Holy Spirit to speak with tongues.

This then results in a curious situation. When a person speaks with tongues, it is an evidence of one of three things, first, he has the baptism with the Holy Spirit; second, he has had the baptism and has lost it; or third, he has never had the baptism. But obviously these three statements take in every living human being. It can be said that wearing a hat is as reliable an evidence of the baptism with the Holy Spirit as is the gift of tongues. For everyone who wears a hat has the baptism, has had it and lost it, or has never had it. The evidential value of any such gift is therefore precisely nil.

The Witness of the Spirit #

What then? Are we reduced to a state of uncertainty concerning this high state of grace? Indeed we are not. There is an evidence of the baptism with the Holy Spirit—and entire sanctification, which is its result and concomitant— which surpasses in certainty any possible outward physical sign. It is the twofold evidence of the witness of the Spirit and the fruit of the Spirit.

Just as he that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself (I John 5:10), so he who receives the Spirit of God in His fullness has the witness to that wonderful gift of God’s grace, for it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth (I John 5:6). Just as the Holy Spirit bears witness to the heart of the believer that he is God s child (Rom. 8:14-17), so by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us (Heb. 10:14-15). This witness is certified by the divine law written in the heart and mind, giving boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, so that we may draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water (vv. 16, 19, and 22).

This witness is not an emotion, an exhilaration, an ecstasy of joy, although it may result in such feelings. It is not an outward manifestation or demonstration. It is the inward convictioir that what God has promised, that He has performed; that the work of cleansing has been completed; and that the Holy Spirit abides in all the glories of His sanctifying lordship. When the Comforter is come, said Jesus, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me… he will guide you into all truth … He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you (John 15:26; 16:13-14).

Coupled with the witness of the Spirit, as John Wesley insisted long ago, must be the fruit of the Spirit. These nine beautiful graces-love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance (Gal. 5:22) -are subject to almost limitless growth and development, but all are present as features of the Spirit-filled personality. Neither the witness without the fruit nor the fruit without the witness can be accepted as complete evidence. Both together, they provide a degree of certitude far beyond anything offered by external physical or psychological signs.

As one need not go forth in the morning with lighted candle to see if the sun has risen, no more need the sanctified heart depend upon some fallible manifestation to know that the “Sun of Righteousness” has arisen in his heart with healing for sin’s cancerous nature within. The Spirit himsel bears witness to His abiding fullness within.

Footnotes #