ETHICS IN A WESLEYAN CONTEXT

H. Ray Dunning, Ph.D.
(Professor Philosophy and Religion, Trevecca Nazarene College)

This study grew out of an intensive analysis of the ethical consciousness of a particular branch of the Wesleyan movement in America. In the course of the investigation, a number of interesting ideas came to light relative to the ethical understanding of John Wesley himself. It is the explication of one of these discoveries with which this paper is concerned. It seeks to point out the origin of the idea and the content of the General Rules which Wesley formulated for his Societies and to elucidate the rationale for these, or what is the same thing, their function in the lives of the first Methodists. This latter point will focus our attention on the unique quality of Wesleyan ethics in its primitive expression. Since most Holiness groups in America probably have disciplinary rules quite similar to Wesley's, it will be a great help in evaluating the function of those rules to compare them in this respect with those of the Eighteenth Century Reformer.

Two preliminary points should be noted at the outset. One is Wesley's attitude toward the nature of rules in general which may be indicated in a letter to a society member. "General rules are easily laid down," he said, "but it is not possible to apply them accurately in particular cases, without the anointing of the Holy One." This implies that he feels it is impossible to provide an exhaustive directory of rules, and further, that the essential element in correctly making use of general precepts or principles in particular circumstances is a spiritual one. This element Wesley calls "the anointing," which reflects his acquaintance with I John 2:27 (from one of his favorite books) and stresses the fact that divine aid is indispensable in ethical behavior consonant with Christian perfection.

The second point is significant in view of the rigorous standards of many branches of the American Holiness Movement. Al-though John Wesley, himself, had a strict attitude toward amusements, F. J. McNulty, in his Ph.D. dissertation on "The Moral Teaching of John Wesley, "insists that it was not as rigid as those views held by some of his contemporaries. He points out that Wesley felt such diversions as dancing and attendance at the theatre tended to divert one from pursuing the Christian life with singleness of heart, but he did not condemn them en toto. Gambling was a little less neutral and would inevitably produce covetousness (1) Robert C. Monk's findings bear this out: "Wesley's selections from the Puritans in The Library of Christian Classics and otherwise seem to concentrate on the spiritual nature and vitality of the Christian life, on the purity of its holiness rather than instruction in such things as dress, plays and the arts."(2) Wesley's own rules for the Societies have a certain general characteristic. In the 1743 edition, he affirms that all of them are taught in the written Word which is "the only rule and the sufficient rule, both of our faith and practice." Thus he expresses his firm belief that the rules were in harmony with the spirit and precepts of the Bible. There is furthermore a close similarity between the "Rules" and his essay on The Character of a Methodist, both of which explore the two areas of duty to God and duty to our fellowman based upon the two great commandments to love God and neighbor. Therefore, both the rules and the essay are expressions particularly of his understanding of Christian perfection and its ethical implications.(3)

The question may now be asked concerning the source of Wesley's rules and in answering this question, a further one will be illuminated, namely, what purpose did Wesley envisage these standards to serve. This is primarily the problem of the rationale for the rules.

To begin with, it should be observed that Wesley was formulating directions for his Societies, composed of Methodists who were endeavoring to actualize in their own lives the ideals and spiritual goals which their spiritual mentor had sought in his own experience, specifically Christian perfection. The idea of a Society with such a specific aim was not new, a number of them being in existence during Wesley's day for various special purposes.

Specifically "religious societies" began to be formed about 1678 and "it is certain that Wesley was aware of the existence of these societies, and was familiar with their organization. "(4) From the "Orders" of these earlier Societies, it may be learned that their sole design was "to promote real holiness of heart and life." One of the men who influenced them, a Dr. Anthony Horneck, taught a broad concept of holiness which anticipated the doctrines which were made prominent by Wesley in the eighteenth century. Dr. Horneck's view was "thoroughly 'evangelical' . . . . With a steady hand he points to the path of perfect love as the way to Christian perfection."(5)

By Wesley's day these groups had lost their vitality and had been replaced by new Religious Societies which differed somewhat from the earlier ones. One chief difference is that in the newer ones, no emphasis was laid upon the society members' attendance upon the sacraments of the church.

Among these newer groups was the Society at Fetterlane which was organized under Moravian influence with John Wesley as president. Even though relation with the Church of England was not a membership requirement, 'nor attendance at the means of grace, Wesley no doubt used his influence to insist upon the members participating in the life of the Church. However, his influence waned and this aspect was affected. This is revealed by his exhortation to them in 1739 after an absence from London for some time. He urged them "to keep close to the church and to all the ordinances of God, and to aim only at living a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty."(6)

Concurrently with his disappointment with the Fetterlane Society other events were occuring which eventuated in the organization of a new Society bearing the name, "Methodist." This took place in late 1739 and early 1740. John S. Simon, in a significant paragraph, points out the differences between this Society and its 'contemporaries:

It was formed on lines differing essentially from those on which the Religious Societies were based. There is no evidence that Wesley, at the time of its foundation, drew up 'Orders' for its government; but it is significant that there was only one condition previously required in persons who sought admission into it. It was imperative that they should possess 'a desire to flee from the wrath to come, to be saved from their sins.' If a Churchman or Dissenter, an Arminian or a Calvinist, was moved by that desire, and sought admission, he was welcomed. When the Society in London increased in numbers, and similar Societies were formed elsewhere, it became necessary to regulate them more definitely, but it was not until 1743 that John Wesley drew up specific 'Rules' for their guidance. The absence of elaborate organization was a sign that the new Society was not a 'Religious Society.' Consciously or unconsciously Wesley had entered on a new path which diverged from the way in which he had walked with old companions, and led him towards the extraordinary successes of his work as an evangelist.(7)

What Simon says in his later book about these "Religious Societies" and Wesley's relation to them may with equal truth be said in relation to the Moravian societies: "He was undoubtedly influenced by them but their 'atmosphere' differs altogether from that of the 'rules.' John Peters is no doubt correct when he includes among Wesley's debts to the Moravians, the idea of "the disciplinary nurture of the bands."(8)

The idea for rules comes also from another source. Wesley's personal religious quest had been greatly stimulated by way of acquaintance with three writers: William Law, Jeremy Taylor and Thomas a Kempis. The significance of a prescribed regimen for developing the Christian life is emphasized by all of them. William Law is quoted by Umphrey Lee as saying: "Either Reason and Religion prescribe rules and ends to all the ordinary actions of our life, or they do not: If they do, then it is as necessary to govern all our actions by these rules, as it is necessary to worship God."(9) In this statement is included a dual emphasis, both of which influenced Wesley--namely a means and an end, thus giving his whole system, under Law's tutelage, a teleological character. (10)

While Jeremy Taylor's major contribution to Wesley's theological thought was the idea of "purity of intention" which he took over as essential to his understanding of Christian perfection, it is difficult to avoid concluding that Taylor's Rules for Holy Living and Holy Dying must have made an impact upon the mind of this young seeker after perfection so far as the importance of "Rules" is concerned. (11) Wesley, himself, said concerning this source:

It was in pursuance of an advice given by Bishop Taylor, in the Rules for Holy Living and Holy Dying, that about fifteen years ago (about 1725), I began to take amore exact account than had done before of the manner wherein I spent my time, writing down how I had employed every hour. (12)

Relevant in relation to the third writer is Lee's description of the Imitation of Christ as "a book for ordered lives, setting out rules and methods for a self-denying, sometimes ascetic, way of living."(13)

Not to be overlooked also in this regard was the influence of Susanna Wesley, whose control of her household took the form of what has been characterized as a "barracks-like discipline." No man with any natural predisposition toward a regular way of life "could have escaped a bent toward some form of methodism as a result of Susanna Wesley's training and teaching."(14) At least her rigor helped create a perfectionist personality in her son, John. Thus his whole life was organized against waste and for the purposes of accomplishing the goals which he set for himself.

All of this still leaves unanswered the question concerning the source of the particular formulations which Wesley set before the Methodists for their direction. John S. Simon has conclusively shown that Wesley was materially dependent upon a book which he had abridged in 1753: Primitive Christianity by William Cave.

Simon says:

When he was writing the 'rules' in Newcastle, it seems probable that the book was actually before him. If not, the memory of its contents was quick in his mind and guided his hand. In many of their particulars Cave's book and Wesley's 'rules' coincide; and we find it impossible to believe that the coincidences were undesigned. (15)

Cave's book was a study of the morals of the church of the first centuries. The second and third parts of the work deal with "the religion of the primitive Christians as to those virtues that respect themselves," and "their religion as respecting other men."(16) This two-fold division, as has been pointed out, informed Wesley's rules. Attention is further called to their unworldliness in abstinence from amusements and in plainness of dress, and their refusal to indulge themselves in undisciplined living, all evils which are mentioned by Wesley. (17)

When it is remembered that Wesley was an avid student of Patristic church history, feeling that here Christianity could be found in its pristine purity, it is not strange that he should have eagerly taken over the morals of this period for himself and his people. In this way one would be recovering the purity and power of the uncorrupted faith.

One other factor may be mentioned, namely, the influence of Puritan morality upon Wesley. Monk points out that "the resemblance between Wesley and. the Puritan ethos has been commonly recognized, especially the similarity of their teachings concerning the outward manifestations of the Christian life." (18)

While the term, "Puritan", had certain ecclesiastical connotations it came to be used as descriptive generally of any group emphasizing "disciplined, stringent and austere living of the Christian life." This was the natural result of the Puritan mentality since more than Luther, Calvin found in the Bible a law which regulates the Christian life." (19)

It was on this basis that many of Wesley's contemporaries as well as later students of his work saw him to be reviving the spirit and practice of Puritanism. (20) However, this was part of a general tendency during Wesley's day. The Puritan commonwealth under Cromwell had created a sweeping reaction against Puritanism because of its severe demands upon the people. (21) But by Wesley's lifetime the "people were beginning to sicken of the immoralities of the Restoration era," and a new Puritanism appeared. (22)

There are a number of affinities between the Wesleyan revival and the new Puritanism since its representatives

stood for a general simplification of religion. They initiated an earnest search for personal piety through the organization of small societies, placed an emphasis on self-discipline and on close oversight of society members, and evidenced a hostility for all things worldly. (23)

Gaddis completes his observation of the similarity between the two by noting that

with the growing ascendency of Methodism and the adoption by Wesley of distinctively Arminian and perfectionistic principles and technique for the new organization, the semi-ascetic or 'reform' side of the Puritan tradition was transferred more and more to 'Methodist' auspicies. Methodism, therefore, arose as an Arminianized Puritanism-so far as its English ancestry is concerned--and it has not to this day lost its Puritan character. (24)

What was the ultimate purpose for Wesley's imposition of such a disciplined life upon both himself and his followers? The answer may be learned by looking at Wesley's definition of religion as a "constant ruling habit of soul, a renewal of our minds in the image of God, a recovery of the divine likeness, a still increasing conformity of heart to the pattern of our most holy Redeemer." (25)

Here is expressed the ideal of maturity which gave vitality to the Wesleyan view of sanctification. Sanctification, in Wesley's mind, is a dynamic concept which recognizes a purity that admits of continual increase toward an ever expanding telos. It is this ideal which is, as Peters says, "the result of a discipline of life, energized initially by the grace of God and utilizing the instantaneous enduement in a more expeditious growth toward spiritual maturity." (26)

Thus it was that the rules and methods were prudential means which were ordained toward achieving this "ruling habit of mind," this complete "recovery of the divine likeness." Since Wesley could and did speak meaningfully of means to holiness, such an interpretation is perfectly in accord with his theological understanding.

With this understanding, Wesley's rules could never be used as a criterion for one's judging himself to have arrived at the apex of the Christian life, or for that matter, the minimum level of entire sanctification. This would constitute the rankest legalism. Rather they are continuing prods toward evermore perfect realization of the divine "likeness." Wesleyan ethics, then, take on a means-end structure, or in the technical terminology of philosophical ethics, it is dominantly teleological rather than deontological.

Due to the modification of pristine Wesleyanism In the nineteenth century American holiness revival, a modification with which we should all be familiar, a different approach to ethics was made possible which could utilize rules as criteria for determining that one had arrived at the point of full cleansing from indwelling sin, a function that is entirely foreign to Wesley's point of view if indeed it is ever true to Wesleyanism.

1. F. J. McNulty, The Moral Teaching of John Wesley (unpub.) Ph.D. dissertation, Catholic University of America, 1963), pp.68-75.

2. Robert C. Monk, John Wesley; His Puritan Heritage (Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1966), p.230.

3. John S. Simon, John Wesley and the Methodist Societies (London: Epworth Press, 1923), pp. 104-105. Cf. John Wesley, "Plain Account of Christian Perfection," Works (Kansas City: Nazarene Publishing House, n.d.), VXI, 387.

4. Ibid., pp. 10-15.

5. Ibid., pp. 19-20.

6. John S. Simon, John Wesley and the Religious Societies (London: Epworth Press, 1955), pp.200, 323.

7. Ibid., p. 329.

8. Simon, Methodist Societies, p.105. John L. Peters, Christian Perfection and American Methodism (N.Y.: Abingdon Press, 1956), p.62. Luke Tyerman, The Life and Times of the Rev. John Wesley, M.A. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1875), I, p. 187.

9. Umphrey Lee, John Wesley and Modern Religion (Nashville: Cokesbury Press, 1936), p.214. from Law, Works, Iv, 10.

10. Charles R. Wilson, The Correlation of Love and Law in the Theology of John Wesley (unpub. Ph.D. thesis, Vanderbilt University, 1959), p. 24.

11. Works, XI, 366. 12. John Wesley, Journal. ed. by Nehemiah Curnock (London: Epworth Press, 1938), I, 83.

13. Lee, Modern Religion, p.214.

14. Ibid., p. 213.

15. Simon, Methodist Societies, p.105.

16. William Cave, Primitive Christianity; or the Religion of the Ancient Christians in the First Ages of the Gospel (London: J.G. for R. Chiswell, 1676).

17. Monk, John Wesley, p.15.

18. George M. Stephenson, The Puritan Heritage (N. Y.: The Macmillan Company, 1952). 19. Merrill E. Gaddis, Christian Perfectionism in America (unpub. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1929), p. 119.

20. Gerald R. Cragg, The Church and the Age of Reason (Bristol, England: Penguin Books, 1960), pp.53-54.

21. Leslie Stephens, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century (two volumes) (London: Smith, Elder and Company, 1881), II, 433. George C. Cell, The Rediscovery of John Wesley (N.Y.: Henry Holt and Company, 1935), p. vii.

22. Gaddis, Christian Perfectionism in America, p. 119.

23. Ibid.

24. John Wesley, Letters, ed. by John Telford (London: Epworth Press, 1931), I, 152.

25. Peters, Christian Perfection and American Methodism, p.65.

Edited by Nick Nettles
for the
Wesley Center for Applied Theology
at Northwest Nazarene University
© Copyright 2000 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology

Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes, provided the notice below the horizontal line is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.