be happy. This new birth was: "the change wrought in the soul by the Almighty Spirit of God when it was created anew in Christ Jesus; when the love of the world is changed for the love of God." 40

The importance which the Methodists attached to this new birth, can best be measured by the retort of Wesley to those who denied its essential character; who intimated that attention to the ordinances of God and regular attendance at Church and the sacrament were more needful. To all who reasoned thus, Wesley answered, "all this will not keep you from hell, except you be born again. Go to Church twice a day; go to the Lord's Table every week; say ever so many prayers in private; hear ever so many good sermons; read ever so many good books; still you must be born again." 41 Here the new birth was put above the

Church and sacraments.

Some of the clergy could not under

stand how one could attend Church, partake of the sacrament, believe in the word, obey the commands of Christ, and still be lost unless he had the experience of the new birth.

The Churchman accused the Methodist of asserting that this new birth took place at a precise time. He who experienced the new birth could tell the exact hour of the happening, and the Arminian Magazine was said to be full of instances, wherein the people knew the exact time of this new birth.42 "At such a time, and at such a particular place, they felt the spirit rush in upon them with such irresistible force, that they were immediately translated from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of God. This they make the mark of the new birth; and will allow none to be regenerated but such only as have felt this extraordinary operation." 43 Other Churchmen also thought that the Methodist believed himself to undergo much suffering before he experienced this new birth. "They are represented to undergo several purgations and lustrations ere the new birth is quite formed. Most of them feel as it were, a burning fire within them.

when this severe penance is at an end, they have the favor of

Wills: p. 77.

being told by their teachers that they are then regenerate and incorruptible." 44 This idea was flavored with enthusiasm; so the Churchman, if he disliked enthusiasm, could not be very sympathetic toward the new birth.

This new birth was sometimes pictured as supernatural. The Methodists were accused of believing in "Miraculous Conversion"; each one felt himself in duty bound to go out and preach. Wesley denied all of this, claiming that no more than one in five hundred had this call to preach. Rev. Mr. Potter of Norwich was told by him that the Methodists did not believe in miraculous conversion any more than to think that all conversion in its last analysis was miraculous. 45 Downes in Methodism Examined accused the Methodists of treating the subject of conversion as though all conversions were of the nature of St. Paul's and the other first converts to Christianity; and “as if the signs of it were frightful tremors of the body, and convulsions and agonies of the mind arising from a sense of original sin, and the corruption of human nature: the Scriptures set it forth as a work graciously begun and carried out by the blessed spirit in conjunction with our rational powers and faculties; and the signs of it to be a sincere and universal obedience to the laws and precepts of the gospel." 46 Here the two views of the new birth were contrasted. When the Methodist urged the new birth as a doctrine to be accepted on the basis of miracle, the Churchman very properly asserted that a doctrine could not be bolstered up with an unproved miracle. He demanded the proof and made an appeal to reason. 47 The Churchman thought of the new birth in intellectual terms; while the Methodist thought it to be a vivid religious experience in his life to which he gave the name "new birth".

Still other clergy felt that the good things which the Methodists claimed to enjoy under the influence of the new birth, were found within the Church as well as with the Methodists; so they

46 P. 33.

said the Methodists misapplied the term new birth for something already extant within the Church.48

The new

The point, however, over which the clergy waxed warmest was the relationship of the new birth to baptism. Dr. Potter claimed that baptism was the first part of the new birth, while Wesley flatly denied that baptism was any vital part to the new birth; it was only an outward sign of new birth. birth itself was an inward change from unholy to holy tempers.49 Orthodox Churchmen looked upon this as a departure from the true doctrine of baptism. They inferred that the Methodist placed his hopes of heaven upon feelings and impressions, rather than upon baptism. The idea of the new birth was contrary to the idea of baptism, when the claim was made that one could experience the new birth after baptism; for baptism itself was supposed, according to the clergy, to be a kind of new birth.50 Bishop Gibson reminded the Methodists that in the baptismal service of the Established Church, the phrase "a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness" was used.51 He also told the people that he hoped, "when your ministers preach to you doctrines of regeneration or being born again of the spirit, as laid down in the New Testament; they do not tell you it must be instantaneous, or inwardly felt at the very time. . Life is affected by degrees." 52 Another writer brought forward the argument that a child could receive the Holy Spirit at baptism, and yet not know of it. Hence the claim for the immediate power and communion of the Holy Spirit was a "mere senseless, enthusiastic notion." This held true of the adult as well as the child and immediate communion was not needful for regeneration. Obedience to the Scripture would work this. Therefore the administration of sacrament, and no mere notion of immediate communication, regenerated men.53 Now the Methodists were thought to deny that baptism coincided with regeneration,

Ibid., p. 2.

or that it consists in reformation.54 This idea of theirs came not from the Bible, but from the Quakers.55 To hold the doctrine of original sin, and still to deny the efficacy of baptism made perplexing work in Methodist theology for the Churchman.56 Wesley dismissed all of these arguments as "High Church", and still insisted that the new birth was the real essential.57

The question of baptismal regeneration did not come prominently into the foreground at the time of the English Reformation. Neither was the Westminster Confession thoroughgoing when it said that in baptism were conferred "ingrafting into Christ, regeneration, and remission of sins." Such baptism benefited only the elect. For those not elect, it could do nothing. 58 Luther and Melanchthon held that baptism remitted both actual and original sin, and therefore all infants who were baptized and did not sin, were saved. But the English formularies left undecided the question whether the efficacy of baptism depended upon prevenient grace enabling one to have faith and repentance, in which case the sacrament was a symbol, or whether the efficacy depended upon a sacramental act. Baptism was considered necessary by all, but the precise method of its operation was not looked into. The Methodists could not view baptism in the sense of opus operatum, and this caused the above controversy. Had the Church made a clearer statement of this matter, this discussion could not have taken place, and she would have saved herself from the tribulations of that later and more celebrated discussion-The Gorham Case. 59

Bishop Lavington, one of the most bitter opponents of the Methodists was more pronounced in his objections. He said that the Jesuit Nieremberg taught the new birth as did the Methodists. The Methodists claimed it to be instantaneous: so did Saint Teresa, Saint Ignatius, and others. They had the

Jour., vol. iii, p. 434.

58

Stephens and Hunt: History of the Church of England, vol. viii, part i, p. 319.

same doctrine as did the Methodists. Hence this was a popish doctrine.60

By thus comparing the attitude of the Methodists and Churchmen toward this doctrine of the new birth, one sees not so much difference in regard to the facts dealt with, as a manifestation of two quite distinct types of mind that could not be harmonized.

SECTION IV. CHRISTIAN PERFECTION

Some phase of the idea and the ideal of Christian perfection has had a place in the Christian thought of every generation. It has stood for a conception of the completeness and blessedness of the Christian experience which has attracted both orthodox and sectarian alike. "Each of the main theological systems has preserved, in the form of doctrine, experience, or tradition, one or other of the aspects of Christian perfection presented in the New Testament; but there is no consecutive history of the doctrine." Augustine admitted that perfection was possible because divine grace was irresistible. At the same time he denied that this perfection took place in this life; for the will of God appointed that sin should persist in the best of Christians to promote humility. Luther and Calvin followed Augustine in teaching that perfection is never found in this present life. Nevertheless, the Christian had the promise from God that he would finally be delivered from all sin. Beyond this, the Reformation leaders did not venture with any degree of positiveness or precision. Neither was the Church of England lucid in its statement of this doctrine. Part of the Prayerbook indicated that Christian perfection consisted in perfect love implying a cleansing from all sin; and that it was possible for all sin to die in a person in this life. The Church sought to comprehend both the Arminian and the Calvinistic views. The High Churchmen of the Nonjuror type favored the Arminian position, and since Wesley came by ancestry from this stock, he came under the influence of this teaching and held to Christian perfection from the Arminian point of view. This, in general,