THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE WESLEYAN TRADITION
Wesleyan Theological Journal
this essay on Wesleyan theology it is well to remember that most Protestants
believe in justification by faith. Many of these are now known as
“evangelicals,” those who believe that we must be “born again.”
Among these evangelicals, those in the Wesleyan or Methodist tradition believe
that at a “second crisis,” subsequent to regeneration, one may experience
spiritual renewal and a filling with the Holy Spirit. Among these “holiness
people” three main branches are discernible. On the right or conservative wing
are the “Calvinistic Methodists” or Keswickians of the Victorious Life
Movement. These believe in a “second crisis experience” in which the
believer, in response to confession of need, consecration, and faith receives a
“baptism in the Holy Spirit” which makes one more effective in God’s
service. The stress is on continued victory over indwelling sin as one abides in
Christ. On the left, or more radical wing, are the Pentecostals who stress a
second-crisis experience, a baptism in the Holy Spirit resulting in spiritual
gifts, especially the gift of tongues. In the center is the main stream of
Wesleyan emphasis, which, unlike the Victorious Life Movement, believes in
deliverance from all sin, and which, unlike the Pentecostal Movement, believes
that the gift of tongues is not an evidence of the “baptism in the Holy
Spirit,” or of entire sanctification.
In this central mainstream, several biblical expressions are used to describe
this experience of a “second work of grace, subsequent to regeneration.”
These expressions include: the “rest of faith” (Hebrews 4:3), “entire
sanctification” (1 Thessalonians 5:23), “perfect love” (1
. . just as when the ground in a given locality is rich in underlying ore, there
will often be outcroppings which may appear on the surface, so also holiness,
which underlies the whole of scripture, stands in specific clarity in numerous
passages. . . . One passage may reveal a facet which another passage does not
make clear, and . . . the consensus of all the passages will give a good
representation of the whole underlying stratum of holiness.
scholarship seeks objectivity by an inductive method which comes to the data of
scripture and history, not to extract from it a predetermined conclusion, but
rather to derive a conclusion from all of the relevant evidence; in short, not
to bring doctrine to the Bible for support but rather to derive doctrine from
doctrine of the Holy Spirit is one of the most difficult of biblical doctrines.
It was mentioned only, but not defined, in the Apostles’ Creed and received
only slight attention in the four great ecumenical church councils. (When it did
receive attention it contributed to the great schism between the Roman and Greek
confessions in A. D. 1054.) In this study interest focuses on the connection, or
lack of it, between the “baptism in the Holy Spirit” (baptisei
en pneumati hagio) and cleansing from sin. Related questions are: (1) Is the
phrase “baptize in the Holy Spirit” descriptive of initiation into the
Christian life, or is it a gift of the Spirit for cleansing and empowering for
those who are already believers? (2) Is this expression, as commonly used in the
Holiness Movement, a derivative from Wesleyan theology or is it a subsequent
accretion that is without precedent either in Scripture or the usage of the
issue has received attention in recent years due to the following
considerations: (1)The absence of a link between the work of the Holy Spirit and
cleansing from sin in most standard works of theology, including those by many
Wesleyan theologians. (2) Studies by Wesleyan scholars who have sought in vain
for a clear teaching by Wesley that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is to be
linked with entire sanctification. (3) The lack of an exhortation in the New
Testament epistles that believers are to seek the baptism in the Holy Spirit.
(4) Definitive exegetical studies which seek to demonstrate that the New
Testament always associates the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the initiation
into the Christian life.
(5) Researchers who conclude that baptism in the Holy Spirit, as simultaneous
with entire sanctification, was a concept introduced into historical theology
early in the nineteenth century and is neither scriptural nor Wesleyan.
the “baptism in the Holy Spirit” is to be viewed as certifying the
believer’s initiation into the Christian life or a subsequent bestowal upon
the believer for purity and power there are certain areas in which advocates of
both can agree. (1) All Christians are born of the Spirit (John 3:8;
The Biblical Evidence
will be helpful to review briefly the case for the position that the baptizing
work of the Holy Spirit is limited to that of incorporating the believing sinner
into the body of Christ, thus making him a Christian, as distinct from being
filled with the Holy Spirit.
to this view the baptism in the Holy Spirit was given historically only once,
but in four installments: to Jews in
support of this point, many of its advocates insist, as a hermeneutical
principle, that the Gospels and the Acts are historical records and must not be
considered normative for Christian experience and doctrine today; instead the
epistles are the only sound way to establish doctrinal positions.
re-examining the evidence, my conclusion is: (1) That biblical history is a
basis for doctrine, and (2) that the “baptism in the Holy Spirit” is not
always linked with conversion-initiation, but rather, in Luke-Acts, the baptism
in the Holy Spirit is seen as subsequent to regeneration; hence this usage is
both scriptural and Wesleyan.
Divine Revelation is in Both Words and Deeds
can be demonstrated that in both Old and New Testaments doctrine is established
not only upon words attributed to God but also upon acts attributed to God. In
short, divine revelation is mediated through both words and deeds of God.
early creed is a recital of God’s actions in behalf of His people. When secure
in the Promised Land the Israelite was supposed to say, “A wandering Aramean
was my father; and he went down into
the Exodus the Israelites learned of God’s power in delivering them from the
Egyptians. From the gift of manna in the desert they learned of God’s
providence. At Sinai they learned of His holiness, His intolerance of idols.
During the conquest they learned of His power and His faithfulness in keeping
covenant promises. The captivity taught them of God’s justice, and the
restoration taught them His mercy. These “mighty acts of God” formed an
important part of biblical theology as expressed often in the Psalms and in
prophecy (cf. Pgs. 78; 95; 105;
methodology is continued into the New Testament. We are taught lessons based on
such events as Israel’s rejection of God’s messengers (Acts 7:2–53),
Israel’s unbelief as precedent for contemporary skepticism (Acts 13:16–41),
the faith of Abraham and David as indicative that justification by faith was
experienced under the old covenant (Romans 4:2–12), Israel’s unbelief as
proof of the danger of apostasy (Hebrews 3:6–4:11) and Elijah’s prayer as a
precedent for men of “like passions” today (James 5:16–18).
John the Baptist wondered about the identity of the Messiah Jesus did not send
him a lecture or an exposition of Scriptural doctrine, but instead asked the
messengers to report the miracles they had witnessed an let John draw his own
conclusions about Jesus (Matthew 11:2–6). In the light of this hermeneutical
procedure, how can John Stott say, “A doctrine of the Holy Spirit must not be
constructed from descriptive passages in the Acts”?
Stott argues deductively: “Begin,” he says, “with the general, not with
the special.” But where does he get the “general”?
often taught by deeds as well as words. We have no record of a catechism
relative to Jesus’ messianic claims before Peter was asked for his “great
confession.” Instead Jesus simply asked His disciples to follow Him. As they
did so day after day they witnessed their leader’s mastery of disease, demons,
the storm, and even death, in addition to teaching as “one having authority”
in the exposition of scriptures. Surely these events, in their cumulative
effect, enabled Peter to voice the conviction of the twelve that Jesus was
indeed “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew16:16) Their doctrine
was based largely on a combination of historical events of which they were
first-hand witnesses. The gospel is a report of what “Jesus began to do and to
teach” (Acts 1:1). No less are the events recorded in the Luke-Acts volume
useful in the formulation of doctrine. It was God’s acts in giving His Spirit
to believing Gentiles that convinced the apostles and elders that Gentiles are
now to be included in the new covenant (Acts 15:7–12)
Initiation-Conversion and the “Baptism in the Holy Spirit”
we are told that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is invariable associated with
initiation into the Christian life. The proof-text for this
. . any view of the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit in the Gospels or in the
Acts must be reconciled with the central New Testament doctrinal passage on this
short, Lukan language must give way to Pauline. Again, a patient study of the
context in each case is called for.
question now confronting us is the claim by Dunn and others that the baptism
with the Holy Spirit is always linked with conversion-initiation.
evidence presented in Luke-Acts justifies the conclusion of R. E. O. White that,
“it does disappoint those who look for logical and liturgical consistency.”
But it must be remembered that one seldom finds in Scripture a systematic
theology. Instead one finds the “raw material” for a biblical theology which
the student must endeavor to systematize. Luke’s primary purpose was to
narrate the role of the Spirit in the life and growth of the early church rather
than to build a pattern of doctrine (Acts 1:8).
is it true that the “baptism in the Spirit” is always or even predominantly
linked with initiation? John’s baptism with water unto repentance is clearly
to be linked with initiation (Luke 3:3;
only verse which clearly links initiation with the baptism with the Holy Spirit
Lukan term “baptism with the Holy Spirit” is not always associated with
repentance, remission of sin and conversion-initiation what does it denote?
the 120 who experienced the “promise of the Father” (Luke 24:49;
context of the phrase, the “promise of the Father,” makes no mention of
initiation; instead the Father’s gift was needed, not to make them Christians
but to make their witness more effective, to enable them to bear “more
fruit” and “much fruit.” The baptism with the Holy Spirit was needed to
give them “power (dunamis) from on
high” (Luke 24:49;
who had been baptized in the Holy Spirit were later “filled” with the Holy
Spirit as critical situations required (Acts 4:31; 7:55; 13:9); John the
Baptist, Jesus, and Barnabas were said to be filled with the Holy Spirit
continually. When Jesus was baptized with the Holy Spirit, it was not to be
initiated but to be empowered (Luke 3:21–22; 4:14) for service. Why did not
Jesus then baptize His disciples with the Holy Spirit and power? The only clue
is found in John’s Gospel, “The Spirit had not been given [in His fullness]
because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:39; cf. 16:7). After Jesus was
“glorified” the Spirit was given in fullness and power, as Peter told the
astonished multitude (Acts 2:33). Even Dunn (very reluctantly) admits that for
the Fourth Gospel the sending of the Paraclete upon the disciples was fulfilled,
Luke’s language the closest link between Spirit-Baptism and initiation is
case of Philip’s converts in
and John later prayed that these converts in
who place Paul’s conversion at the house of Ananias should recall Paul’s own
testimony as preserved by Luke. Paul put the emphasis on his vision of Jesus en
case of Apollos is linked with John’s disciples at
the believers at
review of the Luke-Acts records needs to focus on Peter’s perspective on the
significance of Pentecost. When the events at the house of Cornelius, and those
on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem, are compared, the central meaning is that
both Jews and Gentiles become Christians when they repent and accept Jesus as
Messiah and Saviour: in Peter’s words, “God gave the same gift to them as he
gave to us” (Acts 11:17); “giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us;
and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed (hathapisas) their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:8–9). The same gift
both erased distinctions and also cleansed their hearts by faith. The term
“cleansed” could refer to initiation (John 13:10; 15:3;
all the evidence is given, it seems fair to conclude that for Luke-Acts water
baptism is linked with repentance, regeneration, initiation and rebirth in the
Holy Spirit. The “promise of the Father” and the Son, to “believers”
(Acts 1:5; 8:12; 19:2), is linked with the baptism in the Holy Spirit, not
primarily, as Dunn insists, for conversion-initiation, but rather for purity
(Acts 15:9) and power (Luke 24:48–49;
the argument that there is no command in Paul’s letters to seek the “baptism
in the Holy Spirit” (cf.
The Wesleyan Tradition
John Wesley’s Usage
evidence that John Wesley linked the baptism with the Holy Spirit with entire
sanctification and perfect love is as elusive as Wesley’s testimony to his
personal experience of the same.
his Explanatory Notes at
reference as to whether the baptism with the Holy Spirit comes with initiation
into the Christian life, Wesley was not clear. In one of his letters he
correctly insists that it is erroneous to equate Christian perfection with
receiving the Holy Ghost: “the phrase, in that sense, is not scriptural, and
not quite proper; for they all ‘received the Holy Ghost’ when they were
was reared and lived in a tradition which linked water baptism with the baptism
with the Holy Spirit—“baptismal regeneration” especially as it applies to
infants. He published his father’s essay on the subject without
qualifications. Later, he recognized that this may not be true of adults: “It
is sure all of riper years who are baptized are not at the same time born
Therefore it is not surprising that Wesley was reluctant to separate the “gift
of the Holy Spirit” from justification. All who repent and believe are at the
same time “born of the Spirit” (John 3:8; cf Romans 8:9; Galatians 3:2).
However, Wesley endorsed Fletcher’s last “Check,” in which Fletcher
equates Christian perfection with the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as Herbert
McGonigle and others have demonstrated.
In a later letter to Benson, as Lawrence Wood has noted,
Wesley equated perfection in love with being “filled with the Holy Ghost.”
Likewise in a letter to Fletcher, Wesley refers to “fathers” (cf. 1 John
2:12–14) whose Pentecost had fully come.
In his sermon on “Christian Perfection” Wesley quotes Peter’s description
of Pentecost (“purified their hearts by faith,”
his comment on
Arnett has gleaned from the writings of John Wesley several instances in which
the work of the Holy Spirit is linked with heart cleansing and perfect love.
However, the connection is not emphasized and ambiguities exist. Arnett
concludes that while this is more prominent in Wesley than most scholars have
shown, “there are areas of tension, perhaps ambiguity, in regard to his
application of pneumatological phrases, such as ‘receiving the Holy Spirit,’
‘the baptism of the Holy Spirit,’ and ‘filled with the Holy Spirit,’ . .
. Wesley had not worked out fully every facet of teaching on the Holy Spirit.”
Wesley did not object to linking the baptism with the Holy Spirit with entire
sanctification and sometimes he made the link himself. He only objected, on
scriptural grounds, to the statement that Christians do not receive the Holy
Spirit at conversion, and he heartily endorsed Fletcher’s last “Check” in
which the baptism of the Holy Spirit was seen as a “second work of grace.”
As Wesley’s followers have gone beyond him in the direction of a more biblical
and precise formulation in such matters as the distinction between original sin
and original guilt (abandoning the latter), leaving baptismal regeneration for
believers’ baptism, so we need not fear to go beyond Wesley in the direction
of a more biblical doctrine of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This was done by
Fletcher, Adam Clarke, Benson, and their successors.
Usage After Wesley
and Adam Clarke were, next to the Wesleys, the most influential among the early
Methodist leaders in the formulation of doctrine.
wanted Fletcher to become his successor, and endorsed, with the exception
already noted, all Fletcher wrote about perfection. After describing the
“several degrees of spiritual life, or quickening power” set forth in
Scripture, Fletcher summarized the sixth stage as the
. . still more abundant life, . . . of the adult or perfect Christian, imparted
to him when the love of God, or power from on high, is plentifully shed abroad
in his believing soul, on the day that Christ “baptizes him with the Holy
Ghost and with fire, to sanctify him wholly, and seal him unto the day of
his distinction between the justified person and the one entirely sanctified.
Fletcher thus describes the latter:
. . if . . . you mean a believer completely baptized with the Holy Ghost and
with fire, in whom he that once visited as a Monitor now fully resides as a
Comforter, you are right; the enmity ceases, the carnal mind and body of sin are
destroyed, and “God is all in all” to that just man “made perfect in
his effort at precision in defining “one made perfect in love” it seems
natural to Fletcher to use the words “baptized with the Holy Ghost” as one
way of describing such a person; throughout it is the language of Scripture
which he summons. In his last “Check,” Fletcher endeavors to describe the
privilege of all believers.
. . it is . . . undeniable, from the first four chapters of the Acts, that a
peculiar power of the Spirit is bestowed upon believers under the Gospel of
Christ; . . . and that when our faith shall fully embrace the promise of full
sanctification, or of a complete “circumcision of the heart in the Spirit,”
the Holy Ghost . . . will not fail to help us to love one another without sinful
self-seeking; and as soon as we do so, “God dwelleth in us, and his love is
perfected in us,” (l
you ask, how many baptisms, or effusions of the sanctifying Spirit are necessary
to cleanse a believer from all sin, and to kindle his soul into perfect love; I
reply . . . if one powerful baptism of the Spirit “seal you unto the day of
redemption, and cleanse you from all [moral] filthiness,” so much the better.
If two or more be necessary, the Lord can repeat them. . . . And if one
outpouring of the Spirit, one bright manifestation of the sanctifying truth, so
empties us of self, as to fill us with the mind of Christ, and with pure love,
we are undoubtedly Christians in the full sense of the word.
discussing whether Christian perfection may be experienced gradually or
instantaneously Fletcher is open to both alternatives; it may come in both ways.
He finds no difficulty in the view that it may be instantaneous. In his words.
not the Sanctifier descend upon your waiting soul, as quickly as the Spirit
descended upon your Lord at his baptism? . . . if the dim flame of a candle can
in the twinkling of an eye destroy the flying insect which comes within its
sphere, how unscriptural and irrational is it to suppose that, when God fully
baptizes a soul with his sanctifying Spirit and with the celestial fire of his
love, he cannot in an instant destroy the man of sin, burn up the chaff of
corruption, melt the heart of stone into a heart of flesh, and kindle the
believing soul into pure, seraphic love.
is obvious that Fletcher thought it consistent with the New Testament to include
baptism phraseology of Scripture when describing, not justification or
initiation, but the perfecting of believers in love and in their cleansing from
obviously, has Peter’s analysis of Pentecost (Acts 15:9) in mind when he
our hearts be purified by faith, as the Scriptures expressly testify, if the
faith which peculiarly purifies the hearts of Christians be a faith in “the
promise of the Father,” which promise was made by the Son and directly points
at a peculiar effusion of the Holy Ghost, the purifier of spirits; if we may
believe in a moment; and if God may, in a moment, seal our sanctifying faith by
sending us a fullness of his sanctifying Spirit . . . does it not follow, that
to deny the possibility of the instantaneous destruction of sin, is to deny . .
. that we can make an instantaneous act of faith in the sanctifying promise of
the Father, and in the all-cleansing blood of the Son . . . by the instantaneous
operation of his Spirit? which St. Paul calls the “circumcision of the heart
in [or by] the Spirit?”
John A. Knight has pointed out, John Fletcher deserves to be called “the
systematic theologian of Methodism.”
a series of unpublished letters in manuscript, researched by Dr. Timothy Smith
in the John Rylands Library,
shall introduce my, why not your doctrine of the Holy Ghost and make it one with
your brother’s perfection? He holds the truth, but this will be an improvement
upon it, if I am not mistaken. In some of your pentecostal hymns you paint my
this illuminating facet we detect Methodist doctrine in the process of
formulation: “improving” that of John and finding confirmation in Charles.
August 5, 1771, Fletcher wrote to Charles: “I still want a fountain of power,
call it what you please, Baptism of fire, perfect love, sealing, I contend not
for the name. In short, I want to be established.”
this, Fletcher is in the process of linking Scripture and theology with his own
seeking and searching for the appropriate language he wrote to Charles again,
January 16, 1773.
is nothing but the unshaken
July of 1774 Fletcher wrote again to Charles Wesley, saying:
am not in the Christian Dispensation of the Holy Ghost and of power. I want for
it, but not earnestly enough; I am not sufficiently straitened till the fiery
baptism is accomplished . . . Christian perfection is nothing but the full
kingdom in the Holy Ghost.
late as 1776 he expressed to Charles Wesley his appreciation of his hymns,
saying in part, “I think that there is a gradual rising to the top of John’s
Dispensation, and that when we are gradually risen to that top, and are fit for
the baptism of Christ, it is an instant conferring.”
for Fletcher, “the baptism of Christ” is the same as the baptism with the
Holy Spirit and it is for believers who have been previously regenerated. It was
a conclusion which came gradually and strongly. Mean-while he continued to cling
to Charles for support. John Wesley agreed with this linking of the baptism in
the Holy Spirit, with cleansing and perfection in love, but John did not press
for this linkage.
Fletcher, far from linking the baptism with the Spirit with
conversion-initiation, associates it rather with entire sanctification as a work
subsequent to regeneration. He views the language of Luke-Acts as appropriate to
describe Christian perfection or maturity, and finds it consistent with Pauline
Charles Wesley in his hymns calls on the Lord for instant and complete
deliverance from sin, but he seldom invokes the Spirit as the sanctifier.
However in the hymn, “The Promise of Sanctification,” Charles Wesley prays,
the work thou hast begun,
inmost soul to thee convert:
me, for ever love thine own
sprinkle with thy blood my heart.
sanctifying Spirit pour,
quench my thirst and wash me clean
Father, let the gracious shower
and make me pure from sin.
may thy good Spirit place,
of health, and love, and power;
in me thy victorious grace,
sin shall never enter more.
all remaining filth within
me in thee salvation have,
actual, and from inbred sin
ransom’d soul persist to save.
and true, and righteous Lord,
wait to prove they perfect will;
mindful of thy gracious word
stamp me with thy Spirit’s seal.
influence of Fletcher on American Methodist theology has been traced effectively
by John A. Knight, in which he demonstrates that, next to John Wesley, John
Fletcher was the major factor in the development of Methodist theology. As an
example, the Illinois Conference in 1827 recommended Fletcher’s Checks along
with Wesley’s Sermons and Notes and Clarke’s Commentaries.
He notes also that Fletcher’s last “Check,” the “Treatise on Christian
Perfection,” had an influence second only to Wesley’s Plain Account, in the
formation of early Methodist definitions of Christian perfection.
In his last “Check,” Fletcher urges believers to seek entire sanctification
and perfection in love. He suggests this prayer for their complete cleansing:
I want a plenitude of thy Spirit, the full promise of the Father, and the rivers
which flow from the inmost souls of the believers, . . . I do believe that thou
canst and wilt thus “baptize me with the Holy Ghost and with fire:” help my
unbelief: confirm and increase my faith, with regard to this important baptism.
Lord, I have need to be thus baptized of thee, and I am straitened till this
baptism is accomplished. . . . O, baptize my soul, and make as full an end of
the original sin which I have from Adam, as thy last baptism made of the
likeness of sinful flesh, . . . thou canst save from sin to the uttermost.
a stimulating essay, Allan Coppedge has demonstrated that, contrary to John
Peters, the doctrine of Christian perfection was prominent in the early
nineteenth century among Methodists in
last “Check” (on Christian Perfection) was published in
fathers believed in an abiding baptism of the Holy Ghost as a distinctive
blessing after conversion. . . . Of all the doctrines held . . . the one about
this abiding baptism of the Holy Ghost was most esteemed by them.
of Methodism’s early saints was Hester Ann Rogers, whose testimony for full
salvation was printed and widely circulated in
. . . make this the moment of my full salvation! Baptize me now with the Holy
Ghost and the fire of pure love. Now “make me a clean heart, and renew a right
spirit within me.” . . . Now cleanse the thoughts, desires and propensities of
my heart, and let me perfectly love thee.
and other evidences fully support the conclusion of Coppedge in his over-all
assessment. The sale of the works of Fletcher and Mrs. Rogers,
on the theological level and one on the popular level had the effect over the
years by their consistent and wide-ranging influence of predisposing the
Americans to equate the biblical data on entire sanctification and Christian
perfection with that relating to the baptism of the Holy Ghost and Pentecost.
two factors which affected this linkage of baptism language with entire
sanctification was the language of Luke-Acts and their own experience.
had said many times that the three criteria of doctrine are Scripture, reason
and experience. Hundreds of Christians who knew they had been “born of the
water and of the Spirit” later saw the need of heart purity and perfect love.
They sought and experienced what they thought appropriate to describe as the
“baptism of the Holy Spirit,” not for the remission of sins, but rather for
purity and power, an experience like that of Jesus’ disciples at Pentecost.
They had moved away from Wesley’s “baptismal regeneration” language to
concepts more in harmony with the New Testament, and with the implications of
Wesley’s own position. Later, when earnest Christians realized the
possibilities of grace, and when they realized it comes by faith as a gift,
rather than as an attainment, they found the phrase “baptism with the Holy
Spirit” one of several biblical formulas appropriate to define their
experience of full deliverance. In this they were joined by devout leaders, from
Asa Mahan, Charles Finney, R. A. Torrey and Dwight L. Moody to J. G. Morrison
and H. C. Morrison, to mention a few. This “cloud of witnesses,” is not to
be discounted when attempting to formulate a biblical doctrine of Christian
J. H. Greenlee, “The Greek New Testament
Message of Holiness,” in Kenneth Geiger, ed., Further Insights Into
Holiness (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill, 1963), p. 83.
James D. G. Dunn, The Baptism in the Holy
Spirit (SCM Press Ltd., 1970), pp. 90–115. similar conclusions are reached
by John R. W. Stott, The Baptism and Fullness of the Holy Spirit (Leicester,
England: Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship, 1964).
Merrill F. Unger, “The Baptism with
the Holy Spirit,” Bibliotheca Sacra, April-September 1944, p. 368.
Unger, The Baptizing Work of the Holy Spirit (Chicago: Scripture Press,
1953), pp. 116–19; Stott, Baptism and Fullness of the Holy Spirzt, p. 18.
 Stott, Baptism and Fullness of the Holy Spirit, p. 18.
 Unger, Baptizing Work of the Holy Spirit, p. 116.
 Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, pp. 90–102.
 R. E. 0. White, The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), p. 190.
 Cf. J. K. Parrot, “In Luke’s view there does not seem to have been any necessary connection between water-baptism and the effusion of the Holy Spirit.” Expository Times, 1971, p. 235.
F. J. Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity, Part
I, The Acts of the Apostles, 5 vols. (London: Macmillan and Co., 1922),
4:237; Oxford Bible at
 R. A. Torrey, The Baptism with the Holy Spirit (New York: Revell, 1897), p. 12.
Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, pp.
Parrot insists that even in this verse there
is no essential connection between baptism and the gift of the Spirit, op.
cit., p. 235.
Should the “cleansed” of
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the New
Testament (Epworth, 1958), p. 428; cf. The Works of John Wesley, 14 vol.
John Calvin, Commentary on the Acts of the
Apostles, ed. Henry Beveridge, 2 vols., reprint ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1949), 1:372. This view is supported by many scholars; cf. Interpreter’s
Bible (9:118, 123); International Critical Commentary (27:178);
Interperter’s Dictionary of the Bible (3:684); Expositor’s Greek
Testament (2:505); Encyclopedia of Ethics (9:682); Anchor Bible (Acts, p.
81); Pulpit Commentary (18:283); J. R. Lumby, Acts in the Cambridge Bible.
Wesley, Works, 12:416.
 Wesley, Works, 6:74.
Herbert McGonigle, “Pneumatological
Nomenclature in Early Methodism,” Wesleyan Theological Journal, Spring
 The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, ed. John Telford (London: Edworth, 1931). 5:215.
 Ibid., 6:221.
 Standard Sermons of John Wesley, ed. Edward Sugden (London: Epworth Press, 1956). 2:171.
 Explanatory Notes.
 Standard Sermons, 1:279.
 Ibid. 1:265.
 “The New Birth,” Standard Sermons, 2:240.
 William Arnett, “The Role of the Holy Spirit in Entire Sanctification in the Writings of John Wesley,” The Asbury Seminarian April 1976, p.18.
John Fletcher, Checks to Antinomianism (
 Ibid., 1:167–68; italics his.
 Ibid., 2:636.
 Ibid., 2:637.
John A. Knight, “John Fletcher’s
Influence on the Development of Wesleyan Theology in
The “Pentecostal Hymns” are found in
Wesley’s Poetical Works, Vol. II, following p. 162, “Hymns of Petition
and Thanksgiving for the Promise of the Father”; they are commentaries on
John 14–17, and were often referred to as the “Pentecostal Hymns.”
 Cited in John Wesley’s sermon, “On Christian Perfection,” Standard Sermons, 2:175.
 Knight, op. cit., p. 22.
 Ibid., p. 23
 Fletcher, op. cit., 2:656; italics his.
 Allan Coppedge, “Entire Sanctification in Early American Methodism: 1812-1835,” Wesleyan Theological Journal, Spring 1978, 34–37.
Ibid., p 37
 The Methodist Preacher, 2:95-96, cited by Knight, op. cit., p. 37.
B. W. McDonald, History of the Cumberland
Presbyterian Church, p. 105, cited in M. E. Gaddis, “Christian
 Christian Advocate, October 14, 1826.
Thomas Coke, The Experience and Spiritual
Letters of Mrs. Hester Ann Rogers (
 Coppedge, op. cit., p. 46.