EARLY WESLEYAN VIEWS OF SCRIPTURE
DARYL MCCARTHY
John Wesley:
The great founder of Methodism was by his own admission homo unius libri, a man
of one book.1 To some it will seem pretentious to ask the question-what was John
Wesley’s doctrine of Scripture? Surely his attitude toward the Scripture is obvious.
But it is important in light of the present battle over the doctrine of Scripture to
demonstrate in clear terms and with close reference to his own writings, what actually was
Wesley’s view of the Scripture. Since later Wesleyans would be greatly influenced by
John Wesley’s teachings, it is important to examine his views concerning the origin,
inspiration, and inerrancy of the Scripture and the practical results of his doctrine of
Scripture.
Wesley frequently affirmed his belief that "all Scripture is given by inspiration
of God." At the beginning of a sermon on l Cor. 13:1-3 he declared that since we know
God is the source of all Scripture, we know the Word therefore to be "true and right
concerning all things."2 He referred to Scripture as the "oracles of God."3
He as well made frequent appeals to 2 Tim. 3:16. Wesley set forth a brief, simple
apologetical argument for divine inspiration of the Bible with the initial proposition
being that there are five possible sources of the Scriptures: "good men or angels,
bad men or devils, or . . . God." He systematically eliminates all the other choices
but God. His conclusion is that "the Bible must be given by divine
inspiration."4 To be sure men were involved in the transmission of God’s Word.
Wesley refers to the writers of the Bible as "men divinely inspired."5 But still
God is the Source and the ultimate Author of the Book. It was He who moved upon the
"holy men of old."
Wesley affirmed his belief in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures in a series of
letters to a "John Smith."
I am as fully assured today as I am of the shining of the sun that the Scriptures are
of God. I cannot possibly deny or doubt it now; yet I may doubt of it to-morrow; as I have
heretofore a thousand times, and that after the fullest assurance preceding. Now, if this
be "a demonstration that my former assurance was a mere fancy," then farewell to
all revelation at once.6
This statement can only be understood in the context that one of the major issues with
which Wesley dealt was the doctrine of the witness of the Spirit. He taught that one could
know that he was a child of God through the inward witness of the Holy Spirit. To this Mr.
Smith countered that some people who had claimed to have had such a witness, later doubted
or denied any such witness. Thus, Smith claimed, any certainty of this so-called
"knowledge" was destroyed. Wesley rebutted this argument by pointing out that
just because today a person really knows and cannot doubt or deny that he is a Christian
by the witness of the Spirit does not mean he may not doubt that fact tomorrow. But the
fact that he begins to doubt the fact later on, does not destroy the fact that he did know
before. Expressed another way, it is possible for the Spirit to cease to bear witness to
the per-son’s salvation, which would obviously be the case if the person fell from
grace.7 To bring his point home with more force Wesley laid aside all his arguments from
Origen, Chrysostom, et al., and made the statement quoted above concerning the Scriptures.
In essence Wesley was saying, "Just because tomorrow I can doubt the Scriptures as
being from God, does not change the fact of the matter, viz., they are from God."
Being the unabashedly honest man he was, Wesley admitted to having doubted the Bible many
times. Most honest scholars have had questions concerning the divine origin of the
Scripture arise many times in the process of their investigation of the Bible.
Wesley's comments on this matter in a later letter (July 1747) to Mr.
Smith further illuminates his intentions.
The facts, whether asserted or denied, are still invariable. . . . I am fully convinced
to-day that the Scriptures are of God as that the sun shines. And this conviction (as
every good gift) cometh from the Father of lights. Yet I may doubt of it to-morrow. I may
throw away the good gift of God.8
His point is that one can doubt anything regardless of how certain he has been of it
previously. Yet that does not change the truth of the matter.
Wesley once made the statement that he did not like the word "infallible." He
was replying to a letter from Mr. Smith when he said, " 'Infallible testimony' was
your word, not mine: I never use it; I do not like it."9 However it must be noted
that the discussion is not about the infallibility of the Bible. The case which Wesley was
attempting to prove was that it is
possible for a person to believe he is a Christian, to feel that he is, to think he has
the witness of the Spirit-and yet not be. In what sense is the witness of the Spirit to
the individual concerning his salvation infallible? Wesley replied that in no sense at all
is it 8infallible. It is too easy for finite fallible human beings to think they have the
witness when in actuality they do not. But this in no sense denies the infallibility of
the Scriptures.
In a letter to the editor of Lloyd ‘s Evening Post Wesley protested concerning
some remarks which had been made on a new edition of the Koran. He rejected the objections
which had been made to the Mosaic creation account and to God’s preference of the
Jews. He responded to the suggestion that the devil could have invented the sacrificial
system, to the argument that prophecy negates free will, and to the claim that "only
the words of Christ Himself are the pure, original Scriptures." He went on to
proclaim,
I cannot but repeat the observation, wherein experience confirms me more and more, that
they who disbelieve the Bible will believe anything. They may believe Voltaire! They may
believe the Shastah! They may believe a man can put himself into a quart bottle.10
Wesley’s own clear statements confirm his belief in the inerrancy of Scriptures.
In 1776 Wesley commented in his Journal on Jenyn’s tract Internal Evidence of the
Christian Religion by saying though it was an admirable piece, it was hard to tell whether
Mr. Jenyn was a Christian, a deist, or an atheist.
If he is a Christian, he betrays his own cause by averring that "all Scripture is
not given by inspiration of God, but the writers of it were sometimes left to themselves,
and consequently made some mistakes." Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible
there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book. it did not come
from the God of truth.11
Thus Wesley in unequivocal terms denies any other position concerning Holy Scripture
but that of inerrancy.
In his remarks on Matthew 1:1 in his Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament,
concerning possible problems in the genealogy of Jesus, Wesley affirms that the
genealogies are inerrant in all they affirm.
If there were any difficulties in this genealogy, or that given by St. Luke, which
could not easily be removed, they would rather affect the Jewish tables than the credit of
the evangelists; for they act only as historians, setting down these genealogies as they
stood in those public and allowed records. Therefore they were to take them as they found
them. Nor was it needful they should correct the mistakes, if there were any. For these
sufficiently answer the end for which they are recited. They unquestionably prove the
grand point in view, that Jesus was of the family from which the promised Seed was to
come. And they had more weight with the Jews for this purpose than if alterations had been
made by inspiration itself. For such alterations would have occasioned endless disputes
between them and the disciples of our Lord.12
Wesley was simply saying what most defenders of inerrancy would say, viz., that the
Bible is inerrant in what it affirms. But it should be noted that he did not say there
were definitely mistakes in the genealogy. Rather, he merely recognized the possibility of
mistakes-not on the part of the inspired authors, but in the Jewish records. He did not
feel that his biblical critical knowledge at that time warranted a definite statement
either way concerning genealogical problems. Wesley affirmed that Matthew and Luke were
inspired as they reported the traditional genealogical tables of the Jews which may have
been in error. Thus, Wesley, while recognizing
problems and gaps in our understanding, affirmed in unequivocal terms once more, the
inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures. As he stated, " ‘All Scripture is
given by inspiration of God,’ consequently, all Scripture is infallibly true."13
John Wesley’s practical use and view of the Bible in his ministry only provides
stronger demonstration for the reality of his belief in the inspiration and inerrancy of
the Bible. He constantly referred to and exhorted his people to be
"Bible-Christians."14 Deriders of the Holy Club called them
"Bible-bigots" and "Bible-moths" who "fed upon the Bible, as
moths do upon cloth."15 In fact John Wesley went so far as to repeatedly warn against
using frivolous modern terms, but rather to use Bible terminology so far as is possible.
He called himself a "bigot" to the Bible and Bible language.16
He preached that "all who desire the grace of God are to wait for it in searching
the Scriptures." Thus hearing, reading, and meditating upon the Scriptures serve as a
means of grace.17 Yet he condemned in strong terms the fanaticism that led some to claim
that Christians should read only the Bible. He pointed out that if one does that, then to
be consistent one must
do away with all sermons.18
The preaching of Christian perfection raised a furor among other schools of theology.
Inevitably the charge arose that the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification was
unscriptural. In his reply to such accusations the founder of the revival of holiness
indicated his solid position that the Bible is to be our sole rule of faith and practice.
I therein build on no authority, ancient or modern, but the Scripture. If this supports
any doctrine, it will stand; if not, the sooner it falls the better. Neither the doctrine
in question nor any other is anything to me, unless it be the doctrine of Christ and His
Apostles.... I search for truth, plain Bible truth. . . .19
In another letter he affirmed that "The Scriptures are a complete rule of faith
and practice; and they are clear in all necessary points."20 He especially emphasized
the supremacy of the Scriptures in response to the mystics who promulgated the doctrine
that the private guidance of the Spirit was more important than the rule of the Bible.21
He was most concerned that his followers not be taken up with fanatical legalism but
rather instructed them to "enjoin nothing that the Bible does not clearly enjoin.
Forbid nothing that it does not clearly forbid."22
Wesley's hermeneutic was direct and uncomplicated.
The general rule of interpreting Scripture is this: the literal sense of every text is
to be taken, if it be not contrary to some other texts: but in that case the obscure text
is to be interpreted by those which speak more plainly.23
He quoted Clement of Alexandria to support his assertion that "the Scripture is
the best expounder on itself.@24 He freely
admitted that not all Christians agree on the interpretation of many passages, but pointed
out that this is certainly not proof that they are not true Christians. Tongue-in-cheek,
he asserts that it is a proof only that we should "no more expect living men to be
infallible, than to be omniscient."25
One of the strongest indications of the value Wesley placed on the Bible comes in the
training and demands on the Methodist preachers. The founder of Methodism declared that
one cannot be a "good Divine" without being a "good textuary." A
minister of the Word ought to "know the literal meaning of every word, verse, and
chapter...." He also demanded that his preachers have a knowledge of the original
languages of the Bible.26
It is evident that John Wesley, the great founder of Methodism and the fountainhead of
the movement which bears his name held an extremely high view of the Holy Bible. While
recognizing that our understanding is fallible and our interpretations may differ, he held
unequivocally that the Bible comes to us by the inspiration of God and is consequently
infallible and inerrant. His doctrinal position was demonstrated in practical terms in his
many sermons, letters, and exhortations. Wesley, while warning against what is now termed
"bibliolatry," did preach that the Bible was a means of grace and was to be our
sole rule of faith and practice.
Adam Clarke:
Adam Clarke (1760-1832), the great commentator and prominent leader in early Methodism,
held a very high view of Scripture. His commentary, which was his greatest work (published
in parts between 1810 and 1825), evinces a high regard and devotion for the Word.
Clarke frequently affirmed his belief in the plenary inspiration and infallibility of
Scripture. In his creed which he adopted early in his Christian life and maintained
throughout his career he stated his position:
The Sacred Scriptures or Holy Books . . . contain a full revelation of the will of God,
in reference to man; and are alone sufficient for every thing relative to the faith and
practice of a Christian, and were given by the inspiration of God.27
In a sermon on Romans 15:4 he declared, "We must ever consider these Scriptures as
coming from God, as divinely inspired, and as containing his infallible truth."28 His
article "General Account of the Sacred Writings" affirms his acceptance of the
sixty-six book canon and states that the Bible is "the only complete directory of the
faith and practice of men."29
In his commentary Clarke presents two principles in favor of the divine inspiration of
the Bible. First, the Scripture teaches the inspiration of the Holy Spirit concerning
itself. The fact that the Gospels and Acts were written several years after the events
forces us to believe that Jesus’ promise of the instruction of the apostles by the
Holy Spirit in recalling His words (John 14:26), was indeed fulfilled in a very real way.
Also the Scripture addresses itself variously as the Word of God, the commandment of God,
the wisdom of God, the testimony of God, the gospel of God, the gospel of Christ, and the
mystery of His will. The second principle was that the apostles themselves were assured of
the inspiration and assistance of the Holy Spirit of Truth as is indicated in several
passages, e.g., Zech. 1:6; 1 Pet. 1:12; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 Cor. 2:10, 12, 13.30
Clarke denied the mechanical dictation theory however. Even though he taught that
"the words contained in it [Scripture] were inspired by the Holy Spirit into the
minds of faithful men. . . ."31 he insisted that his doc-trine of inspiration was not
a system of mechanical dictation, but was contrary to such a theory. In cases in which the
writers already had knowledge about the subject matter, the only inspiration required was
that which . . . will assure us of the truth of what they wrote, whether by inspiration of
suggestion, or direction only; but not for such an inspiration as implies that even their
words were dictated, or their phrases suggested to them by the Holy Ghost. . . . Although
this might be done in some cases, as in 1 Cor. 2:13. The inspiration of the Holy Spirit
kept them from "error in their reasonings" and from making invalid doctrinal
inferences from the Old Testament which would be contrary "to the true intent and
meaning of them." Mechanical dictation is refuted by: (1) the fact that the writers
were "hagiographers, who are supposed to be left to the use of their own
words;"(2) the variety in style and solecisms; and (3) the author’s own words in
Scriptures which indicate a clear freedom of human expression, as in cases in which
uncertainty, doubt, or ignorance are evinced (e.g., Rom. 15:24, 28; 1 Cor. 1:16;16:5; 2
Cor. 1:15-17; etc.).32
However, in his comments on 2 Pet. 1:20, 21, Clarke indicates that the Scripture
writers were sometimes
. . . carried away, out of themselves and of the whole region, as it were, of human
knowledge and conjecture, by the Holy Ghost, who, without their knowing anything of the
matter, dictated to them what to speak, and what to write, and so far above their
knowledge were the words of prophecy, that they did not even know the intent of those
words. . . .33
Thus a greater degree of inspiration was necessary when the authors were to write about
things they had little or no natural knowledge concerning, than when they were writing
about things with which they were quite familiar.
Clarke strongly believed in the eternal applicability of God's Word. In his practical
suggestions on how to read the Bible he advised Christians to read it as the very word of
God Himself because God "considers it as much his word now as he did when he first
spoke it."34
Clarke stoutly defended the canonicity and textual purity of the Scriptures. The canon
as we have it is complete and totally authentic. The Scriptures have been transmitted to
us "without addition, defalcation, or willful corruption of any kind." He refers
to 2 Tim. 3:16-17 in support of this. The textual variants are not significant enough to
lead to any doctrinal error or obscurity or confusion in moral practice. "All is safe
and sound,-all pure and holy, it is ... the unadulterated gospel of Jesus Christ...."
With regard to supposed contradictions, he admits a problem over 1 John 5:7 which he did
not feel was yet fully settled. But he did feel that the Joshua 21:35-36 problem is solved
by 1 Chron. 6:78-79.35
Finally, Clarke affirmed the inerrancy of Scripture. In his article on "The
Principles of the Christian Religion," he stated, "The Bible . . . is a
revelation from God himself and declares hus will relative to the salvation of men . . .
men may err, but the Scriptures cannot; for it is the Word of God himself, who can neither
mistake, deceive, nor be deceived."36 He frequently and approvingly quoted the saying
concerning Scriptures that they have "God for their Author, salvation for their end,
and truth, without mixture of error, for their matter."37 In his Commentary he
categorically stated that "The apostles were assisted and preserved from error by the
Spirit of God; and therefore were enabled to deliver to us an unerring rule of
faith." The Holy Spirit did not permit them "to err in the delivery of what was
thus indited in his name or which they had written as apostles of God the Father, and our
Lord Jesus Christ."38 Clarke took inerrancy of Scripture as meaning that it is
without error in what it affirms as matter of fact, and not necessarily inerrant in what
it does not affirm. For instance, the chronological sequence of recorded events may not be
necessarily contained in historical accounts, unless such chronological sequence is itself
affirmed. Furthermore, in the recording of conversations it is not necessary to have
"the very words" but the "true intent and meaning" of the exact words.
However, John 14:20 does promise exactness in the recording of Jesus’ exact words.39
Richard Watson:
Richard Watson (1781-1833), the first systematic theologian of early Wesleyanism,
propounded a doctrine of Scripture which was quite identical to that of John Wesley and
Adam Clarke. Interestingly enough, in Theological Institutes, Watson developed no
systematic doctrine of Scripture and inspiration. He treated revelation extensively but
only in an apologetical manner and not a doctrinal manner. The only specific Institutes
reference to the inerrancy of Scripture comes as almost an aside remark (which we shall
examine shortly).
However, in his Conversations for the Young, he develops a more lengthy treatment of
inspiration. He defines inspiration as meaning-"The sacred writers composed their
works under so plenary and immediate an influence of the Holy Spirit, that God may be said
to speak by them to man, and not merely that they spoke to men in the name of God, and by
his authority.@40
From this base Watson developed several principles concerning inspiration of Scripture
in this "Conversation."
(1) The Bible is inerrant. The doctrine that God spoke via Scriptures to men and not
merely that the authors of Scripture spoke by God’s authority "secures the
Scriptures from all error both as to the subjects spoken and the manner of expressing
them." Watson drew no qualifying lines and made no equivocation on the subject. Later
in this same "Conversation" he affirms that the Holy Spirit exerted sufficient
influence upon the whole of Holy Writ that as it was being written by human authors
"it became truth without mixture of error."41 Scriptural phrases such as
"The Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake," "Well spake the Holy Ghost by
Esaias the Prophet," and such verses as 2 Peter 1:21 affirm the inerrancy of the
words in the Word of God.
(2) The term "Scriptures" is used in the Bible as applicable not only to the
Old Testament writings but also to New Testament material and treats the books written
under divine inspiration as a special class of writings and as a collective whole.42
(3) The apostles claim inspiration not only with regard to their general topics but
also inspiration with regard to their very words. Such inspiration was provided for by the
Lord when He promised the Spirit would "guide them into all truth" and that when
they were called upon to testify, the very words would be given them. Paul as well claimed
verbal inspiration in 1 Cor. 2:13. Thus, as has often been said, the inspired waters were
indeed "the penmen of the Holy Ghost."43
(4) The differences in style and individual traits can be accounted for by the fact
that while the Holy Spirit guided the men by suggestion or even overruling the selection
of certain words, He still permitted the men to write with their own styles and unique
personalities. "The verbiage, style, and manner of each was not so much displaced, as
elevated, enriched, and employed by the Holy Spirit...." There is as well an evident
"previous fitness" of each of the writers for their particular subject
areas." Thus Paul’s abilities fitted him to write on doctrine and practice while
Luke was better equipped to write on history.
(5) We may assume that there were varying degrees of the influence of the Holy Spirit
upon the writers as they wrote. Certainly the recording of commonly known historical
events did not require a high degree of inspiration or a miracle of memory. Their plenary
inspiration consisted in this: that they were kept from all lapses of memory, or
inadequate conceptions, even on these subjects; and on all others the degree of
communication and influence, both as to doctrine, facts, and the terms in which they were
to be recorded for the edification of the church, was proportioned to the necessity of the
case, but so that the whole was authenticated or dictated by the Holy Spirit with so full
an influence, that it became truth without mixture of error, expressed in such terms as he
himself ruled or suggested.45
Elsewhere in his Conversations Watson argues that since Christ declares that the Old
Testament is divinely inspired, "the same arguments which prove the Messiahship of
Christ, and the inspiration of the Apostles, prove, consequently, the truth, the
uncorruptness, and the authority of all the books of the Old Testament...."46 In his
sermon "The Oracles of God" he declares that since the Scriptures are from God,
their truth and wisdom is as "demonstrable" as the wisdom and holiness of God
Himself.47
Besides these five principles from the Conversations, we must look at the only direct
reference to the inerrancy of the Word in the Theological Institutes which comes in a
reply to the objection that the Bible is not accurate enough to be judged by scientific
standards; it was not written as a science textbook. It comes in a discussion concerning
objections to the Mosaic account of creation.
If Moses professes by Divine inspiration to give an account of the manner in which the
world was framed, he must describe the facts as they occurred; and if he has assigned a
date to its creation out of nothing, that date, if given by an infallible authority,
cannot be contradicted by true philosophy.48
While Watson couches his points about the creation in hypothetical rhetorical terms, it
is the principles which he recognizes which are of significance. We see that he believed
(1) that the Bible writers "must describe the facts as they occurred"; (2) that
the information contained in the Word was given by "an infallible authority";
and (3) therefore, such facts could not be contradicted. The Bible must be factually
correct in all matters about which it speaks. It is inerrant in science and history, as
well as in matters of faith.
Watson defended the textual purity of the manuscripts not only in his lengthy treatment
in the Institutes but also in his Conversations. He claimed that the textual variants do
not affect the credibility or integrity of the text and that the Bible is the most
"critically correct" and "satisfactorily perfect" of any ancient
work.49
In various sermons and articles Watson stated several practical principles concerning
the Scripture.
(1) As "the expression of the mind of God" and "a perfect revelation of
the truth," Scripture is accompanied and used by the Holy Spirit in a powerful manner
in the hearts of men.50
(2) The salvation of the world is to be gained by "the ministry of the
Word."51
(3) Scripture helps make the messages of conscience and natural revelation more
understandable.52
(4) "The only standard of doctrine" is the Scripture.53
(5) "Every course of conduct" can be universally and easily judged by the
rule furnished by Scripture.54
(6) The Scriptures are the source of all true moral knowledge and influence.55
(7) The Christian's response to Scriptural revelation is to be found in "full
submission to its authority."56
Summary:
Thus, we have seen that the early Wesleyans unanimously and unequivocally affirmed
their belief in the divine inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures. Mechanical
dictation is rejected by all, though Wesley does not deal with this particular view quite
as clearly as do Clarke and Watson. There is a strong emphasis among all of them on the
practical role and functions of the Word both in the community of believers and in their
individual lives.
All three are especially clear in their affirmation of the inerrancy of Scripture.
Wesley averred that "if there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a
thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from God." Clarke
declared that "men may err, but the Scriptures cannot- for it is the Word of God
himself, who can neither mistake, deceive, nor be deceived." "The apostles were
assisted and preserved from error by the Spirit of God." Hence, Scripture is
"truth, without mixture of error." Watson defended the doctrine that God’s
authority "secures the Scriptures from all error both as to the subject spoken and
the manner of expressing them" and spoke of the Bible as being "truth without
mixture of error."
Let us close our study of the early Wesleyan views of Scripture by meditating upon a
portion of one of the worshipful poems the Wesleys penned concerning, "The Word of
God."
The Word of God by all confess'd,
Of truth the' indubitable test
My perfect rule I own;
The Word which doth His mind reveal
To those who would perform His will
And worship Him alone.57
Notes:
1John Wesley, The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., 8 vols., ed. John Telford
(London: Epworth, 1931), 4:299.
2John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, 14 vols. (London: Wesleyan Conference Office,
1872; rep. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 8:45-46.
3Wesley, Works, 14:252.
4Wesley, Works, 11:484.
5Wesley, Works, 10:90.
6Wesley, Letters, 2:92.
7Wesley, Letters, 2:89.
8Wesley, Letters, 2:103.
9Wesley, Letters, 2:59.
10Wesley, Letters, 6:120-23.
11John Wesley, The Journal of theRev. John Wesley, A.M., 8 vols., ed. Nehemiah Curnock
(London: Epworth Press, 1909; rep. ed. 1938), 6:117.
12John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament (rep. ed., London: Epworth
Press, 1958), p. 15.
13Wesley, Works, 5:193.
14Wesley, Works, 5:54, 137; 6:30, 100; 7:74, 331; 8:349.
15Richard Green, John Wesley, Evangelist (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1905),
pp. 76-77.
16Wesley, Letters, 5:313.
17Wesley, Works, 5:192-93.
18Wesley, Letters, 4:91, 93; 6:130.
19Wesley, Letters, 3:157-58.
20Wesley, Letters, 2:325. Cf. Works, 10:90.
21Wesley, Letters, 2:117.
22Wesley, Letters, 8:192. Cf. Works, 5:136.
23Wesley, Letters, 3:129; 5:328.
24Wesley, Works, 10:94.
25John Wesley, Wesley's Standard Sermons, ed. Edward H. Sugden, 2 vols. (London:
Epworth, 1951), 2:154.
26Wes1ey, Works, 10:482-83, 490-91.
27J. B. B. Clarke, ed., An Account of the Infancy, Religious and Literary
Life of Adam Clarke, 3 vols. (London: T. S. Clarke, 1833), 1:172.
28Adam Clarke, Miscellaneous Works, 13 vols. (London: T. Tegg 1839-45), 6:420.
29Adam Clarke, Works, 12:80, 83, 122.
30Adam Clarke, A Commentary and Critical Notes, 6 vols. (New York: Abingdon, n.d),
5:11-12.
31Adam Clarke, Works, 12:132.
32Adam Clarke, Commentary, 5:9-10
33Adam Clarke, Commentary, 6:883.
34Adam Clarke, Works, 11:416.
35Adam Clarke, Works, 6:388, 415.
36Adam Clarke, Works, 12:132.
37Adam Clarke, Works, 11:406.
38Adam Clarke, Commentary, 5:9, 11.
39Adam Clarke, Commentary, 5:10.
40Richard Watson, The Works of the Rev. Richard Watson, 12 vols. (London: John Mason,
1834-37), 6:11.
41Watson, Works, 6:11, 14.
42Watson, Works, 6:12.
43Watson, Works, 6:12.
44Watson, Works, 6:13.
45Watson, Works, 6:14
46Watson, Works, 6:81.
47Watson, Works, 4:47.
48Richard Watson, Theological Institutes, J. M'Clintock, ed., 2 vols., 26th ed. (New
York: Carlton and Lanahan, n.d.), 1:248.
49Watson, Works, 6:173.
50Watson, Works, 4:82-83.
51Watson, Works, 2:9-10.
52Watson, Works, 1:464.
53Watson, Works, 12:199.
54Watson, Works, 4:464.
55Watson, Works, 4:460-61.
56Watson, Works, 4:400.
57G. Osborn, comp. The Poetical Works of John and Charles Wesley, 13 vols. (London:
Wesleyan Methodist Conference Office, 186), 13:258-59.
|
