| I. Introduction There is so much division in the Church over Baptism that it must surely grieve the Lord Jesus very much. It seems that the very idea of sharing the joy of salvation with fellow Christians is undermined by doubts concerning Baptism. The nagging question of who is and who is not a true Christian sometimes revolves around Baptism, especially when we ignore other evidence in the life of an individual pointing to a right relationship with God. It is my purpose here to put forth an ecumenical view around which many may rally for mutual support and edification. II. The Purpose of Baptism Baptism is presented as a ritual washing with water for the remission of sins and spiritual rebirth for those who repent and believe in Jesus Christ for salvation. Consider the following commentary on passages from the New Testament.
A. The Gospel begins with the story of John the Baptizer, who preached a Baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:1-4). Jesus called him a prophet, more than a prophet, the greatest of men and Elijah to come preparing God’s way (Matthew 11:9). Not only is John a transitional figure between the Old and New Testaments but he introduces the rite of Baptism that is carried forward as one of the Sacraments of the Church. John’s requirement of repentance is affirmed in the public ministries both of Jesus and Peter. The first word out of Jesus’ mouth when he began his public ministry was “repent” (Matthew 4:17). When asked what they should do, Peter answered the convicted crowd of Pentecost, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:32). Repentance is required because the moral force of the Law is maintained in Christianity. As Jesus said, “Think not that I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets … but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). The “righteousness of the Law” that “exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees” (v. 20) is the Christian ethic of divine, sacrificial love, the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), the New Commandment (John 16:12-13 and I John 2:7-11), the love of God poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5). Through repentance and cleansing “by the washing of water with the word” (Ephesians 25:26) we begin to appropriate to ourselves the grace needed to walk with Christ in the moral perfection of love (I John 4:7-21). As a Prophet, John made a prediction that is consistent with many other Old Testament prophecies concerning the New Covenant in Christ. John said that Jesus would baptize “with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matthew 3:11). It is the indwelling and sanctifying fire of the Spirit that makes us the persons we are meant to be under the Lordship of Christ. Ezekiel 36:25-27 says,
I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.
B. Hebrews 7:1-10:25, especially 10:22, is an extraordinary discussion of how the provisions for moral cleansing in the Old Testament are superceded in the person and work of Christ. The New Testament contains “better promises” and more powerful means for fulfilling them: one righteous and eternal High Priest obsoletes a succession of sinful Levitical priests; and the one sacrifice of Christ for all time obsoletes continual animal sacrifices. “Hebrews” speaks of the Old Testament sacrificial cultus as a “shadow” of the “reality” that was to come in Christ. This philosophical framework of “Hebrews” is from the writings of Plato, the ancient Greek philosopher. Plato taught that things aren’t always what they seem, that beyond them can be found a universal and eternal truth represented by them. Just as Old Testament shadows were fulfilled in the Christ event, the work of Christ casts a shadow forward into the Church Age. That is, since the work of Christ was necessarily limited in time and space because of his incarnate nature, there must be some way to represent in the Church what Christ did for us on the Cross. So Jesus instituted Sacraments: Baptism, Holy Communion and maybe Washing Feet, to communicate to us in tangible, sensate ways what his life and work means to those who believe in him for eternal life. Because Christ himself instituted these rites, and because Christ is of one will with the Father and the Spirit, God honors with profound blessings the faithful administration of the Sacraments in his Church. Through faith and the Holy Spirit Christ himself is considered “present” with us in the Sacramental ministry of the Church. In Hebrews 10:22, we see that Baptism signifies the application of the shed blood of Christ for atonement before God and the relief of a guilty conscience in a new Christian. C. The following verses also elevate Baptism to Sacramental status in the life and ministry of the Church. That is, one might reasonably get the impression that Baptism is essential to salvation. Jesus told Nicodemus, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” (John 3:5) That “born of water” means Baptism is clear from the immediate context of the Discourse. Immediately after his talk with Nicodemus Jesus went with his disciples to Judea where they baptized (v. 22). And then there is a discussion about the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptizer to finish out Chapter 3. Peter, to whom were given the “keys of the Kingdom,” (Matthew 16:16) said, “In the days of Noah … a few … were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him” (I Peter 3:20-22). Here we see that Baptism is supported by the highest authority in the universe, the glorified Christ, who is Lord of all. Peter may have in mind what John the Beloved said about the Risen, Ascended and Enthroned Christ, “we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous; and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world” (I John 2:1-2). The Apostle Paul wrote to Titus, a pastoral colleague saying, “[God] saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:5-7). Sacrament is defined in our Anglo-Catholic tradition as the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. Other excellent theories of the Sacraments have been put forward, as well. The various theories are wonderful topics for discussion, debate and the sharpening of wit; but it is our prayer that the Church seek unity around a sound Biblical exposition of the purpose of Baptism as a rite “of” (corresponding to, belonging to) repentance and rebirth in the Spirit of God. D. Some argue that the New Testament view of Baptism is not consistent. The story of the Ephesians in Acts raises many questions (Acts 19:1-7). Paul seems to indicate that there is a difference between the Baptism of John and Christian Baptism. But one should not make too much of that distinction because Paul does not dispute the purpose of Baptism as the rite that accompanies repentance. The Ephesians are called “disciples” and there is great affinity between them and Paul even though they had never heard of the Holy Spirit! Yet, this story is useful for those who have been faithful to the teaching they’ve received and then later learn the whole truth about God’s plan of salvation. Paul re-baptizes the Ephesians because he wants the Ephesians to experience the normal and ordinary Christian program of rebirth “by water and the Spirit” that is set out by Christ and his Apostles. The example of the Ephesians shows that God intends for baptism to accompany repentance from past sins and a baptism of renewal in the Spirit. Both baptisms, in water and the Spirit, are intended to be a conjoint work of grace in the conversion experience of every new Christian. If a significant lapse occurs (in perception, understanding, expectation or experience) between the outward sign of Baptism and the evidence of new birth in the Spirit, it is the new birth that must take priority. The Church can make a mistake, or other circumstances intervene, to separate the rite of Baptism from the spiritual reality it attends. In such a case, as in Ephesus, we see that Paul brings the rite in line with the reality, not visa versa. The new birth is the constant; the rite is the variable. Therefore, when the cause is compelling, the Church should not be afraid to re-baptize those who are not satisfied with a previous ritual. The Elders of the Church should carefully examine baptismal policy and review cases presented in an orderly fashion so as to balance and ensure the dual concerns 1) of protecting the integrity of the Sacrament and 2) of being pastorally responsible to members of the flock of God.
The Sacramental nature of Baptism is soundly established in the discussion of New Testament passages just completed. That Baptism is the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace is obvious. From the New Testament perspective, it is the normal and ordinary turn of events for converts to be baptized. The close link, both experientially and theoretically, between Baptism and the remission of sins/rebirth in the Spirit makes Baptism essential to the Faith in these ways: 1) Church officials would be derelict if they neglected to baptize a convert in due course, 2) such dereliction would be grounds for suspension, and 3) a person’s refusal to submit to Baptism would make their sincerity highly suspect. III. Proper Candidates for Baptism
A. Proper candidates for Baptism are those who hear the Gospel and repent. This is not accurately called “Believer’s” Baptism because the demons “believe” and are yet evil (James 2:19b). One must be converted and show the fruits of repentance, examples of which were given by John the Baptizer, recorded in Luke 3:7-14. The evidence of a changed life is essential to the American Methodist experience. B. Infants are not proper candidates for baptism because an infant cannot be conceived as having sinned. John Wesley defined sin as the willful transgression of a known law of God. How can that definition apply to infants or even children, all else being equal? Neither is an infant able to repent or believe in Christ. Infants, children, those who are profoundly handicapped or those under duress cannot be held morally accountable for their behavior because they lack the mental capacity to form malicious intent. The New Testament recounts not a single incident of an infant being baptized. The practice of Infant Baptism depends on the doctrine of Original Sin, which is poorly conceived. It takes literally a passage that is clearly a literary device called hyperbole, “In sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:5). The doctrine of Original Sin is sexist because it says that sin is genetically transmitted to a child through the sinfulness of intercourse with a woman (Augustine and Calvin). It is a superstition that should be discouraged in the Church.
IV. Proper Modes of Baptism
A. By Sprinkling, Pouring or Submersion
B. By an Elder or One under the Direction of an Elder
C. In an Emergency upon Request
D. Salvation without Baptism an Exception to the Rule - The Thief on the Cross
V. A Form of Catechism Recommended
Whereas the New Testament accounts of Baptism show a population of penitents being almost immediately baptized, one must remember that this was often in the context of those who had rudimentary knowledge of a covenant relationship with God. On the Day of Pentecost, it was Jewish proselytes from many places who first heard the Gospel miraculously in their own languages. In the Missionary Journeys of Paul, it was his practice to go first to the Jewish synagogues. Many churches in Asia Minor and Rome were hived off from Jewish synagogues. From early Church history, however, we find that as the Gospel spread even beyond the previous reach of Judaism, into communities that were alienated from the knowledge of God, the Church developed short-courses in Christian doctrine for converts called “catechism.” The converts who submitted to these lessons were then called “catechumens.” When Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost, he proclaimed specific content concerning Christ, as did Paul in his ministry to the Gentiles and Philip when he spoke to the Ethiopian Eunuch. Baptism “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” should be accompanied by some knowledge of the same. So a form of catechism is highly recommended when the Elders have some desire to instruct new converts in light of their need for instruction. FIRST LESSONS FOR AMERICAN METHODISTS was written for this purpose. See the link at index1.html.
VI. Reforming Methodist Baptism
We have presented Baptism as a rite of Christian initiation, a washing away of sins and beginning fresh with God in Christ, a new birth of the spirit in the Spirit of God, a death to sinful behavior with a resurrection to moral transformation. Baptism is a ritual washing that should be “lived out” from that “happy day” forward in an intentional way. Just as living things in the natural world grow and develop through various stages, and according to a plan or structure suited to them, so it is with our spiritual development after Baptism. Those of us who are “Methodists” look to John Wesley for guidance in living out our Baptism. First, Wesley was able to reclaim and officially enshrine within Methodism two important doctrines found in Scripture and the early Church: sanctification (breaking free from the powerful bad habits of sin that may hang on after Baptism) and moral perfection in love. That is, the new life of the Spirit, which Baptism accompanies, has outward manifestations in the on-going life of the Christian. Wesley’s overwhelming passion for the New Birth characterized his extraordinary evangelistic ministry and was in sharp contrast to the Judicial Decree promoted by Calvinist preachers of this day. And Wesley’s methodical organizational skills were used to preserve the fruit of the Revival in the Methodist Societies, which became churches after his death. Those historical developments in Methodism have consequences for how we conceive of Baptism - it raises the need for an individual’s personal response to the Gospel in repentance and discipleship to a very high level, a level usually found in churches of the more radical Reform movements, such as the Baptists. So, in doctrine, Wesley’s teaching was “high church” but his experience in the Methodist Revival was “low church” for which he received contumely and ostracism in his own Church. So second, this emphasis on the New Birth as a personal experience caused a terrible dilemma for Wesley. He met opposition in those who believed that because they were baptized as infants, they had no need of the New Birth and Spiritual Growth that Wesley was preaching. Being an 18th Century Anglican priest, Wesley was conflicted: he saw the power of the Gospel at work to change the lives of adult men and women, yet he supported the traditional Church doctrine and practice of baptizing infants. His frustration is seen in excerpts from his writings presented below. Third, it isn’t enough to reform Baptism on the basis of Wesley’s conflicted statements about Infant Baptism alone. Whatever else Wesley said, he certainly did believe in and encourage Infant Baptism (see Dan Tilly). We may take his conflict as a clue, though, to something being fundamentally wrong with the system of Infant Baptism in Methodism, but to promote a truly “Wesleyan” reform we must outline a view consistent with other Wesleyan interpretive principles. Wesley’s use of Scripture and reason will provide an adequate basis of reform. The following excerpts come from the Sermons of John Wesley but more than that from among the 52 Standard Sermons that form the basis for authoritative Methodist doctrine. A. From “Circumcision of the Heart”
That “circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter;” - that the distinguishing mark of a true follower of Christ, of one who is in a state of acceptance with God, is not either outward circumcision, or baptism, or any other outward form, but a right state of soul, a mind and spirit renewed after the image of Him that created it; - is one of those important truths that can only be spiritually discerned. And this the Apostle himself intimates in the next words, - “Whose praise is not of men, but of God.” As if he had said, “Expect not, whoever thou art, who thus followest thy great Master, that the world, the men who follow him not, will say, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant!’ Know that the circumcision of the heart, the seal of thy calling, is foolishness with the world. Be content to wait for thy applause till the day of thy Lord’s appearing. In that day shalt thou have praise of God, in the great assembly of men and angels.”
Here we see that Wesley follows the apostolic teaching concerning circumcision, that in Christianity circumcision is not analogous to Baptism but to spiritual renewal. The Old Testament sign of the Covenant was circumcision. The New Testament sign of the Covenant was a changed life, the seal of the Spirit. Yet many today confuse these signs of the covenant, assuming that because circumcision was performed on the eighth day so should Baptism be administered to infants. But, as Wesley points out, the true sign of the Christian covenant is not an “outward form” but an inner change of heart. Wesley seems aware that this doctrine is controversial and reminds his listeners that they should follow the truth with a mind toward God’s approval and the judgment day. B. From “Marks of the New Birth”
Say not then in your heart, “I I baptized, therefore I am now a child of God.” Alas, that consequence will by no means hold. How many are the baptized gluttons and drunkards, the baptized liars and common swearers, the baptized railers and evil-speakers, the baptized whoremongers, thieves, extortioners? What think you? Are these now the children of God? Verily, I say unto you, whosoever you are, unto whom any one of the preceding characters belongs, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the works of your father ye do.” Unto you I call, in the name of Him whom you crucify afresh, and in his words to your circumcised predecessors, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”
How, indeed, except ye be born again! For ye are now dead in trespasses and sins. To say, then, that ye cannot be born again, that there is no new birth but in baptism, is to seal you all under damnation, to consign you to hell, without help, without hope. And perhaps some may think this just and right. In their zeal for the Lord of hosts, they may say, “Yea, cut off the sinners, the Amalekites! Let these Gibeonites be utterly destroyed! They deserve no less.” No; nor I, nor you. Mine and your desert, as well as theirs, is hell; and it is mere mercy, free, undeserved mercy, that we are not now in unquenchable fire. You will say, “But we are washed;” we were born again “of water and of the Spirit.” So were they: This, therefore, hinders not at all, but that ye may now be even as they. Know ye not, that “what is highly esteemed of men is an abomination in the sight of God?” Come forth, ye “saints of the world,” ye that are honored of men, and see who will cast the first stone at them, at these wretches not fit to live upon the earth, these common harlots, adulterers, murderers. Only learn ye first what that meaneth, “He that hateth his brother is a murderer.” (1 John 3:15.) “He that looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28.) “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?” (James 4:4.)
“Verily, verily, I say unto you ye” also “must be born again.” “Except ye” also “be born again, ye cannot see the kingdom of God.” Lean no more on the staff of that broken reed, that ye were born again in baptism. Who denies that ye were then made children of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven? But, notwithstanding this, ye are now children of the devil. Therefore ye must be born again. And let not Satan put it into your heart to cavil at a word, when the thing is clear. Ye have heard what are the marks of the children of God: All ye who have them not on your souls, baptized or unbaptized, must needs receive them, or without doubt ye will perish everlastingly. And if ye have been baptized, your only hope is this, - that those who were made the children of God by baptism, but are now the children of the devil, may yet again receive “power to become the sons of God;” that they may receive again what they have lost, even the “Spirit of adoption, crying in their hearts, Abba, Father!”
Wesley is intensely aware that Infant Baptism was not coterminous with new birth in the Spirit, the moral transformation that “marks” one as being born again. His experience was the same as the Apostle Paul when Paul first arrived at Ephesus, except for one difference. Paul did not have an established national Church telling the Ephesians they were already saved; Wesley did. And to complicate matters, Wesley was ordained by the very Church that opposed his message! Notice that John Wesley calls Infant Baptism a “broken reed” and makes no mention here of Infant Baptism magically washing away original sin. Evidence would suggest otherwise. Infant Baptism is based on the doctrine of original sin described previously. If Infant Baptism washes away original sin, what is the source of the evil that so many commit, who were once baptized and now live like the devil? And if at some point a child must profess faith in Christ for self-sake, showing repentance for actual sins committed and submit to instruction in a program of confirmation or membership in the Church, why not at that point administer Baptism as well? These simple observations raise the question whether the Sacrament of Baptism should be reserved for those who have dealt reasonably successfully with the issue of sin in their lives in an appropriation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is the evangelistic perspective on Baptism that would be a logical extension of the views of Wesley, especially in America where there is no national Church and a guaranteed freedom of religion. C. From “Catholic Spirit”
I dare not, therefore, presume to impose my mode of worship on any other. I believe it is truly primitive and apostolical: But my belief is no rule for another. I ask not, therefore, of him with whom I would unite in love, Are you of my Church? of my congregation? Do you receive the same form of Church government, and allow the same Church officers, with me? Do you join in the same form of prayer wherein I worship God? I inquire not, Do you receive the supper of the Lord in the same posture and manner that I do? nor whether, in the administration of baptism, you agree with me in admitting sureties for the baptized; in the manner of administering it: or the age of those to whom it should be administered. Nay, I ask not of you, (as clear as I am in my own mind,) whether you allow baptism and the Lord’s supper at all. Let all these things stand by; we will talk of them, if need be, at a more convenient season; my only question at present is this, - “Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?”
Here we see that it violates the ecumenical spirit to argue with those who practice a different policy with regard to Baptism. This tolerant spirit varies greatly from Methodists in the 19th Century in America, who vehemently debated the Baptists, and many Methodists in America today, who are quite defensive about infant baptism. Wesley shows by this passage that he is not legalistic about Baptism at all, specifically mentioning the “age of those to whom it should be administered.” For Wesley, the spiritual fruit of Christian love trumps all other considerations. With regard to new converts to the Faith, we should give proper instruction and follow proper procedure, faithful in our own belief and practice concerning the Sacramental nature of Baptism; but in ecumenical efforts, it should not be a stumbling block to Christian filial love. D. From “The New Birth”
And, First, it follows, that baptism is not the new birth: They are not one and the same thing. Many indeed seem to imagine that they are just the same; at least, they speak as if they thought so; but I do not know that this opinion is publicly avowed by any denomination of Christians whatever. Certainly it is not by any within these kingdoms, whether of the established Church, or dissenting from it. The judgment of the latter is clearly declared in their large Catechism: Q. “What are the parts of a sacrament?
A. The parts of a sacrament are two: The one an outward and sensible sign; the other, an inward and spiritual grace, thereby signified. - Q. What is baptism?
A. Baptism is a sacrament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water, to be a sign and seal of regeneration by his Spirit. Here it is manifest, baptism, the sign, is spoken of as distinct from regeneration, the thing signified. In the Church Catechism likewise, the judgment of our Church is declared with the utmost clearness: Q. “What meanest thou by this word, sacrament?
A. I mean an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. Q. What is the outward part or form in baptism?
A. Water, wherein the person is baptized, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Q. What is the inward part, or thing signified?
A. A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness.” Nothing, therefore, is plainer, than that, according to the Church of England, baptism is not the new birth. But indeed the reason of the thing is so clear and evident, as not to need any other authority. For what can be more plain, than that the one is an external, the other an internal, work; that the one is a visible, the other an invisible thing, and therefore wholly different from each other? - the one being an act of man, purifying the body; the other a change wrought by God in the soul: So that the former is just as distinguishable from the latter, as the soul from the body, or water from the Holy Ghost.
How many times have I heard, out of the Liturgical Renewal movement, that “baptism is the act of God?” Yet, this is not the view of the Anglican Church or of John Wesley. The English Reform and our Anglo-Catholic liturgical tradition gives us an excellent definition of the Sacraments that allows us to distinguish between living faith in Christ versus dead works that “hold to a form of religion but denies the power of it.” Wesleyan Methodism is all about the grace of God, the powerful, life-changing activity of God in our hearts and lives, without which nothing else matters. Anglicanism is a unique form of the Reformation that does not depend on scholasticism, either Medieval or Lutheran, but on reasonableness. It does not depend on a propositional or Confessional approach but on a method of interpreting Scripture. Anglicanism sought a “middle way” between the Catholic and Protestant perspectives under Elizabeth in the Act of Toleration. Wesley took the English Reform one step further than mere toleration; he became proactively evangelistic. The Wesleys were, therefore, the first “Evangelicals,” making free will, the new birth, the witness of the Spirit, entire sanctification, and moral perfection in love the tests of all belief and practice. Wesley’s Evangelical perspective had implications for how he interpreted Infant Baptism. He was painfully aware that the bulk of his countrymen, though baptized as infants, were irreligious and sinful. “Ye must be born again,” he boldly proclaimed. His thoughts on the matter put him in a trajectory that leads to the official view of the American Methodist connection, that it is not proper to baptize infants. First, it is not required for membership in a national Church like the Church of England, and second, it seems to have no practical effect on the infant. So why would Methodists in America hold to a magical view of Baptism when our tolerant Anglican tradition and our Methodist evangelistic experience would lead us in another direction? The passages from Wesley above show that the true Methodist perspective is to measure all things by the fruit of the Spirit; those things that contribute to spiritual formation should be believed and practiced, while those that complicate or confuse the issue should burn up as dross in the refining fire of the Spirit. Did Wesley really believe in infant baptism? There is some evidence to suggest that Wesley was lukewarm to the idea of Infant Baptism. Note the following quotes. Though not from the authoritative sources of Methodist doctrine, the Sermons and Notes, they give an insight concerning Wesley’s true feelings on the subject. E. From “A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion”
This beginning of that vast, inward change, is usually termed, the new birth. Baptism is the outward sign of this inward grace, which is supposed by our Church to be given with and through that sign to all infants, and to those of riper years, if they repent and believe the gospel. But how extremely idle are the common disputes on this head! I tell a sinner, “You must be born again.” “No,” say you: “He was born again in baptism. Therefore he cannot be born again now.” Alas, what trifling is this! What, if he was then a child of God? He is now manifestly a child of the devil; for the works of his father he doeth. Therefore, do not play upon words. He must go through an entire change of heart. In one not yet baptized, you yourself would call that change, the new birth. In him, call it what you will; but remember, meantime, that if either he or you die without it, your baptism will be so far from profiting you, that it will greatly increase your damnation.
Allowing for Wesley’s hyperbole at the end of this passage, which speaks more to men of religion than of reason, I would draw attention to how Wesley used the word “supposed.” Baptism is, in Wesley’s words “supposed by our Church” to give “this inward grace” to “all infants.” “Supposed” is not a ringing endorsement of the practice of Infant Baptism. His “increased damnation” comment at the end tells us his frame of mind when he said “supposed.” That’s because Wesley saw all around him baptized sinners. So he didn’t know what to call it when infants were “supposedly” born again in their obviously ineffective Baptism. He had no name for what happened to infants when they were baptized because nothing seemed to happen. It seems that the greatest public objection to the specific idea of the “new birth” in Wesley’s evangelistic preaching was that the people were already magically born again in their Infant Baptism. He encountered this objection from the Established clergy on a number of occasions and retorted in the strongest of terms, saying it was a “lie” and “hypocrisy” to claim new birth in Infant Baptism while said persons were later living a sinful life. Isn’t that nearly always the assumption in liturgical or non-Evangelical Churches, that the regular ritual program of the Church is “supposed” to save their adherents, that no conversion experience is required? And isn’t that the “supposition” behind much that has passed for “liturgical renewal” in the Liberal Mainline Churches today? Beware, the false hope implied by an over-ritualized religion is spiritually dangerous. The inward and spiritual grace should not be assumed in the outward and visible sign. F. From later in “A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion” In defending the doctrine of justification by faith that he preached, Wesley proves that it is the official doctrine of the Church of England, moderating half-way between Antinomians and Catholics, by quoting the Articles of Religion, the Homilies and the Book of Common Prayer. He quotes these sources to support the requirement of repentance and faith in those who are to be justified, as antecedents to justification. Then, again, he uses the word “supposes” with regard to infant baptism.
Infants, indeed, our Church supposes to be justified in baptism, although they cannot then either believe or repent. But she expressly requires both repentance and faith in those who come to be baptized when they are of riper years.
Notice the contrast between “supposes” and “expressly requires” when comparing the conditions under which infants, as opposed to adults, are baptized. Wesley accepts the limits of an infant’s capacity and makes no magical claims for the effectiveness of Infant Baptism, since it may be that he doesn’t really believe in it. Though Wesley would not be in a position to directly question Infant Baptism, it’s clear that the difficulties, inconsistencies, in his own Church did not escape him. G. From “A Roman Catechism” That Wesley was sensitive to magical interpretations of Infant Baptism can be seen from his criticism of the Roman Catholic ritual.
But can we think it for the majesty of baptism to have it dressed up like a form of conjuration, that the child must be supposed to be possessed with the devil, and the Priest must blow in his face three times, with, “Get thee out, Satan,” before he can say, “Peace be with thee;” and that he must cross him half a score times, or more, from part to part, in preparation to baptism? Can we think it for the majesty of it, to have salt exorcised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and to be put into the mouth of the child, for a propitiation unto eternal life? Can we think it for the majesty of this ordinance, that the Priest should put some of his own spittle in his left hand, and then taking it thence with the thumb and forefinger of his right hand, touch both ears of the infant, and say, “Ephphatha, be thou opened!” and then his nostrils, and say, “For the odor of sweetness; but thou, O devil, fly;” and then on his right hand, after the manner of a cross, saying, “N, I deliver unto thee the mark of our Lord Jesus Christ, (†) that thou mayest drive the adversary from thee on every side, and have life eternal?” And what are the benefits imprinted on the mind by these fantastical ceremonies? Or when is it such benefits are promised as these are said to signify? Is it not rather a debasing of it, to have such rites and prayers introduced into it, as signify that which baptism was never appointed for?
Again, look at the use of the word “supposed” in the first sentence above. “Suppose” means to accept something without adequate rational basis. In contrast to supposing something is true, valid and good, look at the questions Wesley asks about the ritual. Notice that Wesley takes a pastoral interest in what practical good the rite does for the recipient of the rite. Unless one is ready to divorce faith from reasonableness, we should be careful to avoid superstition and “be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in us.”
VII. Conclusion
Wesley rejoiced that he was saved from “zeal for the Church” to better serve Christ. From “Sermons on Several Occasions” There was a time in Wesley’s life when he was scrupulous about every ritual and tradition of the Church of England. He tells on himself with the following words, penned after experiencing his spiritual awakening. He had been a “missionary” to America and describes his experience thusly.
In October, 1735, my brother, Mr. Ingham, and I, were induced, by a strange chain of providences, to go over to the new colony in Georgia. Our design was to preach to the Indian nations bordering upon that province; but we were detained at Savannah and Frederica, by the importunity of the people, who, having no other Ministers, earnestly requested that we would not leave them. After a time, I desired the most serious of them to meet are once or twice a week at my house. Here were the rudiments of a Methodist society; but, notwithstanding this, both my brother and I were as vehemently attached to the Church as ever, and to every rubric of it; insomuch that I would never admit a Dissenter to the Lord’s Supper, unless he would be re-baptized. Nay, when the Lutheran Minister of the Saltzburghers at Ebenezer, being at Savannah, desired to receive it, I told him, I did not dare to administer it to him, because I looked upon him as unbaptized; as I judged baptism by laymen to be invalid: And such I counted all that were not episcopally ordained. 5. Full of these sentiments, of this zeal for the Church, (from which, I bless God, he has now delivered me,) I returned to England in the beginning of February, 1738.
The work of the American Methodist reform movement is to assist others in what Wesley experienced: deliverance by the grace of God from unhealthy and unhelpful attachments to sectarian/institutional traditions and rituals. Wesley was freed from magical views both of the episcopacy and of baptism. It is truly a blessing to be free, to use our liberty as Americans, not as a license to sin, but as an opportunity to follow Scripture, reasonableness, pastoral necessity and the primitive church, as Wesley bade us to do.
|