Wesleyan scholars should not simply equate "baptism with the Holy Spirit" and entire sanctification. To do so would be to ignore that Pentecost had to do primarily with the rise of the Church. Yet, in an important sense the "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is to be associated with entire sanctification, though not equated.

In this respect, it is important to keep in mind the distinction between the Church as the corporate Body of Christ on the one hand, and individual members on the other hand. This distinction can be seen in the thought of Paul when he writes "to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus" (l Cor. 1:2), yet he designates the actual status of individual members within this one church, some of whom are carnal in contrast to being spiritual.

While the Church as the corporate body of Christ is holy, individual members may not have fully appropriated sanctifying grace. In this respect, it is one thing to be holy "in Christ" by virtue of our position in the Church, but it is another thing for Christ to be formed in us. l To be sure, to be "in Christ" by virtue of our initiation into the body of Christ involves an actual change (regeneration and initial sanctification), but individuals in the Church do not usually fully appropriate sanctifying grace until some time subsequent to their conversion-initiation into the Church.

Hence, while the "baptism with the Spirit" has to do primarily with the formation of the Church as the holy people of God, there is also a sense in which it can be said that "baptism with the Spirit" effects the holiness of individual believers within the Church. Inasmuch as the baptism in the Spirit suggests the fullness of sanctifying grace which is a characteristic of the Church as the corporate body of Christ, it also seems appropriate to associate the baptism with the Spirit with Wesley's concept of Christian perfection as it relates to the individual believers within the Church. In this respect, "baptism with the Spirit" in Acts 2 focuses primarily upon the "objective" formation of the Church as the "corporate" body of believers, whereas the Pentecostal experiences in Acts 8, 9, 10, 19 focus primarily upon the "subjective" appropriation of the life of the Spirit in individual believers. In making this distinction between the "corporate" (objective) aspect and the "individual" (subjective) aspect, one can see that the former was an unrepeatable event in salvation history, whereas the latter is to be repeated in the life of each individual believer within the Church.

This brings us to a discussion of a most remarkable similarity that exists between the Roman Catholic doctrine of confirmation and the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification. In Roman Catholic theology, baptism has to do with inauguration into the Church, whereas confirmation has to do with the Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit who empowers the individual believer to live the Christian life. Hence there are two sacraments of initiation, not just one. Without experiencing both baptism and confirmation one has not been duly initiated into the Christian life, for they "belong together in the single Christian initiation" and although they are "extended in time" they are "ultimately one."2

Roman Catholic scholars cite as exegetical support for the subsequent rite of confirmation the very same passages in the Book of Acts that Wesleyan exegetes cite for their distinction between the birth of the Spirit and the fullness of the Spirit. (Incidentally, if the Wesleyan tradition had a stronger emphasis upon the idea of the sacraments and the visibility of the Church as the body of Christ, such exegetical claims by Roman Catholic scholars might not seem so unrealistic).

This striking similarity between the Roman Catholic doctrines of baptism and confirmation and the Wesleyan doctrines of conversion and entire sanctification has largely gone unnoticed. It can be enlightening to us in the Wesleyan tradition to examine the common elements in our otherwise rather divergent traditions, especially since such a study could enhance our understanding of the meaning of the baptism with the Spirit in the light of a more comprehensive doctrine of the Church as an organism (something which has been sorely lacking in our Wesleyan tradition).

The extensive but highly significant quotation which follows and which is taken from William J. O'Shea of the Catholic University of America shows the very close similarity between the Catholic doctrine of confirmation and the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification.

It is quite clear that the Catholic doctrine of confirmation (like the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification) means the perfection of sanctifying grace begun in conversion whereby "the believer's being as a Christian is completed" since "he is clothed with the fullness of the Spirit after the likeness of Christ."

It is also clear that for the Catholic doctrine of confirmation (like the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification) there is "prescribed" a time-lapse between "these two separate, yet related, anointings."4 In fact, the Catholic doctrine of confirmation cannot be repeated for any baptized believer because it has to do with the perfection of "character" and if one's character is perfected in confirmation, there could be no need for further confirmation.5 Hence confirmation (like entire sanctification) is a second definitive work of grace in the life of the Christian believer, though the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification does not absolutize the crisisaspect.

That there is a clear distinction between the beginning of the Christian life and a second definitive work of grace in Catholic theology can also be seen in the distinction that is made between "Easter" and "Pentecost" as a, pattern of Christian experience.

Like Calvinists today who attack Wesley's doctrine of a second work of grace, even so John Calvin engaged in a scathing attack upon the Roman Catholic theology of confirmation with its emphasis upon a second experience which completes the work of grace begun in the new birth. Calvin specifically rejects the Catholic exegesis of Acts 19:1-2. For him the subsequent experience of the Spirit of the Ephesian believers was a visible sign and manifestation of the Spirit which served a purpose peculiar to the evangelistic needs of the apostolic period. But the Catholic notion that the baptism with the Spirit was a perfection of the Christian life was to utter "horrible blasphemies."

As it has already been pointed out, for Wesleyan theology it is one thing to be "in Christ," yet another thing for Christ to be formed in us. Likewise, confirmation for Catholic theology means the believer is to be conformed to Christ.

O'Shea further points out that "the difference between baptism and confirmation is the difference between giving life and enabling that life to reach its full potential. Confirmation gives us the power to be what we already are by baptism."9

Another highly significant comparison between Roman Catholic theology of confirmation and the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification is that it is the Pentecostal gift of the Spirit who effects "Christlikeness" in the life of the baptized believer.

What this means, then, is that every baptized believer is to have his own unique individual Pentecost. "The Spirit we receive in confirmation is the Spirit of Pentecost. That confirmation is the individual Christian's Pentecost is shown by the prayer at the end of the rite of confirmation."11 O'Shea goes on to show that for "the Fathers and Doctors of the Church . . .what happened on Pentecost happens now to the individual Christian."12

In The Sixteen Documents of Vatican II there is a direct association of the "gift of the Holy Spirit" to the "perfection" of the believer's character. The chapter entitled, "The Universal Call to Holiness in the Church," can-not be surpassed as a concise statement on what holiness means, if its identification of Roman Catholicism with the only true church were eliminated. The call to holiness is the call for "individuals, who in their walk of life, tend toward the perfection of charity."13

Of special significance in these documents is the relating of the Pentecostal gift of the Spirit with perfect love.

It is further urged: "Thus it is evident to everyone, that all the faithful of Christ of whatever rank or status, are called to the fullness of the Christian life and to the perfection of charity."15

What is significant is that Roman Catholic theology appeals to the same biblical passages as does Wesleyan theology to support its doctrine of holiness, as well as to support its distinction between baptized believers and perfect Christians who have been filled with the Holy Spirit in the rite of confirmation.16

Even in Wesley's day it was said often enough that his doctrine of entire sanctification was highly influenced by Roman Catholic theology. What should also be evident is that John Fletcher's relating the gift of the Holy Spirit to Christian perfection has its historical roots in Roman Catholic theology as well!17 In this respect, John Wesley's Anglican heritage was too easily forgotten by his followers in the succeeding generations. Though Wesley in some respects may have departed from the liturgical and traditional aspects of his Anglican background, it should be kept in mind that at heart he was always a loyal churchman and steeped in the Anglican tradition. He always insisted that his teachings were thoroughly Anglican.18

Unfortunately, Wesley's followers largely dropped his Anglicanism and forgot about his heritage. What has happened as a result is that the Wesleyan-Arminian emphasis on holiness has appeared all too often as an aberration. Instead of understanding and appreciating the Anglican heritage which serves as the basis of the Wesleyan doctrine of holiness, the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition cut itself off from dialogue with the Anglican tradition. Hence, Wesley's doctrine of entire sanctification has been made to appear as an innovation within church history as well as a mere "inference" if not an imposition on Scripture. Hence, the Lutheran and Reformed traditions do not take seriously the Wesleyan doctrine of Christian perfection.

In this respect, it should be remembered that Wesley locates the source of his doctrine of entire sanctification firmly within the Anglican tradition especially in such thinkers as Jeremy Taylor.19 For Taylor, it was the "ordinance" of confirmation which effected perfection of character.20 He felt so strongly about this rite that he wrote "A Discourse of Confirmation" in which he sought to defend it against those who neglected its importance. For him, it is the Pentecostal reception of the Spirit in confirmation which makes the life of holiness possible. Confirmation, if it is met with inward faith, makes the baptized believer a "perfect Christian."21 He further says: "Until we receive the spirit of . . . confirmation, we are but babes in Christ, in the meanest sense, infants that can do nothing, that cannot speak, that cannot resist any violence, exposed to every rudeness, and perishing by every temptation."22 Likewise, Wesley distinguishes between "a babe in Christ" and "those who are strong in the Lord." The former refers to believers, the latter to the entirely sanctified believer.23

Taylor defends the rite of confirmation on the basis of Acts 8. He says that though the Samaritans became believers as a result of Philip's ministry, they needed "a teleiosis, something to make them perfect.' "24

Likewise he argues in the same way in regard to the Ephesian believers in Acts 19. Following both Roman Catholic and Anglican tradition,25 Taylor makes a clear distinction between the work of the Spirit in regeneration (baptism) in which our sins are forgiven and a subsequent experience of the Pentecostal Spirit (confirmation) who "enkindles charity and the love of God."26 In further describing the subsequent working of the Spirit in the life of the baptized believer, he writes:

That Anglican (following Roman Catholic) theology interprets the reception of the Spirit by the Samaritans and the Ephesians in Acts 8 and 19 as confirming and sanctifying grace subsequent to their becoming baptized believers is most probably why Wesley himself in his Explanatory Notes on the New Testament gives these same passages the same possible interpretation.

Wesley thus could hardly have been unaware of the liturgical rites of baptism and confirmation and what they signified, even though there are no significant references to confirmation in Wesley's writings. In the Anglican ritual of confirmation which was revised in 1662 and used in Wesley's day, the following is found in one of the prayers: "Confirm and settle the godly Resolutions They have now made. Sanctify Them throughout that They may become the Temples of the Holy Ghost."28 The sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit is mentioned elsewhere in the ritual as well. It seems to admit of supposition that Wesley was tacitly (if not explicitly) aware of the similarity of his doctrines of conversion and entire sanctification with the Anglican rites of baptism and confirmation.

It must also be apparent that John Fletcher could not have been unaware of his Anglican theology which specifically linked Pentecostal language to the subsequent work of "perfecting" grace in confirmation. Even though Wesley may have referred to Fletcher's linking "receiving the Spirit" with entire sanctification as "a late discovery,"29 (though this is problematic), surely Wesley and Fletcher knew that Pentecost had been linked to confirmation from the earliest times of Christian tradition.30 Hence, it could be said that the genius of John Wesley and John Fletcher was not that they created a doctrine of entire sanctification, but that they gave it the true evangelical interpretation by ridding it of its objectivistic and sacramentarian weight.

James Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, is methodologically correct to address himself at the same time both to the Wesleyan doctrine of a subsequent experience of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer on the one hand, and to the Roman Catholic theology of the sacraments on the other hand.31 It is also significant that Dunn (along with other Reformed scholars) allows in his exegesis no other conclusion than that the Pentecostal event means "purity of heart," "circumcision of heart," and "loving God with all the heart."32

Whereas Dunn and others in the Reformed tradition allow for only one crisis moment (i.e., conversion-initiation), the Wesleyan and Catholic traditions allow for a second definitive work of grace. It should be pointed out, however, that Roman Catholic theology understands the two works of grace primarily sacramentally and objectively, whereas Wesleyan theology understands the two works of grace evangelically and subjectively (i.e., experientally). To be sure, for Roman Catholic theology, freedom from sin and the actual restoration of character subjectively occur for most baptized believers in purgatory (except for Saints who are perfected in love in this life). Yet, objectively (and to some extent experientally) this perfection is realized in confirmation.

That confirmation, however, is not viewed exclusively in an objectivistic fashion is made clear by Austin Milner.

Karl Rahner, A New Baptism in the Spirit: Confirmation Today, seems to move toward a more evangelical understanding of the baptism with the Spirit within Roman Catholicism. Though he still links the baptism with the Spirit to confirmation, he appreciates the charismatic renewal within the Church with its strong emphasis upon the need for a personal "baptism with the Spirit" which comes after confirmation. His mediating position between the liturgical rite of confirmation and an evangelical experience of the "baptism with the Spirit" is expressed in this way: "Why, then, may we not look forward to a new, revitalized understanding of confirmation, the sacrament of the Spirit, on the basis of these experiences bursting forth everywhere in the Church today?"34

A similar question could be put to Wesleyans at this point: May we not look forward to a new, revitalized understanding of Christian perfection, the fullness of the Spirit, on the basis of a new appreciation of the sacraments and of the Church as an organism-the entire body of Christ-when we no longer overly stress individual experience in isolation from the "corporate" Church?

It seems to me that the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification could profit greatly through an intensive study of the Roman Catholic theology of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church, while at the same time avoiding formalistic and extreme sacramentarian notions of grace.

Two final comments. First, to insist upon one grand beginning moment of conversion without any definitive, subsequent, sanctifying grace as does the Reformed tradition is to ignore the many biblical passages which summon the believer to holiness and perfection of heart.

In this respect, one of the key verses which Wesleyans have used to show the relation between Pentecostal language and entire sanctification is Acts 15:8-9 where Peter declares that the disciples along with the house of Cornelius had their "hearts cleansed by faith" through the baptism with the Spirit. John Calvin also points out that this passage involves

Calvin further acknowledges that "we are bidden to 'love God with all our heart, with all our soul, and with all our faculties' [Deut. 6:5; Matt. 22:37]."36 Yet he argues against the possibility of achieving this state of grace because

For Calvin and the Reformed tradition in general at conversion God

Hence, purity of heart is imputed to us in Christ, though in practice we strive to actualize it. On the other hand, for some in the Methodist tradition (e.g. J. B. Atkinson)39 to separate the "baptism with the Spirit" from entire sanctification is inadvertently to surrender the doctrine of holiness to the mere process view of the Reformed tradition, for surely James G. Dunn (representing the Reformed tradition) is exegetically correct to relate Pentecost to circumcision of heart and "loving God with all the heart."40 Hence to tack on the experience of entire sanctification as an addendum to the Pentecostal reality would seem in fact to drop it.

Second, it also seems hermeneutically inappropriate for us in the Wesleyan tradition to attempt an exegesis of the doctrine of entire sanctification while ignoring the experience of that tradition. Just as no one today can ignore 2000 years of Church tradition in his interpretation of the New Testament,41 even so we cannot ignore Charles Wesley, John Fletcher, and the subsequent holiness tradition in interpreting John Wesley's doctrine of entire sanctification. To be sure, the Bible is our primary source of theology, but tradition, experience, and reason are also essential sources of theology as well. Wesley made this point very clear. That is why he insisted that something must be wrong with our exegesis if experience and tradition contradict it.42

Since the association of entire sanctification with the baptism with the Holy Spirit has been a main part of our Wesleyan tradition since the time of John Wesley, it should occasion a serious pause in our thinking if that association is altogether wrong. Nevertheless, it must be frankly said that tradition can be wrong. And, to be sure, there have been extremes and abuses in the Wesleyan tradition in this regard, but "let's not throw the baby out with the bath water."

Further, before one disassociates entire sanctification from Pentecostal language too hastily, one ought to consider the long exegetical tradition in Roman Catholic theology of a similar association. If there is not taught in Scripture any definitive experience of the baptism with the Spirit in a sanctifying work subsequent to regeneration, then the exegetical scholarship of the Roman Catholic tradition has also been negated.43 While the Catholic theological structure of baptism and confirmation imposed on these exegetical foundations may be in need of re-adjustment, yet their exegetical bases for distinguishing between the beginning of the Christian life symbolized in water-baptism and the establishing (or confirming) grace of God in the perfection of love through the Spirit's fullness seems to be an impressive (though indirect) support for, if not a substantiation of, the Wesleyan position.

Perhaps it could be reasonably concluded in "good Wesleyan style" that one's exegesis may be faulty if it stands against Christian tradition and experience. In this respect, the Roman Catholic tradition, the Anglican tradition of Wesley's day, and the Reformed tradition (e.g. James Dunn and Karl Barth)44 relate the baptism with the Spirit to perfection of love. It seems to me that the only real question which these traditions raise is whether or not there is a subsequent experience of the Spirit which Wesleyans call entire sanctification and Roman Catholics call confirmation, or whether or not there is only a process of being sanctified which in Reformed theology is begun in only one definitive work of the Spirit. To be sure, the Catholic tradition understands confirmation in objectivistic terms, whereas the Wesleyan tradition understands entire sanctification in subjective terms, while they both allow for two definitive works of grace.

That the language of Pentecost relates to the believer's perfection of love seems indisputable from the standpoint of a rather broad section of Christian tradition. Is the reality which Pentecostal language denotes "imputed" or "imparted?" For Calvinist theology, the "purity of Christ" is imputed, only imparted in an incomplete manner. For Roman Catholic theology, the "purity of Christ" can be fully appropriated in this life, though usually it is not. For Wesleyan theology, the "purity of Christ" ought to be, and in many cases is, the norm of the Christian life.

Notes

1Cf. Wesley, "The Lord Our Righteousness," Standard Sermons, ed. E.H. Sugden (London: Epworth, 1956), 2:423-41.

2Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith (New York: Seabury Press, 1978), p. 416.

3William J. O'Shea, Sacraments of Initiation (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1965), p. 62.

4Ibid., p. 63.

5Cf. Karl Rahner, A New Baptism in the Spirit: Confirmation Today (Denville, N. J.: Dimension Books, 1975), pp. 19-20; Foundations of Christian Faith, pp. 416-17.

6O’Shea, pp. 48-49.

7John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 2:211.

8O'Shea, p. 65.

9Ibid., p.66

10Ibid., p. 63.

11Ibid.

12Ibid.

13The Sixteen Documents of Vatican II, p. 151.

14Ibid., pp. 151-52.

15Ibid.

16Cf. O'Shea, pp. 54-55.

17See Fletcher, Checks to Antinomianism (New York: Hunt and Eaton, 1889), 1:590-91; 2:617, where Fletcher specifically associates confirmation with Christian perfection.

18"A serious clergyman desired to know, in what points we differed from the Church of England. I answered, 'To the best of my knowledge, in none. The doctrines we preach are the doctrines of the Church of England; indeed, the fundamental doctrines of the Church, clearlv laid down, both in the Prayers, Articles, and Homilies.' He asked, 'In what points then, do you differ from the other clergy of the Church of England?' I answered, 'In none from that part of the clergy who adhere to the doctrines of the Church; but from that part of the clergy who dissent from the Church, (though they own it not), I differ in the following:-First, they speak of justification, either as the same thing with sanctification, or as something consequent upon it. I believe justification to be wholly distinct from sanctification and necessarily antecedent to it.' " Works of the Reuerend John Wesley (New York: Published by J. Emory and B. Waugh, 1831), 3:153-54. It has on occasion been said that Wesley always used entire sanctification whenever he meant Christian Perfection. Otherwise, he supposedly used the unqualified word, sanctification, always in the sense of what happens at justification. It is true that Wesley said one should, to be precise, use entire sanctification when that is what is meant. But the fact is Wesley was rarely consistent with his own advice at this point. The preceding quotation shows this.

19Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection (London: Epworth Press, 1952), p. 5.

20The Whole Works of the Right Reverend Jeremy Taylor (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1867), 3:14.

21Ibid

22Ibid, p.6.

23Standard Sermons, 2:169.

24The Whole Works of the Right Reuerend Jeremy Taylor, 3:13.

25Ibid., 2:17ff.

26Ibid., 1:763.

27Ibid., 3:27.

28Peter J. Jagger, Christian Initiation 1582-1969, Rites of Baptism and Confirmation Since the Reformation Period (London: SPCK, 1970), p. 32.

29The Letters of the Reverend John Wesley (London: Epworth Press, 1960), 5:228.

30Cf. Jeremy Taylor, 3:17ff.

31James D. G. Dunn, The Baptism in the Holy Spirit (SCM Press Ltd., 1970), pp. 1-3.

32Ibid., p. 156. Cf. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, trans. G. W. Bromily and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1969), p. 8.

33Austin Milner, The Theology of Confirmation (Notre Dame, Ind.: Fides Publishers, Inc., 1971), p. 102.

34Rahner, p. 7.

35Commentary on the Book of Acts, 2:19.

36Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 1:604.

37Ibid., 1:353.

38Ibid., 1:779

39J. B. Atkinson, The Beauty of Holiness (London: Epworth Press, 1953), p. 151.

40Dunn, p. 156.

41Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology (University of Chicago Press, 1951), 1:36.

42Wes1ey, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection (London: Epworth Press, 1952), p.

43Austin Milner, pp. 11-41.

44Church Dogmatics, tran. G. W. Bromily (Edinburg: T. & T. Clark, 1969), IV, Part 4, p.