Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

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

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. The new 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.5 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,

48 The Question, p. 26.

49 Works, vol. v, p. 424.
50 Wills: p. 19.

51 Pastoral Letter, 1739, p. 13.

52 Ibid., p. 2.

[ocr errors]

51

[ocr errors]

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.5 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

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

58 Ibid., p. 6.

57 Jour., vol. iii, p. 434.

58

Stephens and Hunt: History of the Church of England, vol. viii,

part i, p. 319.

59 Ibid., p. 320.

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,

was the ancestry of the Doctrine of Christian Perfection as held by the Methodists.61

After the Methodist had been pardoned by God (justification), after he had been transformed in such a manner as to be able to commune with God (regeneration), there came a third step. He who had been justified by faith, and regenerated in his life, could be purified. Such purification was called “sanctification." The doctrine of sanctification was said to be "the grand depositum which God has lodged with the people called Methodists."62 The conference explained it "to be renewed in the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness," and faith was the instrument for accomplishing this.63

"To be renewed in the image of God" was a heavy claim to make. It was never brought forward very emphatically by the Methodists, for conference urged the individual to make no claim to sanctification. If any did claim this, his fellow Methodists were to do a little investigating into his life before freely accepting his claim.64 Not many were sanctified throughout; but just before death some were made perfect in love. This did not mean that one was saved from all sin. It was "the superlative degree of justification.”65 Neither did the Methodists claim to find any concrete cases of sanctification in the Scriptures; for the modesty of the apostles, so they explained, came to the forefront. The apostles were too modest to record themselves as being sanctified, having too much sense in dealing with this subject, lest they should give the early Christians inflated heads.66 What was sanctification? The Methodists were vague in their answer, always handling this theme very gingerly. They came to no pronounced doctrine, because that would lead to fanaticism.

Yet one part of the main doctrine of sanctification they treated in detail. This was in the form of the doctrine of "Christian Perfection."

61 Frederic Platt: Christian Perfection, in Hastings' Ency. of Rel. and Ethics, vol. ix, pp. 728-733.

62 Eayrs: p. 173.

63

Minutes of 1744, Works, vol. v, p. 197.

64 Minutes, vol. i, p. 38.

65Ibid., p. 34.

66

Ibid., p. 37.

In the Conference of 1744, the first question was asked about perfection: "What is implied in being a perfect Christian?" Conference answered: "The loving God with all our heart, and mind, and soul."67 This sounded well; but was not a clear answer, for the people asked about the doctrine of perfection so much that Wesley, in 1766, was obliged to write a treatise concerning it entitled, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection.68 Josiah Tucker, no friend of the Methodists, rightly said that Wesley did not think this out alone; but borrowed from William Law, the well known mystic of that time.69 Wesley made much more of this doctrine, however, than did Law; for even in his old age, writing to Adam Clarke, he urged that if any preacher or leader among the Methodists should speak against this doctrine they should be officers no more.70

Wesley spoke of perfection in a negative as well as in a positive sense. Negatively Christians were not perfect in the sense that "they are not perfect in knowledge. They are not free from ignorance, no, nor from mistake. We no more expect any man to be infallible than to be omniscient. They are not free from infirmities, such as weakness or slowness of understanding. . . . from such infirmities none are free until their spirits return to God."71 In his Plain Account of Christian Perfection the subject is treated in a positive manner. By perfection "we mean one in whom is 'the mind which was in Christ,' and who so 'walketh as Christ also walketh.' . . . In a word, he doeth 'the will of God on earth as it is done in heaven.' "72 Wesley went even farther, when he continued, "It remains, then, that Christians are saved in this world from all sin, from all unrighteousness; that they are now in such a sense perfect, as not to commit sin, as to be freed from evil thoughts and evil tempers."73 But this, in turn, was qualified when Wesley repeatedly stated, that there was no such perfection in this life,

67 Works, vol. vi, p. 496.

68

69

Vide Richard Green: The Works of John and Charles Wesley, p. 134.
History of the Principles of Methodism, p. 41.

TO Tyerman: vol. iii, p. 633.

" Works, vol. vi, p. 489.

Christian Perfection, Works, vol. vi, p. 494ff.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »