Wesley's
Pastoral Letters on the Sacrament of Baptism
Odilon
Massolar Chaves
Copyright
© 2026, Odilon Massolar Chaves
All rights
reserved to the author.
It is
allowed to read, copy and share for free.
Article
184 of the Penal Code and Law 96710 of February 19, 1998.
Books
published in the Wesleyan Digital Library: 881
Books
published by the author: 921
Cover: https://pt.pngtree.com/freebackground/a-single-drop-falling-on-water-with-ripples-forming-on-the-surface_15992911.html
Odilon
Massolar Chaves is a retired Methodist pastor, with a doctorate in Theology and
History from the Methodist University of São Paulo.
Son of
Rev. Adherico Ribeiro Chaves and Roza Massolar Chaves.
He is
married to RoseMary.
He has two
daughters: Liliana and Luciana.
His thesis
dealt with the Methodist revival in England in the eighteenth century and its
contribution as a paradigm for our days.
"I
say by washing, immersing, or sprinkling, because Scripture does not determine
which of these means is to be used either by express precept, or by a clear
example to prove it, or by force or by the meaning of the word baptize."[1]
(John Wesley
Table of Contents
· Introduction
· Wesley's Concept of Baptism
· The form of baptism
· The sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's
Supper keep us at a great distance from each other
· I showed them how vainly they relied on
baptism for salvation
· How we have not yet set a precedent for
someone who has not been ordained to administer baptism
· You suppose this to be the same with baptism
· You Think the Way of Baptism Is 'Necessary
for Salvation'
· Many received a sense of forgiveness when I
baptized them
· On His Baptism and Administration of the
Lord's Supper
· John's baptism differed from Christ's baptism
· The Trinity in the Baptism of Jesus
Introduction
"Wesley's
Pastoral Letters on the Sacrament of Baptism" is a 24-page book based on
Wesley's letters and his Explanatory Notes on the New Testament.
This book
is not a textbook on baptism, but statements and teachings of Wesley taken from
his letters.
For Wesley, baptism does not save. Writing to his brother Charles, he
said on September 21, 1739, "... Friday,
September 14, I explained again at Islington; but as the house was too small
for company, I stayed in the garden, and showed them how much they relied in
vain on baptism for salvation, unless they were holy in heart." [2]
Nor does the form of baptism save. In fact, neither does the Bible
determine the form. Wesley said, "I say by washing, immersion, or
sprinkling, because the Scripture does not determine which of these means is to
be used, either by express precept, or by a clear example to prove it, or by
force or by the meaning of the word baptize."[3]
Wesley also baptized, though he had no fixed local church. To his
brother Charles, on January 5, 1763, he said, "I baptized two Turks two or
three weeks ago. [On December 4, 1762, at Maxfield's request, Wesley baptized
these two men, who proved impostors. See Diary, iv. 540, v. 3; and letter of
February 8.] They seem to be strong in the faith; and their story is very
probable, but I am not sure whether it is true. I wait for further proof."
[4]
Wesley "rigidly held that the baptism of adult and
infant converts should be performed by ordained ministers of the Church of
England, keeping the Methodist movement closely bound to the parish structure
of the Church of England."[5]
The exception happened after the independence of the USA
(1776), as the English clergy returned to England.
"With no clergy to baptize the new converts and the
children of Methodists in America, Wesley made a historic exception in 1784: he
himself ordained Methodist ministers and sent liturgical guidelines so that
they could finally administer baptism and the Supper on American soil." [6]
After Wesley's death, "the Methodist Conference passed the Pacification Plan of 1795, which officially allowed Methodist preachers themselves to administer Holy Communion in chapels independently.
The same decree extended to itinerant Methodist preachers the authorization to perform baptisms and burials, breaking once and for all the sacramental bond of dependence they had on the Anglican clergy." [7]
A book that helps to know and follow Wesley's
teachings on baptism.
The Author
Wesley's Concept of Baptism
"For John Wesley,
baptism is the initiatory sacrament ordained by Christ that marks the
entrance into the covenant with God, serving as an outward and visible sign of
an inward grace." [8]
Wesley's Concept of Baptism
- "Sign and Means of Grace: Wesley saw baptism as an authentic channel through which God communicates His grace, cleansing away original guilt and uniting the believer with the Church.
- Not Automatic without Faith/Transformation: Although we considered baptism powerful and valid (including advocating infant baptism), Wesley warned that ritual is no substitute for the need for real conversion.
- Relationship to the New
Birth: Wesley differentiated
between baptism with water and complete regeneration (the new spiritual
birth), but he argued that the two go together. Baptism is the gateway to
the covenant, but the baptized person must experience and bear fruit the
grace of a life transformed by the Holy Spirit." [9]
The form of baptism
Concerning the form of
baptism, Wesley said, "I say by washing, immersion, or sprinkling, because
the Scripture does not determine which of these means is to be used either by
express precept, or by a clear example that proves it, or by the force or
meaning of the word baptize."[10]
Wesley had a difficulty with
a family as to how to baptize, in Savannah. On Wednesday, May 5, 1736. Wesley
said, 'I was asked to baptize a son of Mr. Parker's, second bailiff of
Savannah. But Mrs. Parker said to me, 'Neither Mr. P. nor I will agree to the
dip.' I replied, 'If you make sure your child is weak, it will be enough (says
the rubric) to pour water on him.' She replied, 'No, the child is not weak; but
I am resolved that it will not be dipped.' This argument I could not dispute.
So I went home; and the child was baptized by someone else."[11]
Asked if the form of baptism saved, Wesley replied to Gilbert Boyce, on
May 22, 1750: "You think the mode of baptism is 'necessary to salvation':
I deny that even baptism itself is so; if it were, every Quaker would have to
be condemned, which I cannot believe at all." [12]
"The Quakers (as the Religious Society of Friends is known) do not
perform baptism with water. They do not practice ritualistic baptism and avoid
any kind of external sacrament or physical ceremony." [13]
From Wesley's letters we
take some statements and teachings about baptism:
The sacraments of Baptism and the
Lord's Supper keep us at a great distance from each other
And I am not curious to know, since between me
and them there is a great gulf settled. The sacraments of Baptism and the
Lord's Supper keep us at a great distance from each other
To Thomas Church
June 17, 1746.
“(...) There is a justification imparted to us at our
baptism; or, properly, this state is then initiated. But if we fall into sins,
we cannot recover them without true faith and repentance, which implies (as its
fruits) forsaking our sins and amending our whole life.'
I have only one circumstance to add—that I am not lately
convinced of these things. For this is the doctrine which I have taught
continuously for eight or nine years in the last few years; I have only
abstained from the word 'condition,' perhaps more rigorously than would be
necessary.
I have not studied the writings of the Quakers
sufficiently (having read few but Robert Barclay [See letter of February 10,
1748.]) to say exactly what they mean by perceptible inspiration, and whether
their explanation of it is right or wrong. And I am not curious to know, since
between me and them there is a great gulf settled. The sacraments of Baptism
and the Lord's Supper keep us at a great distance from each other; to the
extent that, according to the view I now have, I should begin as early as a Quaker.
['Smith' had said: 'The son of a Wesley and an Annesley is in no danger of
lukewarmness, but must be very careful of impetuosity and zeal. The tempter
will never make you a vagabond or a sluggard, but, if you are not on the alert,
may, before he knows it, make you a Quaker.'] (...)”.[14]
I showed them how vainly they relied on baptism for salvation
I explained again at Islington;
but as the house was too small for company, I stayed in the garden, and showed
them how much they vainly trusted in baptism for salvation, unless they were
holy in heart, without which their circumcision would become in truth
uncircumcision
To your brother Carlos
ISLINOTON, September 21, 1739.
(...) Friday, September 14,
I explained again at Islington; but as the house was too small for company, I
stayed in the garden, and showed them how much they trusted in vain in baptism
for salvation, unless they were holy in heart, without which their circumcision
would become in truth uncircumcision. I then went to Fetter Lane, where I
overthrew the loud expression of the proud with an exposition of these words:
'It is lawful for me, but it edifies me not.'
Saturday, the 15th of September, I set forth the words upon which the
book opened in Lady Hume's house: 'The cares of this world, the deceitfulness
of riches, and the desires of other things, choke the word, and it becomes
unfruitful.' At Fetter Lane I was directed to these words: 'I will pray to the
Father, and He will give thee another Comforter, that He may abide with thee
for ever.' Many were touched in the heart, both here and at Mr. Exall's house,
where I reinforced the words of our Lord, 'Unless thou be born again, thou
shalt not be able to see the kingdom of God.'
Sunday, the 16th, I preached at Moorfields to about ten thousand
persons, and at Kennington Common to between twenty and thirty thousand, on
these words: 'We want to hear from thee what thou thinkest: for as to this sect
we know that it is everywhere discussed.' In both places I have very clearly
described the difference between true ancient Christianity, commonly called by
the new name of Methodism, and Christianity now generally taught.
From thence I went to
Lambeth (where I found that the congregation of oars was considerably
increasing), and exhorted them to cry mightily unto our Lord that He might say
to them, as to those sick with paralysis, 'Be of good cheer; Thy sins are
forgiven thee.' From our feast of love at Fetter Lane, I went to Islington
House. Sufficient for this day was labour.
Pray my love to Brother Mitchell; and that the lead cistern should be
lost. On Monday evening I intend, God willing, to depart. Tuesday I hope to
spend at Oxford. On Wednesday evening let James Ellis meet me at Gloucester.
Then I will expound the next three or four days as we shall agree, God willing.
I thank from my heart our Brethren Westall, Oldfield, Cross, Haydon, and Wynne;
and our sisters Deftel, Shafto, Oldfield, Thomas, Stephens, Mrs. Thomas, and
Mrs. Deschamps. I wish some one would write by Wednesday. Pray for us.
Farewell. [15]
How we have not yet set a precedent for someone who has not been
ordained to administer baptism
For Alexander Suter
LONDON, November 24, 1787.
MY DEAR BROTHER, -- It was an empty thing to send coats to Scotland,
where the ministers don't wear them. But a cassock can easily be made into a
dress by adding only a foot or two of stuff.
Since we have not yet set a precedent for someone who has not been
ordained to administer baptism, it is best to go slowly and safely.
Our Sunday schools in Bolton have over eight hundred children, all
taught by our own brethren without pay. I love the Sunday schools very much.
They have done very well. I will give you Instructions and Memories for
Children. We are now printing a large edition. O be zealous for God! -- I am
Your affectionate friend and brother. [16]
You suppose this to be the same with baptism
Or do you mean that
regeneration is a part of the new birth? No, that is all. Or is it the 'washing
of regeneration,' which is the first part of it? That it cannot be; for you
suppose it to be the same with baptism
To Mr. Potter, Vicar of Reymerston
NORWICH, November 4, 1758.
REVEREND LORD,--1. To this day I had not seen your sermon on the Feigned
Inspiration of the Methodists. Otherwise I would have had the luxury of sending
you a few lines before. That sermon, indeed, only repeats what has been said
before and answered often. But as it is said again, I believe it is my duty to
answer again. Not that I know Mr. Cayley [Cornelius Cayley (1729-80), born at
Hull; clerk of the treasury to the Prince of Wales; published his autobiography
in 1758. He was a friend of James Hervey and a preacher. He wrote a reply to
Potter's sermon.] or Osborn: I have never exchanged a word with either of them.
Yet, in joining myself and them, I am bound to speak for myself, and once more
to give a reason for my hope of being free from the charge you bring against
me.
2. There are several statements in his sermon which need not be
permitted; but they are not worth impugning upon. For the present, therefore, I
shall speak only of two things: (1) his account of the new birth; and (2) 'the
feigned inspiration' (as you like to call it) 'of the Methodists.'
3. Of the new birth you say, 'The terms of being regenerated, of being
born again, of being born of God are often used to express the works of
evangelical righteousness' (pages 10-11). I cannot allow of this. I do not know
that they are used in Scripture to express any outward work. They always
express an inward work of the Spirit, of which baptism is the outward sign. You
add, 'Its primary, peculiar, and precise meaning means' (a little improper of
expression) 'our redemption from death and restoration to eternal life by the
grace of God' (page 13). It does not mean, unless by death you mean sin, and by
holiness eternal life. The exact meaning of the term is 'a new birth unto
righteousness,' an inward change from the unholy to the holy temper. You
continue, 'This grace which our Lord here calls "entering into the kingdom
of God."' If this is so, your statement is, 'If a man be born again, he
cannot' be born again. It is not so. What He says is: Unless a man experiences
this change, he cannot enter My kingdom.
4. You go on: 'Our holy Church teaches us that... by the washing of
regeneration in baptism we are received into the number of the sons of God....
This is the first part of the new birth.' What is the first part of the baptism
of birth is the outward sign of that inward and spiritual grace; but no part of
it. It is impossible that this should be. The outward sign is no more a part of
the inward grace than the body is no more a part of the soul. Or do you mean
that regeneration is a part of the new birth? No, that is all. Or is it the
'washing of regeneration,' which is the first part of it? That it cannot be;
for you suppose this to be the same with baptism.
5. 'The second part, inward and spiritual grace, is death to sin, and a
new birth to righteousness.' What! is the new birth the second part of the new
birth, I understand it to be the first and second part also; and surely nothing
could have prevented you from seeing it but the ardor of your spirit, and the
impetuosity with which you run and trample everything in front of you. Your
manner of writing reminds me of an honest Quaker in Cornwall, whose words I
would recommend for your consideration. Asked by one of the Friends whether he
should publish a treatise which he had already read to many in private, he
replied, 'What! Thou art not satisfied with laying John Wesley on his back, but
he must also tread on his bowels' [See letter of 15 Sept. 1762 to Samuel
Furly.] (...).[17]
You Think the Way of Baptism Is 'Necessary for
Salvation'
For Gilbert Boyce
BANDON, May 22, 1750.
DEAR LORD, -- I do not think that neither the Church of England, nor the
People called Methodist, nor any other Society under heaven are the True Church
of Christ. For that Church is one, and contains all the true believers on
earth. But I conceive every Society of true believers as a branch of the one
true Church of Christ.
No wonder that young, uninstructed preachers use some improper
expressions. I trust that, by friendly counsel, they will lay them aside. And
as they grow in years, they will increase in knowledge.
I have neither the inclination nor the time to take the saw out of
controversy. But a few comments here I would make so that we can understand and
(hopefully) love each other, be better.
You think the mode of baptism is 'necessary unto salvation': I deny that
even baptism itself is so; if it were, every Quaker would have to be condemned,
which I cannot believe at all.
I consider nothing (strictly speaking) necessary for salvation except
the mind that was in Christ. If I thought you had no measure of it, I might
love you like a heathen man or a bartender.
Those who believe with faith acting out of love are children of God.
It does not surprise me that God permits (does not cause) lesser evils
among these, when I observe far greater evils among them; for sin is an
infinitely greater evil than ignorance.
I do not conceive that unity in the outward modes of worship is so
necessary among the children of God that they cannot be children of God without
it, though I thought it was.
I use (so far as I know) all the means of grace which God has ordained
just as God has ordained them. But here is your great mistake: you think my
plan is to 'form a Church.' No: I have no such design. It is not my desire or
dignity that any one who accepts my help should leave the Church of which he is
now a member. If I were to convert Indians, I would take every step that St.
Paul took: but I am not; therefore some of these measures I must not take.
Therefore I still join the Church of England so far as I can; at the same time,
I and my friends use various prudential aids which our Church neither enjoins
nor forbids, as they are in themselves of a purely indifferent nature.
What I say of the generality both of the teachers and of the people in
the Church of England, I say of the teachings and of the people of all other
denominations—I mean, as far as I have known them; and I have known not a few
both in Europe and in America. I have never seen a non-mixed communion
hitherto, except perhaps between the Moravian Brethren or the Methodists. Yet
that God blesses us even when we receive the Lord's Supper at St. Paul's, I can
prove by innumerable occasions.
If I were in the Church of Rome, I would conform to all the doctrines
and practices of it, so long as they were not contrary to the simple
Scriptures. And, to the best of my judgment, I have hitherto conformed only to
those of the Church of England. I have already explained myself at length in
the third volume of Sermons as to the emphasis which I think is attached to
opinions. This I have also learned by my dear experience. Yet I thank God that
I have learned at any cost. I am not conscious of embracing any opinion or
practice which is not compatible with the Word of God, and I believe that the
doctrine, worship, and discipline (so far as it is limited) of the Church of
England are in accordance with this.
I wish your zeal would be better employed than in persuading men to be
bathed or rejected. I will employ mine by the grace of God to persuade them to
love God with all their heart, and their neighbor as themselves.
I cannot answer God to spend any part of that precious time, every hour
of which I can employ in that which directly tends to promote that love among
men, in contesting or defending this or that form of Church government. I have
'tasted all things' of this kind for more than twenty years: I now 'hold fast
that which is good'—that which, in my judgment, is not only contrary to the
Scriptures, but strictly acceptable to them. But, on a fixed principle, I
absolutely refuse to enter into a formal controversy over the head. Here I am
also on one point. And if by this you judge me a Papist or a Turk, I cannot
help it.
I am fully convinced that you have not spoken out of anger, but out of
zeal for your own opinion and mode of worship; and perhaps it is worth while
for another man to dispute these impressions with you. But to me it is not. I
am called to another work; not to make men of the Church of England or
Baptists, but Christians, men of faith and love. May God fill you with this is
the prayer of, dear sir,
Your affectionate friend and brother. [18]
Many received a sense of forgiveness when I
baptized them
To the argument of the baptism of heretics alone I
answer: If someone had said during that heated controversy, 'I received a sense
of forgiveness when I was baptized by such a heretic,' those on the other side
would not have believed him at all; so that the dispute would remain as hot as
ever. I know this for a fact. Many received a sense of forgiveness when I
baptized them. But who will believe them when they affirm this?
To Richard Tompson
LONDON, February 5, 1756.
LORD, -- I was in Cornwall when your last was taken to the Foundry and
delivered to my brother. When I returned, it was lost and could not be found;
so that I did not receive it until a few months after the date.
You judge right in regard to the treatise [The Address to the Clergy.
Probably intended for the Rev. George Thompson, vicar of St. Gennys.] attached
to you. It was sent to you by mistake by another who has the same name.
We agree that Christian perfection may be laid aside for the time being.
The point to be considered now is the Christian faith. This, I understand,
implies a Divine evidence or conviction of our acceptance. You think you have
not.
In debating this (or any other) point with you, I am at a great
disadvantage. (1) You know me; while I do not know you. (2) I am a very slow
writer, you seem to be very fast. (3) My time is so occupied, from day to day
and from week to week, that I can scarcely spare my stated employments; so that
I can neither write so widely nor so precisely as I should otherwise. All that
you can expect from me is not a closed chain of connected arguments, but a
brief sketch of what I would deduce more fully if I had more time.
I believe that the ancient Fathers are far from silent about our
question; though none that I know of has dealt with it in an avowed way. But I
have no time to cross that sea. To the argument of the baptism of heretics
alone I answer: If any one had said during that heated controversy, 'I received
a sense of pardon when I was baptized by such a heretic,' those on the other
side would not have believed him at all; so that the dispute would remain as
hot as ever. I know this for a fact. Many received a sense of pardon when I
baptized them. But who will believe them when they assert it? Who will put any
dispute upon this question
I know also that Luther, Melanchthon, and many others (if not all) of
the Reformers frequently and strongly assert that every believer is conscious
of his own acceptance with God, and that by a supernatural evidence, which, if
any one, chooses as immediate revelation, he can. But I have not even time to
re-examine this cloud of witnesses. Nor, indeed, as you justly observe, would
the testimony of them all together be sufficient to establish an unscriptural
doctrine. Therefore, after all, we must be determined by higher evidence. And
here we fully agree: we both appeal to 'the law and to the testimony.' May God
grant us to understand it aright!
But first, lest you disbelieve what you never wished to prove, I will
show you as plainly as possible what my feelings are on the matter, but because
I distinctly perceive that you do not yet understand them. You seem to think
that I do not allow degrees in grace, and that I make no distinction between
the full assurance of faith and a low or common measure of it.
Some years ago, some clergymen and other gentlemen with whom we had a
free conversation put the following questions to me and my brother, to which we
gave the answers together. [19]
On His Baptism and Administration of the Lord's
Supper
I wrote a few days ago to Mr. Hanby about his
baptism and administration of the Lord's Supper wherever he goes. He answers
me, 'He still intends to do it, for he believes it is his duty.' I would like
Brother Creighton, Moore, Rankin, and you to spend an hour together, as it is a
point of the utmost importance, and to consider what steps should be taken in
this matter.
For Peard Dickinson
DUBLIN, April 11, 1789.
MY DEAR BROTHER, -- As soon as Sister Dickinson can go abroad, let her
begin her labor of love. In situations of this kind, delays are especially
dangerous. Every good purpose will grow cold and die if it is not carried out
as soon as possible. Only we cannot undertake too much at once. Usually one
visit is sufficient for a day, and it should not last more than half an hour,
or at most an hour.
I wrote a few days ago to Mr. Hanby about his baptism and administration
of the Lord's Supper wherever he goes. He answers me, 'He still intends to do
it, for he believes it is his duty.' I would like Brother Creighton, Moore,
Rankin, and you to spend an hour together, for it is a point of the utmost
importance, and consider what steps should be taken in this matter. Can this be
manipulated? If so, I fear it is a blow at the root of Methodism. And if not,
you see the consequence: he will join John Atlay. Consider also another point:
we must allow Dr. Coke to choose, one after another, the best of our young
preachers [Evidently by his missionary work.] Peace be upon your spirits! -- I
am
Your affectionate friend and brother. [20]
John's
baptism differed from Christ's baptism
From
all that follows that those like John baptized with water, but were not
baptized with the baptism of Christ.' Very true. But this proves neither more
nor less than that John's baptism differed from Christ's baptism
BRISTOL,
February 10, 1748.
You ask me, 'Is there any
difference between Quakerism and Christianity? I think so. What that difference
is, I'll tell you as clearly as I can.
I shall first present the account
of Quakerism (so called) which is given by Robert Barclay; and then add where
it agrees with and differs from Christianity.
(...)' Just as there is one Lord and one faith, so there
is one baptism.' Yes, an outward baptism; which you deny. Here, therefore, is
another difference between Quakerism and Christianity.
But 'if those whom John baptized with water were not
baptized with the baptism of Christ, then the baptism of water is not the
baptism of Christ.'
This is only a minor criticism. The sequence should be:
'So that baptism of water' (i.e., the baptism of John) 'was not the baptism of
Christ.' Who said it was
However, Robert Barclay likes this argument so much that
he repeats it in almost the same words:
'If John, who administered water baptism but did not
baptize with the baptism of Christ, then water baptism is not the baptism of
Christ.'
This is the same fallacy. The continuation here should
also be: 'So that baptism of water was not the baptism of Christ.'
He repeats, with a slight variation, a third time:
'Christ himself says, "John baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized
with the Holy Ghost." '
He repeats a fourth time: 'Peter says, 'Then I remembered
the word of the Lord, John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with
the Holy Ghost.' From all that follows that those like John baptized with
water, but were not baptized with the baptism of Christ.' Very true. But this
proves neither more nor less than that the baptism of John differed from the
baptism of Christ. And it doubtless came to pass; not, indeed, as to the
outward sign, but as to inward grace.[21]
The Trinity in the Baptism of Jesus
And Jesus, being
baptized, came up immediately out of the water, and, behold, the heavens were
opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and
alighting upon him. And behold, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased
Matthew 3
Then Jesus
came from Galilee to the Jordan
Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan, to
John, to be baptized by him.
All justice
must be complied with
And Jesus answered and said to him, "Let it be
so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then
he suffered it.
Wesley's Comments
It behooves us to fulfill all righteousness - It behooves every
messenger of God to observe all his righteous ordinances. But the particular
meaning of our Lord seems to be that it behooves us to do (I receive baptism
and you administer it) to fulfill, that is, that I may fully fulfill every part
of God's righteous law, and the commission which he has given me.
And Jesus,
being baptized, immediately came up out of the water
And Jesus, being baptized, came up immediately out of the water, and,
behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending
like a dove, and settling upon him.
And Jesus being baptized - Let our Lord's submission
to baptism teach us a holy exactitude in the observance of those institutions
which owe their obligation only to a divine commandment. Surely so befits all
his followers to fulfill all righteousness. Jesus had no sin to wash away. And
yet he was baptized.
And God
possessed his ordinance, so as to make it the season of pouring out the Holy
Spirit upon him
Wesley's Comments
And God possessed his ordinance, so as to make it
the season of pouring out the Holy Ghost upon him. And where can we expect this
sacred effusion, but in a humble attendance at the Divine appointments? Behold,
the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God, adds St. Luke, in bodily
form, probably in a glorious appearance of fire, perhaps in the form of a dove,
descending with a fluctuating motion, till it alighted upon him. This was a
visible sign of those secret operations of the blessed Spirit, by which he was
anointed in a peculiar manner; and abundantly fitted to his public work.
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased
And behold, a voice from
heaven saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Wesley's Comments
And here is a voice—We have here a glorious
manifestation of the ever-blessed Trinity: the Father speaking from heaven, the
Son speaking, the Holy Spirit descending upon him.
In whom I delight - What praise is this! How
poor for this are all other kinds of praise! To him, the pleasure, the delight
of God, this is really praise: this is the true glory: this is the highest,
brightest light, in which virtue can appear.[22]
[1] BURTNER, Robert W.; CHILES, Robert E. Collection of the Theology of John Wesley. JGEC. São Paulo: Methodist Press, 1960, p. 273.
[2]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1739/
[3] BURTNER, Robert W.; CHILES, Robert E. Collection of
the Theology of John Wesley. JGEC. São Paulo: Methodist Press, 1960, p. 273.
[4]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1763/
[5]
Overview of Google's AI Mode
[6]
Overview of Google's AI Mode
[7]
Overview of Google's AI Mode
[8]
Overview of Google's AI Mode
[9]
Overview of Google's AI Mode
[10] BURTNER, Robert W.; CHILES, Robert E. Collection of
the Theology of John Wesley. JGEC. São Paulo: Methodist Press, 1960, p. 273.
[11]
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N22587.0001.001/1:7.2?rgn=div2;view=fulltext
[12]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1750/
[13]
Overview of Google's AI Mode
[14]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1746/
[15]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1739/
[16]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1787/
[17]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1787/
[18]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1750/
[19]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1756/
[20]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1799/
[21]
https://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1748/
[22] https://www.studylight.org/comentários/en/wen/matthew-3.html.
Comentários
Postar um comentário