THEOLOGICAL ROOTS OF WESLEYANISM'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Mildred Bangs Wynkoop

Introduction

The Wesleyan movement in America is coming of age. It is maturing to the point where exploration into its roots and into the implications of its theology and philosophy is possible. There are differences of opinion among Wesleyans. Rather than deploring differences it is now becoming clear that dialogue can enrich the movement. Differences usually lead to the discovery of deep presuppositions that can be exposed, analyzed and evaluated.

Our problem has to do with the specific reason John Wesley has been our mentor, and whether it is a strength or weakness as Christians to accept him at this time as a theological leader.

The genius of John Wesley, and Wesleyanism if it be authentic, is that it is not only grounded in sound Christian theology but that it also transcends formal theology to link into the dynamic of practical living. Such Wesleyanism would not be burdened by an excessive scholastic

"definition-itis" that absorbs so much energy and occasions so much divisiveness that it cannot do its saving work.

John Wesley's Wesleyanism crossed the Atlantic to the American shores and became the foundation of the Methodist Church. However, the wider religious influence of John and Charles Wesley was also evident. Many in other theological traditions were captivated by the holiness message and clustered together in a spiritual fellowship that came to be known as the "holiness movement," affecting to some extent even the largely Methodist National Camp Meeting Association for the Promotion of Holiness organized in 1867 in Vinland, N. J.1

The Wesleyan movement in America had in it from the first a "great divide." On the one hand was the Wesleyanism of Wesley, largely Methodist as would be natural, nourished by Wesley's own writings. On the other hand there was a vigorous Wesleyanism composed of theological interpretations from other traditions. Many of the so-called holiness Classics were produced by this non-Wesleyan side. An examination of the long lists of books and pamphlets printed and recommended for the holiness people shows that as the nineteenth century progressed there were fewer and fewer of Wesley's own writings made available.3 Today, Wesley's works are so limited and expensive that most of the holiness preachers and students have never read Wesley and often stoutly maintain that they are not really Wesleyan. A precious heritage is going by the board.

With all the theological differences in the early eighteenth-century holiness movement, one overarching factor unified Wesleyans-a belief in and experience of sanctification, designated "entire" to distinguish the second work of grace from the sanctification that is the heritage of every Christian.

The American holiness movement has never been a homogeneous entity, theologically, sociologically, economically, culturally or denominationally. Holiness is too much an integral part of Christian faith to be limited to any selected segment of human society. However, the teaching that holiness could become a reality in this life, by God's grace, through faith, was an emphasis beyond that of much of Christendom. And among holiness advocates, spiritual fellowship always transcended doctrinal variations.

So outstanding was this emphasis, that holiness doctrine began to take over Christian theology in a way that seemed to disregard the context of the Christian faith from which it derived its authenticity. Wherever Wesley's Wesleyanism survived, the Wesley context remained intact-the "whole Wesley." But where the holiness emphasis became detached from its Wesley context, other theological roots were needed to structure the holiness message. There were roots at hand into which holiness theology could be and was grafted.

Holiness theology grafted into non-Wesleyan roots produced interpretations of sanctification that clashed with historic Christian faith-and with it, Wesley. Wesley, of course, is no more a final authority than any other human theological mentor. What Wesley contributed was a well-examined and tested way to tie fallible human life into a formal theology without losing the integrity of either.

Wesley's strength lies in the fact that he achieved his synthesis of theology and life within the Hebraic biblical context rather than in the Hellenistic dualism which has continually plagued the Church. Dualism could not have provided the unity of thought and life which Wesley taught.

On the basis of a study of the kinds of differences of opinion which have been observed in Wesleyan circles, I am proposing that the changes from Wesley, deplored by some but rejoiced over by others, lie on philosophical grounds. The experience of Christ when explained systematically is put into the philosophical framework of the interpreter. This has not always been understood.

Basically, the difference between Wesley and the holiness movement lies on ontological lines; Wesley taught the essential oneness of God, though he accepted the biblical trinitarian distinctions without trying to explain them, and the unity of personality which is now understood as being a Hebraic concept.

Quite a different Wesleyanism took root in the early American scene-The Second Evangelical Awakening began in the urban Eagt goon after independence, but it quickly spread to the frontier, among the fugitives from the cities and the backwoods immigrants from the seaboard, and attracted radicals, some criminals and adventurous young people. The Cane Ridge revival, breaking out among the Presbyterians in Kentucky, spread quickly, and with hurricane force, into all denominations, and into wide geographical areas. The camp meeting format originated in this awakening, and was soon taken over by the Methodists. Among them the sanctification theme was heard.

People from various other doctrinal traditions experienced sanctification, and the difference in their interpretations of sanctification began to clash with Wesleyan interpretations. What I have called "the whole Wesley" began to break up in America under these conditions. To trace the specific sources is beyond the scope of this brief paper, but to recognize the effects of the break-up should engage some of our attention as we seek to understand, if not restore, a Wesley Wesleyanism today.

That there are various and somewhat contradictory Wesleyanisms today need not be debated. There have been three main and recognizable streams which have intermingled in various ways.4 The central "return to Wesley" stream i8 almost wholly from the academic community with "heart warmth" interest measured from personal experience on the right to more leftish political and social interests with varying degrees of religious passion.5 On one side of center is a Puritanical, legalistic, moralistic concern laced tightly with scholastic rigidity and stereotyped terminology. On the other side of center is a strong emotional emphasis-a mystical flavor prevailing. Defining or describing "Wesleyanism" is difficult in this situation. When the "distinguishing" doctrine of Wesleyanism is said to be entire sanctification and this is lifted out of the "whole Wesley," its supports are lost and its meaning confused.

Before analyzing the "broken" Wesleyan context, the observation that the brokenness can probably be accounted for in some measure should be made and explained. Quite simply, Wesley literature was not used widely in the mainstream of the holiness movement outside the Methodist Churches. An examination of the lists of recommended and available books and pamphlets for the holiness movement reveals so few from Wesley's pen as to startle the researcher. Some publishing was obviously done in America but the listing of holiness books did not widely include these. Eventually more popular paperbacks of Keswick writers, dispensationalism, sermons, general devotional and biographical accounts prevailed.

Holiness preaching of the great releasing experience of spiritual victory and vitality was done outside the context of Wesley's help. As George Turner has said, the holiness movement produced many tracts and much devotional literature but very little scholarly material.6

Without the Wesleyan background, the rationale for the holiness message and experience had to be grafted into whatever theological and philosophical root-system the sanctified person brought with him. Frustrating experiences today, in attempting to reconstruct a true Wesleyanism in contrast to the specious "Wesleyanisms," would be understood were it remembered that the holiness movement has not had, nor does it have now easily available Wesley's own works. Many seminary students have never read Wesley, because his works are not in all the libraries, and even in holiness seminaries the students may suffer the varying interpretations of professors who, themselves, may not have had any better introduction. From this proceeds the fractured Wesley.

Distorted Wesleyanisms, issuing in "problem" holiness understanding, are obviously the fruit of grafting them onto non-Wesleyan philosophical roots. Some examples of the fruit become evidences of the root. Two related errors (at least always rejected by the Church) are detectable arising from dualistic presuppositions. One is the extreme ontological distinctions between the Persons of the Godhead issuing in a practical tritheism. The other is trichotomy in anthropology. Tritheism makes it possible to say that Christ is our Saviour and the Holy Spirit is the Sanctifier. Trichotomy makes it necessary to suppose that the multiple entities in human persons account for the need for multiple works of grace to achieve entire sanctification. This is probably behind the idea of discontinuity of grace in relation to the "works" of grace.

As a consequence, it has been possible for some to isolate holiness preaching from gospel preaching and to study holiness as a doctrine separate from Christian theology as a whole. To follow the logic through, the event of entire sanctification as a second work of grace began to absorb the whole meaning of sanctification so that no aspect of development could be included in it. When the continuity of grace between conversion and sanctification was lost, it became necessary to make clear distinctions between them so that one could refer to emotional evidences to be sure of standing. In fact, the very complex human structure of personality became an increasing problem to be solved in theology as the psychology of personality was better understood.

On dualistic presuppositions, an extreme supernaturalism weakened the Wesleyan moral interaction between God and man in the conversion experience. The historical Pentecost became the model for all personal experience, and the question was raised about how one would know when the baptism of the Holy Spirit would be received. There was in the baptism language no inbuilt mandate for discipleship and service. Obedience in terms of legalism and moralism and often emotionalism gained priority over agape. To observe this is not to deny the reality of the experience of entire sanctification but does indicate the weakening of the rationale for the doctrine which needs recovery.

A Critique of the Whole Wesley

There is a widespread interest in John Wesley today, far exceeding the relatively small number of people who belong to the several holiness denominations. Wesley is emerging as a great ecumenical and churchly figure, bigger than history had recognized before and bigger than can be contained in any denominational enclosure.

This return to Wesley is in no sense a reactionary, parochial, fundamentalist movement, but precisely the opposite. Ironically, the return movement causes some alarm among some Wesleyans in the holiness movement. The reason for this reluctance is that a discovery or recovery of the "whole Wesley" might threaten the distinctive identity of some distorted Wesleyanisms.

Any fair perspective of Wesleyanism should take into account some of the theological milieu out of which Wesley came and concerning which he spoke and in which he permitted himself to become involved, and the deep sense of responsibility which he assumed in leading men and women into the spiritual depth he had discovered in "Scripture, Reason and the Antiquities. "

Wesley's concept of the "second blessing," properly so-called, was by no means his major obsession, but the means through which the goal of the Christian life could be realized here and now. Entire sanctification cannot be abstracted from the "whole Wesley" and retain any living meaning. Of interest is the fact that not just the older holiness people are attempting to recover Wesley but the young and young-in-heart see the importance of doing so.

Of these younger scholars, Free Methodist Howard Snyder says,

. . . the reasons for studying Wesley today are more pressing and pragmatic than merely historical curiosity. Wesley's role in bringing spiritual renewal to a rapidly industrializing society, and his understanding and practice of Christian discipleship suggest some aspects of his continuing relevance.7

Snyder cites the increasingly recognized theological stature of Wesley-long denied-as a practical theologian. His theology had points in common with some modern ones that are "tied to praxis and grew out of praxis." Wesley too was a radical reformer, desiring to restructure the life and experience of the Christian community in matters of discipleship, life-sty!e, gospel obedience and the "shape of the Church."8

Turning the pages of time back to our earlier years, such sentiments as the following appear. This one is from the pen of H. Orton Wiley as editor of the Herald of Holiness and is dated in 1933.

Dr. Dale, the theologian, once remarked "that there was a doctrine of John Wesley's-the doctrine of perfect sanctification-which ought to have led to a great and original ethical development; but the doctrine has not grown; it seems to remain just where John Wesley left it. There has not been the genius, or the courage, to attempt the solution of the immense practical questions which the doctrine suggests. The questions have not been raised, much less solved. To have raised them effectively would have been to originate an ethical revolution which would have had a far deeper effect on the thought and life-first of England, and then on Christendom-than was produced by the reformation of the Sixteenth Century." What Dr. Dale seems to have meant was, that the doctrine of perfect love and full devotement to God should have carried life to ever higher levels, and permeated like leaven the whole social structure. Instead of shrinking from politics, it should have purified them. It should have become creative in art and literature instead of distrusting these fields of endeavor. It should have permeated business and social life, instead of becoming content to merely attach a divine sanction to virtues already recognized. A religion flaming with divine love should have called into full play all the heroism and devotion of life.

The "call" of Bishop Ellis of the Free Methodist Church when he was chairman of the program committee of the Christian Holiness Association, which was answered in the 1975 Convention, is significant. He said, in part:

Mr. Wesley placed primary emphasis upon Christ's definition of the ultimate demands of Christian discipleship in terms of love. He defined the sanctified life, holiness of heart and life, in terms of "perfect love." It seems to me to be significant that, at a time in history when society seems as corrupt as in the day of Wesley, there comes from several sources a new call to a biblical definition of Christian love and the evangelical Christian's responsibility to social concern and action.

Also, the relational concept suggested by the word "love" is right on target for any discussion which moves toward the purpose of opening up Christian holiness and love as realities which concern the entire church of Jesus Christ in the world.... Therefore, I am persuaded that the theological position that we take as teachers of holiness must be moved from the area of debate about the definition of terms into the home, the community, the market place, and the personal life of the individual-in other words, the arena of dynamic action and creative relationships.

To Wesley, "life was greater than logic." But what he contributed to the church was not a theological hodge-podge, an eclecticism, but a synthesis which did justice to important truths usually made to stand over against each other.

By a "whole Wesley" is meant a grasp of the whole interaction of his theology with what human persons really are in their own being and with their human problems, and in society and its problems. None of us can divorce ourselves from our context to be a "holy" person. Every individual brings to the trysting place with God all he is, with all the relationships he has with himself, his culture and his earth. "Souls" have no reality apart from the whole person. Grace pervades all that a person is, never merely a part of him. Theology, to Wesley, should reach all that God is in His redemptive relationship to humanity and all that humanity is in its relationships.

It is a commonly made and accepted observation that John Wesley's major contribution was the uniting of life and theology. In a real sense, Wesley, for all his conservatism, lived "on the boundary." His innovations, extemporary prayer, hymn-singing, outdoor preaching, etc., were extreme in his day, but were not revolutionary.

Synthesis is the word. Note some of the areas of its relevance.

1. The Church: parochialism, for Wesley, was forced to yield its narrowness to the wideness of the gospel.

2. Theology was made to open its doors to the real life of real people This put a new complexion on theology and engaged people with new possibilities and responsibilities.

3. Individual sanctity was stretched out to encompass social holiness.

4. Crisis in religious life was joined irrevocably to the growth of personality and the process of moral development.

The key to these unions was agape, a love which was based not in feeling or sentimentality or even in the fellowship of congenial people, but in all that is involved in moral integrity, both personal and corporate, breaking down the many barriers between people, living the life of reconcilers. Love was a Christ-centering so real that there was left no place for morally superficial mysticisms. Love for Wesley was the very heart and core of moral life personal involvement and responsibility and the denial of any reliance on impersonal concepts of grace which operated on the soul below the level of rationality. Love catches our whole selves up into a true integrity, leaving nothing out.

In the early part of the nineteenth century this wholeness, or synthesis began to break up, and the great divide began to be seen in the holiness movement. Numbers of elements in American society can be pointed out as possible occasions leading to this breakup of the Wesley synthesis. At least one pair of influences was prevalent in popular thinking-the difference between an historical and an apocalyptic interpretation of existence which touched on an interpretation of grace. The historical interpretation emphasized the continuity of events to provide the meaning of the present. The apocalyptic stressed the discontinuity of events, the breaking in on history of new, unrelated forces and events. The historical has to do with the ongoing, day-by-day, moral, responsible linking of human choosing into character. Apocalyptic is the intrusion of crises that force a change of direction which is not linked to any human choice. The historical is morally related. The apocalyptic is amoral.

1. Wesley understood God's grace as operating in the context of human experience-in history. This informed his concept of the way the Bible was given and the way it was to be read. To him (though he did not express it in the way we do today) crisis experiences were only valid and meaningful in the context of the on-going process of human development. He was very concerned about those who trusted in "experiences" as such which were not an integral part of the rational, moral life. God's grace works in connection with the rational, moral life and can be tested for its authenticity in that context. The Spirit of God begins His work in the life before it is recognized that such is going on. In the context of that "prodding" toward right choice, there can come the "great moment of conversion" with the person in full responsibility (as of his development at any point in his experience). Conversion does not occur in the fog of emotion when the person is morally unconscious or standing off in the corner looking on. There is a history of moral decisions into which the conversion experience comes in all the understanding which the person involved is capable of contributing. It issues in a new direction of life which begins with the whole consent and interaction of the person in full responsibility and dedication, including every relationship of life. This trysting hour engages not just the "soul" but the whole involved complex fabric of a person's life and links into every contact of life's relationships. Wesley's great theme of LOVE encompassed the historical involvement as an essential aspect of the meaning of the "instantaneous" which he most surely Pressed. The prayer of the Christian and the search of one's heart should be to achieve "perfection of love," a moral wholeness and integration that engages the entire life. Perfect love has to do with turning all the energies and interests outward toward the world rather than providing a hiding place from it. These crucial "moments" are only possible in the context of the process of "historical" continuity. Forgiveness is not merely a personal event but the entrance into a community in which forgiveness is the prevailing atmosphere. It is a social connection as well as a personal event. Perfection of love is only "individual" as it becomes the expression of new relationships under the Lordship of Christ.

2. In extreme contrast to this is the apocalyptic interpretation of Christian experience. In this view, crisis experience "happens" but cannot be made to mesh with life prior to the experience. There is a total qualitative disjunction between God and man, grace and human nature, supernature and nature. What God does to us, or in us, is thought to be a divine invasion cutting across our existence as rational beings, unrelated to our understanding and responsibility, resulting either in a new status in God's sight, or in some mutation of human nature below the level of consciousness. The Keswick terms, surrender and possessed by are favored over the very active terms, "present your bodies," "yield your members," and "put off" and "put on." In the apocalyptic view the human nature is not considered a real asset to the life of Christian grace, in stark contrast to the biblical and Wesleyan understanding of the full need of the whole human person to be the bearer of grace to the world.

This apocalyptic view differs from the older neo-orthodoxy only in the results which are expected. In holiness circles (wherever this view prevails these invasions result in subterranean personality mutations which should produce, automatically, holy character, the graces of the Spirit and the removal of distracting emotional disturbances. The call to holiness, in this context, is to begin the search for a specific kind of experience. It is not the pilgrimage toward love which engages the whole of a person's moral relations (with the crises that love precipitates) but a dis-attachment from these relations-a moving inward toward oneself-the kind of separation discouraged by Jesus and Paul, at least.

In the apocalyptic view it is difficult to account for the relation of crisis to growth. That relation is often rejected. When this rejection is made, the meaning of crisis and process cannot be contained in the same theology because they are contrary movements. Is it possible that the unrelatedness of crisis to process, and the belief that something happens to the "soul" so that what one does from then on is somehow right, exempting the "sanctified" from the ethical standards expected of others, could explain the careless behavior sometimes observed in our circles?

3. The Synthesis. Neither crisis without process or process without crisis can survive any moral development. It is a principle of life, on which pattern the Christian religious life is laid. No religious crisis can partake of salvific significance that is not solidly imbedded in total life involvement. The dis-attached, unrelated crises, floating free of the personal interaction with the Spirit of God, do not integrate into strong, dependable, incorruptible Christian leadership. Any experience that comes tumbling down "out of the blue," sought for or not, that cannot be checked out for source, must always be distrusted. All experiences come over the same "track." Experiences that have not intermeshed with the moral interaction of the self with the Spirit of God in the context of personal and interpersonal relations cannot be checked out for validity (as the charismatic "experience" indicates). "Perfection of love" is a testable content by which to judge Christian experience, and that love is the "fulfilling of all the law"-a right relation to God, to others in the home, in business, as we interact in all ethical respects, in our society and community, in our nation-well, simply everywhere.

Love, in Wesley's meaning, could not "pool up" in one's self to be hoarded and claimed as a possession. And here is the significance of Wesley's concept of the nature of mankind.

Of vast importance is his understanding of the solidarity of the human race, not only genetically but socially. Sin, in this view, is the breakdown of this social unity. It is an "aggravated alienation" from God which then puts a man out of joint with society, himself and his earth. Wesley would, no doubt, agree with Os Guiness, when he says:

It was Augustine and then Calvin who used the concept of alienation to emphasize that the problem of sin was not just theological but relational-a breach of man's relationship with God entailing a breach of all other relationships. The alienation of evil is theological, between God and man; sociological, between man and other men; psychological, between man and himself, and ecological, between man and nature.9

The sin of an individual cannot be limited to the individual. Its destructiveness flows into every human relationship-everything the individual touches. Conversely, holiness-or sanctification-cannot remain in any individual but must flow outward to the social connections of which everyone is a part-including the social institutions which encompass us. Perfection of love, Wesley's favored term, cannot be pooled up into a mystical "love for God" which goes nowhere except to get stirred up into an t motional flurry once in a while. Love (agape) is not merely a consequence of being "in Christ," but the condition of being in Him, since it is the end of alienation.

If we return to Wesley, we will have to close the gap (if one has been opened) between the elements that Wesley held together in order to find the dynamic he displayed in personal life and in society. The division has been most obvious in the holiness movement since well-meaning leaders began to dismantle the Wesleyan synthesis. In the concern for the crisis, the context in which crisis occurs was almost totally neglected, leaving crisis a plaything for any way of interpreting Christian life, to be defined in any way one chooses.

The "whole Wesley" makes a lot of sense when he is allowed to speak his whole piece.

My thesis is that the return-to-Wesley movement, whether in or out of any Wesleyanism, must recover the Wesley synthesis first-the whole Wesley-and deal radically with that before any judgment is made, positively or negatively, about the pertinency of Wesleyanism for us today.

The synthesis will, in my opinion, provide a rationale for even the parts of Wesley which we feel are important and which become the calling we claim as our distinctive message. But this rationale will, of necessity enlarge the basis of our thinking.

For lack of a supportive rationale, the treasured parts of Wesley do not have sufficient structure to sustain them in the practical life, in apologetics or in personal questions which might be raised. Without the Wesleyan context, theologies based on the "parts" taken out of context leave some of those who are asking penetrating questions with no center of gravity to hold them steady. All too many serious youths are gravitating to Pied Pipers and passing fads, such as Francis Schaeffer, Bill Gothard, amorphous charismatic groups, and movements arising out of philosophies which have at least intellectual order, but which are totally antithetical to the very genius of Wesley's contribution. Wesley's Wesleyanism makes the difference between a theology that can reach out to a world in bondage to sin and greed and alienation, to break through the barriers, and a theology that stratifies society and has no answer to the real problems of being human in a world hostile to grace. The latter is generally a retreat from conflicts, a submission rather than a personal challenge and courageous leadership, and an evasion of the real soul-wrenching issues of today into the quiet world of simple answers and uncomplicated situations.

The particular aspect of Wesley's thought now under analysis is his understanding of the relation of the Holy Spirit to entire sanctification. That John Wesley should have rejected the phrase "baptism of the Holy Spirit" in referring to the unique experience of entire sanctification has occasioned some Wesleyans to suppose that Wesley was either mistaken about the matter or had not progressed far enough in his theological pilgrimage to break into the truth which later American holiness movement leaders had the maturity to see. The urgency of this matter could be expressed as a question: Does Wesley's preference for the term "perfection of love" (with his meaning carefully noted) instead of "baptism of the Holy Spirit" (which meant something else to him) weaken or strengthen the doctrine of holiness as understood by the holiness churches today?

Such a question needs to be evaluated. Is it important enough to drain off the time and energy required to solve it? If it is simply (simplistically) an in-house debate serving mainly to divide the house, and has no significant word to say to us concerning our gospel mandate to "serve this present age," it were better to quietly lay it aside to rest among the other discarded debates such as counting the angels shoving each other around trying to get a foot on the head of a pin. When biblical exegesis and hermeneutical principles and historical exploration and practical results have been brought to bear on the question, we may find we have no problem, or one that is not worth the cost. But this decision cannot be made before some exploration.

Before attempting to attack the main theological issue, some attention must be given to "ground rules" and methodology. Major differences of opinion are created on this deeper level where we all operate but often without our being aware of what is going on. This step in our investigation is important, however tedious it may be. The "roots" of theology begin here.

A Methodology

The simple words, "I believe in the Holy Ghost" (Apostle's Creed) open up a Pandora's box of complex issues. With some thoughtful arbitrariness the following principles are suggested as important to the question.

1. History.

All Christian doctrines have a history which relates them to every other doctrine. There are no detachable parts that can survive authentically alone. Ideas of the Holy Spirit have arisen in the Church but have been discarded, sometimes contemptuously, because there was no "lifeline" to the Christian faith. "The Holy Spirit has been the step-child of Christian Theology," said Henry Van Dusen, in this respect.10

This does not mean that the question about the person and work of the Holy Spirit was not of concern. But it was among the questions which Geoffrey F. Nuttall calls "underground streams''1l which continue to flow below the surface. The question reappears periodically, each time with added color and shape derived from the historical context. Too often Wesleyans have attempted to theologize about the Holy Spirit without taking into consideration these formative influences and as a consequence "talk past each other. "

2. Semantic Dynamics.

Fruitful dialogue and communication cannot ignore some understanding of the dynamics of language. A growing recognition on the part of responsible Christian scholarship makes it clear that words are repositories of "packed in" understanding of shared human experience. As experience differs, changes, is enriched by, or filters through different cultures, the words used to describe that experience acquire different connotations. The connotations, usually emotional, take precedence over dictionary definitions or theological propositions.

All words are in some measure metaphors-figures of speech-not the thing itself. Words are code signals that must be decoded by those who hear or read them. This decoding procedure takes place in all human communication, in speaking, and reading, taking into consideration tone of voice expressions of face and body movements. Below the surface of words lies the variety of experience brought to the words by each member of the conversation, in prejudice, presuppositions and personal responses. Many factors impinge on words reminding us that language is a very flexible and effective tool of communication. No (grammatical) biblical word, even in the "autographs," remains unchanged from Genesis to Revelation. The rich context gathered in the pilgrimage of words through the events of biblical and collateral history makes a knowledge of these things the growing responsibility of the interpreter.

3. Theological Semantics.

In the process of transferring biblical ideas into theology, several intermediate steps are encountered. Biblical writers used language born in cultures unfamiliar to modern minds and idiomatic expressions difficult to translate. Hence, the plethora of modern versions, translations and paraphrases needed, from the RSV to the Cotton patch paraphrase. Biblical writers used the human words people understood, never leaving any major truth hanging on any one word but commandeering as many different words out of different familiar situations as were necessary to illuminate the tremendous thing redemption is. The experiential orientation was of major importance.

When theological needs arose in the Church, biblical words were used. The tendency was to simplify the terms to meet the demand of brevity and definition- In this process, the original context of words dropped away. As the rich context i9 lost, dictionaries become theological tools clothing the naked word with some covering. Then, any deviation from "Saint Webster" constitutes heresy. But, it must be said, forthrightly, that in such a procedure, something of "divine revelation," once clinging to these words, is lost and truth suffers. This distortion is encountered whenever the living dynamic of language is surrendered to stereotype.

The ordo salutis, which created the distinctions between theological traditions, is an arbitrary and abstract logical device serving theological, not biblical purposes. H. Orton Wiley observes that no chronological distinction is inherent in such terms as justification, regeneration and sanctification but that each is a metaphor from some life experience enriching the concept of the tremendous thing redemption (another metaphor) is: the law court, home and temple. Catholicism puts sanctification chronologically first. Some Calvinists put regeneration first and most Wesleyans put justification first. That all of these are "concomitant" in conversion is clearly affirmed by Wiley.12 No one word can bear the whole weight of any single "work of grace." The false simplicity of theology must yield to the enrichment-and complexity-of the context out of which it arose. These considerations bear on the use of any theological terminology. Baptism is a prime example, particularly when used of the Holy Spirit and related to entire sanctification. Even the semantic consideration forces us into a deeper study of theological expressions used.

4. Scriptural Holiness and Semantics.

Being scriptural is not simplistic. Holiness theology, if it be biblical, cannot be simple. Its uniqueness, claiming to be experiencible here and now, requires constant adaptation and enlarging to cover the new and ever more complex issues springing up faster than we can stretch out our answers. The Bible is not simplistic. Why on earth have we been given such a clutter of history, exhortation, story and parable, poetry and hard words, war and peace, evil and good men, variety of cultures and gospel and apocalyptic mystery in the Bible if the goal is to reduce it all to the simplicity of baby-talk, and work harder to iron out the contradictions than to find out why they are there?

Proof-texting misses the point. Verses shaken out of the Bible and catalogued according to some key English word cannot be acceptable as theology in any tradition. The context is inspired, too.

Sound exegesis is the basic necessity. Exegesis goes far beyond the mere words. History has to get into the act, providing the background of what problem is under consideration, the cultural situation, the purpose of the author, the deep relationship of that context with what people experience today. Rather than to say, "The Bible says ," it is more accurate to say, e.g., "Paul said such and such to that specific situation."

Hermeneutics, or all that is involved in interpretation, must become a conscious part of the theological enterprise. Exegesis can be done with a respectable measure of objectivity but hermeneutics is more like the color of one's eyes-much harder to change. But the case is not wholly lost. Scripture is given in such a way that what one sees can be changed, corrected, deepened, enriched. "If there is no struggle with the text," said Leander Keck, ". . . the text will degenerate into a useful tool with which the preacher hopes to sanctify ideas he already has.... Where there is authentic hearing the preacher risks being vulnerable...." "... unless the Word is heard it cannot be resaid."13

Christian [holiness] maturity includes the ability to do efficient exegesis and responsible hermeneutics together, with all the differing backgrounds and temperaments and prejudices typical of any scholarly community, with grace and courtesy.

5. Wesley's theology.

Whether one finally agrees or disagrees with Wesley about his understanding of the relation of the Holy Spirit to sanctification, genuine scholarship requires at least attention to the above considerations. Wesley's conclusions were forged in the furnace of great personal erudition and sensitivity to the practical problems among his converts and the society in which they lived. His historical erudition made it possible to view the eighteenth century from a wide perspective. His "warm heart" laid on him a mandate to teach responsibly in that light.

It is not unlikely that had we been under the necessity of formulating a doctrine of the Holy Spirit in his day we would have said about what he did-had we been as informed and theologically sensitive as he.

Wesley's position about the Holy Spirit must be seen in the light of his wider historical-theological context which can only be hinted at here. Wesley was not an abstract theologian, though he revealed unimpaired ability to be such. He spoke to specific issues as did the Apostle Paul. It is wiser for us to ask what the questions were concerning which he spoke than to take his answers out of context and apply them to our questions which may have no relation to what he had in mind.

A Brief Historical Survey of Theological Concepts

of the Holy Spirit in the Church

Vagueness which has traditionally attached to the concept of Spirit largely accounts for the failure of the Church to develop a doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Tracing the linguistic line from the Hebrew ruach (wind, breath, person) through the Greek pneuma, the Latin, spiritus, the German

Geist, the French esprik and the English ghost, is a fascinating study and shows the ways that "Holy Ghost" or, now, "Spirit," has suffered at the hands of language. Nuttal reminds us of the mediaeval symbolism of the Trinity in which the Father and the Son are anthropomorphically pictured but the Spirit is shown as a Dove.14 The New Testament development needs to be noted. From the natural neuter, "it" (Acts 2:16, touto) to the masculine "he" (ekeinos, John 16:13) the progressive Christificierung des Geistes is taking place in various ways.

The Incarnation makes the vague ideas of "God" come into focus, but Spirit has no analogy in human experience to aid the conceptualizing it. As a consequence, it is the effects of spirit which are utilized in the attempt to do so. Whatever word is commonly used to refer to these effects leaves on that word, and in the theology which uses the word, whatever "marks" are in it. These marks reflect back on Spirit and become the identifying logo. It is no wonder that the unusual demonstrations of the disciples on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) should have soon been misunderstood and the attempt made to duplicate them out of context. Not keeping Jesus' teaching about the identifying marks of the Spirit (John 14-16) in mind, or Peter's very important explanation in Acts 2, the interpretation of the Holy Spirit follows pagan lines.

It was not long before the emotional and irrational aspects of religious worship probably carried into the church by converts from pagan religions had to be dealt with firmly as contributing to disorder, and worse.

As the church settled into a pattern of orderliness, the "freedom of the Spirit" or "enthusiasm" needed to be curbed and brought under control. Enthusiasm was less theologically heretical than a threat to the authority of the Church in a pagan world.

As the Church extended its authority, the Holy Spirit was subsumed under that authority so that the individual was more and more lost in the encroaching power structure of the hierarchy. Of interest is the fact that Thomas Aquinas could treat the subject of revelation without reference to the Holy Spirit. There was little need for the Church to be more explicit about the Holy Spirit since it had taken over His functions.

The Reformation was fundamentally a return of interest in the Holy Spirit, a deeper matter than merely the authority of Scripture, though related to it. The Renaissance of learning encouraged people to think for themselves. As the Scriptures came to them in the vernacular, for the first time theological matters came to popular attention. The Bible contributed to a new and ecstatic personal religious experience. That which the Holy Spirit had failed to achieve through the Church, was experienced by the Spirit directly and vitally.

Having renounced the authority of the Catholic Church, Protestants were left adrift. Where was Christian authority? With the Holy Spirit, of course. But where was the Spirit? If not in the church, He might be in the individual, in experience; He could be in reason; He could be in the "inner light," in natural conscience or in Scripture. H. Orton Wiley gives a discriminating account of the kinds of theology that proceeded from each of these views.l5

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the foundation of modern theology took shape.16 In this period the principle of individuality and its consequences became the leaven of a new social conscience. The Reformation doctrine of justification by faith assumed-or developed(?)-a concept of individual responsibility not required in sacerdotalism. The Holy Spirit's function in this area of responsibility raised the question of how the Holy Spirit and man interacted. The mystical interaction, long in the church, took on a character derived from Reformation assumptions. While Catholic mystics could probably be said to find in mysticism an escape from the regimentation and depersonalization of the Church, it might be said that Protestant mystics could have been trying to escape the rigid scholasticism developing in Reformation theology, which was just as stifling.

In any case, the ancient problems relative to the Holy Spirit revived in the new forms contributed by the needs of the new day. The old problem of the nature of the Holy Spirit and His relation to the Trinity was one of the "underground streams" running consistently through the developing of Christian doctrine. There is one God, nothing can change that fact and remain Christian. If, however, the Holy Spirit is God, is He not a sort of third god? This question remains unanswered.

Against this, Wesley wielded a telling sword. But he rejected the philosophical battleground and stayed solidly in biblical affirmations.

It was an evil hour that these explainers began their fruitless work. I insist upon no explication at all; no, not even the best I ever saw; . . . I would insist only on the direct words, unexplained, just as they lie in the text [I John 5:7] . . . I do not see how it is possible for any to have vital religion who denies that these Three are One.17

Questions about the nature of the "inner light" arose. Was the heart enlightened and what was enlightenment, or was the Word enlightened? If the Spirit inspired the writers, did He inspire the readers in the same or a different way? Could anyone be saved apart from the Spirit's inspiration? Or did the Spirit need the Word? Should the Scriptures be interpreted by the Spirit, or should the Spirit's leading be tested by the Bible? To what in man does the Spirit speak, if, indeed He does speak? If the Spirit illuminates the Word of God, and/or He illuminates the reader's mind-or heart-what degree of infallibility is involved? The approach of H. Orton Wiley is quite Wesleyan, "The Holy Spirit was a fact of experience before it became a problem in philosophy."

The nature of the Holy Spirit is not a trivial matter. Thritheism is not dead. It continues to disturb the mind and determine the shape of much modern evangelical religion. Statements such as the following from holiness church leaders testify to the reality of our problem: "We must leave the Lordship of Christ and go on up to the freedom of the Spirit."

Of specific significance was the problem of "enthusiasm" in the eighteenth century. At this point failure to distinguish between emotionalism in religious services, and the interpretation of emotion as the evidence of the Holy Spirit's work, and any emphasis on the Holy Spirit as involved in the personal religious experience of individuals has created major problems.

Because of John Wesley's (1) recovery of the importance of the Holy Spirit in the personal and individual life of the Christian, (2) his teaching that men could experience the ministry of the Holy Spirit here and now, and (3) his claim to be led of the Spirit, he was accused of being an enthusiast with pejorative connotations.18 It did not help his cause to have had those among his converts who stepped over the bounds of good sense by excessive demonstration. Umphrey Lee and Ronald Knoxl9 describe some of the more bizarre experiences in the Wesley revivals. Being (1) fully and painfully aware of the seriousness of the charge, and (2) stung by the "most perversive and abusive of all Wesley's opponents,"20 Bishop William Warburton of Gloucester, Wesley wrote an extended letter showing step by step how the charge of enthusiasm was false. This letter becomes an important statement about Wesley's doctrine of the Holy Spirit. In his rebuttal Wesley says, "The question is of the office and operation of the Holy Spirit: with which the doctrine of the new birth, and indeed the whole of real religion, is connected."21

The bishop had charged Wesley with making claims to "extraordinary" measures of the Spirit, with "every Apostolic gift," including power to do miracles, and having "ecstatic raptures."22 Wesley's answer is worth careful study. In brief, to him, the work of the Holy Spirit was to lead to a Christlikeness evidenced by love.

John Wesley lived in the midst of as troubled a world as our own. "We see on every side," he said, "either men of no religion at all, or men of a lifeless, formal religion."23 On one side was Deism, on the other the social indifference of mysticism. Unitarianism and a faulty Arminianism had dug deeply into the religious life of the nation. Standing as he did where these and other movements flowed together-conflicting ideologies coming up out of long, deep roots-his teaching would have to be carefully enunciated to preserve the integrity of the Christian faith. Against Deism he demonstrated the experiential validity of the completely changed lives of Christian believers. Against mysticism and enthusiasm which seemed the only way for the Deist to interpret the language of experience, he said, "All the other enemies of Christianity are triflers; the mystics are the most dangerous; they stab it in the vitals."24 Mystic divines, he said, utterly decry the use of reason. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit would have to be clearly distinguished from any taint of enthusiasm.

John Wesley was wisely alert to this need.

Do not hastily ascribe things to God. Do not easily suppose dreams, voices, impressions, visions or revelations to be from God.... They may be from the devil. Therefore, "believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God." Try all things by the written word, and let all bow down before it. You are in danger of enthusiasm [fanaticism] every hour, if you depart ever so little from Scripture; yea, or from the plain literal meaning of any text, taken in connection with the context.25

In a letter to Miss Bolton who was seeking high spiritual feelings, John Wesley wrote:

George Ball, William Green, and many others, then full of love were favoured with extraordinary revelations and manifestations from God. But, by this very thing, Satan beguiled them from the simplicity that is in Christ. By insensible degrees they were led to value these extraordinary gifts more than the ordinary grace of God; . . . this, my dear friend, was what made me fear for you.26

It is possible to make conflicting cases for Wesley's position regarding "enthusiasm," depending on how the "autographs" are interpreted. Much needs to be understood about the psychological moods of the people in that day and the understanding of Wesley regarding this psychology. It is known that great sweeping emotional storms in crowd situations were not unusual. What was true generally would likely be true in religious events. Certainly the reactions of the audiences of Jonathan Edwards in America were not wholly the reactions to what he said. Under the ministry of Daniel Rowland, Howell Harris and John Cormick, as well as in Quaker meetings great emotion was experienced. It was a common experience which religious gatherings shared.

What we do know about John Wesley is that he was not a rabble rouser deliberately creating situations in which emotion overcame reason. Though his sermons were not read to the audiences as we have them recorded, they were surely enlivened by manner and, probably, illustration. He sometimes let as many as five months pass before committing sermons to a final and publishable form.27 It seems likely, in any case, that he did not attribute the excessive emotion to the Holy Spirit as some did, nor is there any indication that such "convulsions" indicated spiritual experience.

We may have a solid clue in all this about Wesley's doctrine of the Holy Spirit. He saw, as it seems wise for us to consider, two aspects of the work of the Holy Spirit. One is the continuing presence of the Holy Spirit as the communicating function of God in the entire experience of mankind including the relationship of God's Spirit in all of history (Old Testament events as well as New Testament), and in every step in the pilgrimage of individuals in God's redemptive grace. There is a continuity of grace in relationship. The character of that relationship is love, personal and moral through and through, rather than in any way mechanical or superficial or impersonal. There is a situation established by God in Christ in which every individual is "kept savable" from birth, from the moral awakening of the sinner and his conversion to perfection in love and outward toward every aspect of growth in the Christian life. That there are crucial "events" (not necessarily

"clock-time" crises, but always decisive and radical), simply testifies to the fact that every step in grace is designed to engage the whole man in his growing responsibility and moral maturation. There are no impersonal "magic," works-in-the-drawer religious operations "deeper down and farther back" than the level of moral reality. God, by the Spirit wants that awakened person to be at the point of decision when spiritual deepening is going on. No proxy will do. Wesley, following the vocabulary established in theology, called this God's ordinary grace which included such matters as "fruit" and ethical considerations.

Along that deep, continuing line there may be "extraordinary" experiences in which the Spirit breaks into the normal routine of life to produce effects not usually expected-or needed. The Old Testament records some of these, such as Gideon's being "the clothing of God," or in Samson's exploits. All too often the less admirable occasions of loss of ego-control were falsely attributed to God's Spirit, facts which should not be generalized to mean that God's Spirit moved through Israel's history in merely temporary ways. Both the permanent and temporary are clearly distinguished in the two Testaments.

Sometimes one may be conscious of these "charismatic" events. To be the locus of such "gifting" easily becomes an obsession and results in a seeking for the excitement of them. We may feel superior, "blessed," special. Of greater value may be the times when we are in humiliation and rejection and frustration in God's service, but which mav furnish those who observe opportunity to enter into a fellowship of suffering and understanding not possible when we are in "the third heaven," untouchable and unreal. No one can properly judge the value of his own sense of "unction."

To seek such temporary elations and ecstatic experience is to seek the superficial. When these moments come, if they do, and if we are aware of them, they must come only "as the Spirit chooses." Paul's important passage related to this in II Corinthians 12 must not be ignored in this respect. The "third heaven" event had in it such moral hazards that Paul accepted gladly the humiliating thorn. His glory was not in his "gifts" but in his weakness, for in weakness the greatness of Christ could be revealed. Three times the Damascus Road event is recounted. The "third heaven" experience was an apology.

The distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary grace of God was, apparently, understood by Wesley. He was not captured by the extra-ordinary events accompanying the visitation of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost as described in Acts 2, but he interpreted that event as Peter did in his explanation, Christologically. "Our Lord's ever present, other Self," as Wesleyan H. O. Wiley expresses it,28 had come. We live in the extended "Day" of Pentecost in which the Spirit makes the presence of Christ a living possibility here and now for every spiritual need. The book of Acts glorifies the resurrected and living Lord. Christ is central. Christ is Lord.

It is this that comes through in Wesley. Enthusiasts called attention to the human "spectacularness" of their union with the Holy Spirit. Wesley saw correctly that the real test of the presence of the Holy Spirit is Christlikeness. Christlikeness is not an insipid, self-protective, retiring withdrawal from life's full involvement, but precisely, the vulnerable outgoing, self-giving, morally vigorous, involved life, capable of enormous outrage against sin and injustice and yet having the capacity of forgiveness and reconciliation and creative acceptance of those whose strength against temptation has been exhausted. It is no small thing to be a Spirit-filled Christian.

Wesley saw correctly that "perfection of love" must be the goal of grace, not in mere terminology but in life, and that love had in it the absolute mandate, to be the church, the body of Christ, God 's temple in which His Spirit dwells. The "whole Wesley " gives a good account of himself and is worth knowing.

In conclusion, it could be said with some reason that Wesley's rejection of the use of the term baptism in relation to entire sanctification was not a rejection of the ministry of the Holy Spirit in every step in Christian life, nor a defective view of sanctification, perhaps not even as Daniel Steele supposed, to avoid missing the point of sanctification.29 Wesley simply did not find Scriptural warrant or theological necessity for making that identification. Neither his brother, Charles, nor John Fletcher could soundly convince him of this necessity. Prevailing over this terminology problem was the theological and biblical understanding that the prime meaning of redemption was a heart perfected in love and a life demonstration of this fact.

Conclusion

The theological stance of Wesleyanism is complex. John Wesley, by far the most informed, historically and theologically, of all his colleagues, worked within the Judeo-Christian framework in which the Hebraic concepts were known and respected. In this dynamic framework the goal of the gospel could be understood as agape love as the relationship of truth. Agape takes in the whole man. It unifies all that man is in relationship to God, to others and to the earth. It is morally oriented.

Progress in the spiritual life is moral, demanding profound crisis/decision events in life which engage every nook and cranny of the rational and responsible human person. The whole of God "speaks to" the whole of persons. In that dialogue God addresses us and calls forth the deepest response of which we are capable. In this on-going relationship presided over by God's Spirit we become increasingly aware of who and what we are and of ourselves as responsible beings and of our inner hidden commitments (hitherto unrealized). Openness and progress in this "walk" establish moral and spiritual wholeness and integrity. Progress in the establishment and maintenance of integrity is always "critical," never merely unchallenged and automatic growth. Life is full of crisis points, but in a real sense the beginning of integrity is unique. Integrity is constantly under attack, but attack is neither a sign of failure nor a threat to the fact of integrity. "Perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (II Cor. 7:1) emphasizes both the integrity of holiness and the process of extending that relationship outward to include in it ever-enlarging dimensions of the whole of life's relationships and responsibilities. The self does not end at the contours of one's physical anatomy, or with the self-defining interests that mark one off too radically from others.

In this structure of thought Wesley found the term baptism in relation to Holy Spirit descriptive not only of the initial sanctification included in conversion, but also of other significant events in the continuum of grace. At no moment in life could the work of the Holy Spirit be excluded. What occurs along the "walk in love" (Eph. 5:2) is prompted by the Holy Spirit deepening the personal involvement of love and extending it outwardly into every human contact. The ministry of forgiveness (acceptance and building up those who are alienated) and reconciliation belongs to the "conversion package" for which we become responsible.

Some Wesleyan groups failed in important ways to interpret this whole life involvement, which Wesley taught, by trying to fit Wesley's "holiness insight into a dualistic concept of God and man. In this attempt, the relationship of "states of grace" in man's experience became detached from each other. Parts of God were thought to have to do with parts of man. Inevitably a hyper-supernaturalism took the place of the profound interaction between God and man in grace. If God does something below the level of rationality why does He not do all that needs to be done at conversion? Dualism puts sin in various parts of man so that it is necessary to explain the "second grace" in ways sometimes more parochial than biblically theological. It raises ontological problems relative to the unity of God and the wholeness of persons. When baptism is couched in dualistic terms, it is isolated from the continuum of grace taught in Arminianism, and questions arise as to how to achieve the experience and what may be the evidence for it. The "ordinary" grace of God, an abiding grace, driving a Christian out from obsession with his own sanctity to a life of self-giving and service, is lost as an inherent mandate in dualism.

Wesleyanism must recover its biblical and psychological rationale for such a life. Dualism is divisive; "wholeness" seals into the Christian life the process of sanctification which makes "critical events," of which "second" is a part, morally meaningful-perfection of love.

Bibliographical Resources

Notes

lCharles Edwin Jones, Perfectionist Persuasion (Metuchen, N. J.: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1974), p. 19.

2Allan Coppedge, "Entire Sanctification in Early Methodism," Wesleyan Theological Journal, Vol. 13, Spring 1978, pp. 35-36. The author challenges the widely held opinion that Wesley's works on Christian perfection had dropped from circulation and were only recovered later in the nine-teenth century, on the basis of discovery by "Methodism's master bibliographer," Frank Baker, of an abundance of such material.

3Mildred Bangs Wynkoop, The Trevecca Story (Nashville: Trevecca Press, 1976).

4E. Dale Dunlap, "Tuesday Meetings, Camp Meetings and Cabinet Meetings," A.M.E. Zion Quarterly Review, Methodist History, News Bulletin, April 1975, p. 98.

50xford Institute of Methodist Theological Studies, July 18-28, 1977, Lincoln College, Oxford, England.

6George Turner, The More Excellent Way (Winona Lake, Ind.: Light and Life Press, 1952), p. 15.

7Howard Snyder, "The Making of a Radical Protestant," Asbury Seminarian, January 1978, p. 5.

8Ibid., pp. 6, 8.

90s Guinness, Dust of Death (Inter-Varsity Press, 1973), pp. 35-36.

10Henry Van Dusen, Spirit, Son and Father, p. 15.

11Geoffrey F. Nuttall, The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience (Oxford: Blackwell, 1956), pp. 2f.

12H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology,3 vols. (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1941), 2:384,386,387,396,402,423.

13Leander Keck, "Listening to and Listening For," Interpretation, April 1973, pp. 185, 184.

14Nuttall, op. cit., pp. 3ff.

15Wiley, op. cit., 1:140ff.

l6Howard Watkins-Jones, The Holy Spirit from Arminius to Wesley (Epworth Press, 1929), p. 13.

17The Works of John Wesley, 14 v019., 6:200,201,206.

l8Umprhey Lee, The Historical Backgrounds of Early Methodist Enthusiasm (AMS Press, Inc., 1967). The meaning of "enthusiasm" is complex and has been variously interpreted. Expecting effects without means is Wesley's idea. Emotion in connection with religious experience was the

meaning in his day.

19Ronald Knox, Enthusiasm (Oxford University Press, 1950).

20Gerald R. Cragg, ed., "Introduction" to The Appeals to Men of Reason and Religion and Certain Related Open Letters, in The Works of John Wesley (Oxford, 1975), 11:459.

2lIbid., p. 467.

22Ibid., p. 468.

23"An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion," in the volume cited, p. 45.

24From Southey's Life of Wesley.

25Plazn Account of Christian Perfection in the 14-vol. edition of the Works, 11:429.

26Letter of December 5, 1772, Works, 12:481.

27For example, "The Wedding Guests"; see R. A. Knox, Enthusiasm, p. 514.

28Wiley, op. cit., 2:311.

29Daniel Steele, Steele 's Answers (Chicago: The Christian Witness Company, 1912) p. 130.

Additional Resources

Bassett, Paul M. "The Fundamentalist Leavening of the Holiness Movement: 1914-1940," in Wesleyan Theological Journal, Spring 1978, pp. 65-91.

. "A Study in the Theology of the Early Holiness movement, A.M.E. Zion Quarterly Review, Methodist History, News Bulletin, April 1975, pp. 61-84.

Davidson, Leslie, Pathway to Power, the Charismatic Movement in Historical Perspective. Logos, Charisma Books, 1971.

Dayton, Donald W. "The Doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit: Its Emergence and Significance, " in Wesleyan Theological Journal, Spring 1978, pp. 114-26.

Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Staff of Wesley College. Headingly, England: 1941.

Ladd, George. The Pattern of New Testament Trutk. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1968. (Especially Chapter 1.)

Nuttall, Geoffrey. The Puritan Spirit. Epworth Press, 1967.

Rattenbury, J. Ernest. Evangelical Doctrines of Charles Wesley's Hymns. Epworth Press, 1941.

Rigg, James. The Churchmanship of John Wesley. Wesleyan Methodist Bookroom, 1878.

Simon, John. John Wesley and the Religious Societies. Epworth Press, 1921 .

Smith, Timothy L. "The Doctrine of the Sanctifying Spirit: Charles G. Finney's Synthesis of Wesleyan and Covenant Theology," in Wesleyan Theological Journal, Spring 1978, pp. 92-113.

Edited by Brian Seidel