JOHN WESLEY AND WILLIAM LAW:
A REAPPRAISAL

The purpose of this study is to examine the theological interchange between John Wesley and William Law. From this examination we hope to gain new insight into Wesley's theological pilgrimage and the development of his thought. This study will help isolate some of the specific issues that became very crucial to John Wesley during his dialogue with William Law.

I. The Early Period: 1725-1738

A. Capsule View of William Law's Thought

The factual record of Law's life is obscure at best. His biography, for the most part, can only be reconstructed from the random comments in the journals and letters of friends and acquaintances.

Law's mature thought, as it is seen in the practical treatises Christian Perfection, and A Serious Call to A Devout and Holy Life, is not characterized by a strong objective framework. To find a modern parallel for this sort of theology one might look to the movement that styles itself as "faith at work." Little time is spent establishing the theological understructure of the system; rather the over-arching emphasis is upon a disciplined, active Christian lifestyle.

His theology is also characterized by the elevation of inwardness above external canons of authority. The dynamic force of his theology is the inner- light, though this does not imply that he completely eschews other epistemological foundations.

1. The Life of Devotion

William Law's principal expression for the Christian life is that it is a life of devotion. This devotion "is nothing else but right apprehension and right affections towards God."1 It is, in short, a way of life which brings "a sense of religion into the ordinary actions of our common life."2

The life of devotion is synonymous with Christian Perfection, in Law's view. This perfection is intimately connected with the duties of normal life:3

a Perfection that does not consist in any singular state or in any particular set of duties, but in the holy and religious conduct of ourselves in every state or life. It calls no one to a cloister, but to a right and full performance of those duties which are necessary for all Christians, and common to all states of life.

Law states that he calls this life style "perfection" for two reasons:4

This perfection stems from the enlightenment of our inner spirit, it moves to the formation of right tempers within us. It was for Law, as for Wesley too, the only source of true happiness. 5

2. Imitation, Renunciation and Resignation

The central core of Law's thought seems to be built around these three words. His christology is principally one of imitation, the following of Christ as our supreme example in living the life pleasing to God. Indeed, this is inherent in the logic of the incarnation: "he came to make like himself."6 It must be said that Law is somewhat opaque in locating an objective basis for our Christ-likeness. But it is clear, however, that the outworking of our imitation of Christ is to result in the keeping of the "whole law of love."7

This imitation of our Saviour includes within it a renunciation of the world. This amounts to "a forsaking all its enjoyments in order to be His true disciples…"8

The third theme in this center core of Law's theology is resignation, the giving over of one's will to the guidance of the Divine Will. William Law divides this resignation into two categories:9

This resignation carries with it the impulse which "so powerfully governs the heart, that so strongly excites us to wise and reasonable actions"; that is, a true sense of God's presence.10

3. The Theology of the Cross

William Law was capable of making extremely traditional statements about the place of the Cross in Christian life and thought. For example:11

Law summarized his christology under the three points of St. Paul (Rom. 6:6): (1) We suffer with Him, (2) our "old man" is crucified with Him, and (3) We believe we shall rise with Him.12

But the real structure of Law's theology of the cross is not found in his use of traditional language, rather it is found in his reworking of traditional language. "To have a true idea of Christianity we must not consider our Blessed Lord as suffering in our stead, but as our representative...."13 Here the emphasis shifts to the subjective aspects of the atonement, to our perception of Christ as our example. To perceive Christ as our representative means we share in "absolute conformity to that Spirit which Christ showed in the mysterious sacrifice of himself on the cross."14 Christ seen as our representative obliges and obligates us "to conform to all that he did and suffered for us."15 Christians, therefore, must be full of humility and willingness to suffer for their sin; there is a "reasonableness" about our suffering for our sins, it is a form of our participation in Christ's sufferings.16

In these early writings Law does not deny the wrath of God, the divine "judicial displeasure" over our sins, but neither does Law connect the cross and divine wrath.17 The cross is seen as the example of the life lived for others, it is the great teacher of humility.18 This exemplary aspect is the over-riding factor in Law's theology of the cross, and it has direct implications for his soteriology.

The example of the cross demands that we follow Christ's example; and in so doing we are involved in "working out our own salvation." Thus Law writes:19

The emphasis is quite different from that of Wesley, who insists that works are consequent to our salvation but do not contribute to it.20

The structures of Law's thought are not as forensic or objective as the style of theology one finds in Luther or Calvin. His wedding of mysticism and practical piety whispers of roots in another tradition. His understanding of justification has strong affinities with the Roman Catholic formularies. The Council of Trent, for example, responding to Luther's predominantly forensic understanding of justification as "pardon," formulated the doctrine as meaning "making just." The latter implies a blurring of the same distinction between justification and sanctification which Wesley later champions, and an acknowledgment of the fact that our works participate in our own justification.

Perfection was an important concern of Law's early writings; and it is seen principally as a part of religious discipline. Wesley seems to have captured Law's vision of Christian Perfection, though he gave the doctrine a decidedly different sort of explication. For Wesley the matter hinged on justification by faith, and followed after justification; whereas Law, who understood justification as that long process by which one is actually made "just" (or righteous), blurred the distinction between justification and sanctification. The result of this, for Law, was that justification increasingly became a matter of human works and contemplation.

B. Law's Influence on Wesley 1725-1735

1725 is a proper year for beginning our inquiry about Wesley's theological formation. It was during this year that Wesley's father pressed him to enter into Anglican Orders. The process ultimately led to a period of

~n self-examination and the crossing of the threshold some scholars call Wesley's "intellectual conversion." It was a period when Wesley made a conscious resolve to lead a more godly life, and strove mightily to uphold this resolution.

During this period John Wesley began to cultivate a deeper devotional life and eventually came into contact with William Law's two most practical treatises, Christian Perfection and A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life. These possess a rich conception of ethical Christianity combined with a disciplined devotional life. They interfaced well with Wesley's awakened spirituality.

Recounting the discovery of William Law's books, seen from the distance of many years, Wesley writes:21

Wesley's "Letter to a Friend" (May 14, 1765), describes the same event in this way:22

Once again recounting this same period in a Journal entry Wesley writes:23

Thus, we see Law's influence in Wesley's religious awakening; but this is a qualified awakening. The Wesley we meet in 1727 is Wesley the "legal man," bent on "busyness" (his own word) striving after God in a legal sort of way, yet not experiencing the grace of God in Christ appropriated by personal faith. The John Wesley of this period is riddled by the same sort of doubts that plagued the young Martin Luther, and both men sought the inward assurance of divine acceptance.

So deeply affected by Law's works were the Wesley brothers that they frequently visited their "oracle" at Putney. John's first visit comes in 1 732, though the exact accounting of the number of visits is open to question. So much did Wesley depend on Law's advice that John wrote him urgently inquiring as to how to deal with the spiritual state of one of his students (June 26, 1734). This correspondence eventually resulted in Wesley visiting Law again.24

Wesley's "Letter to Richard Morgan" (Oct. 18, 1732), which explains the tragic circumstances related to the death of Morgan's son William, shows how seriously the Oxford Holy Club took the disciplines suggested by William Law.25 In that letter Wesley outlines the practices of the Holy Club, and they roughly parallel the disciplines recommended by William Law's books.

William Law and his writings had a profound impact upon John Wesley during this period. The young Oxford student, being somewhat serious by nature, set himself to Law's program of discipline in earnest. Wesley crossed a threshold in his life, committing himself to full-time religious service. Devotional literature was instrumental in this reorientation of Wesley's life, and William Law's works were certainly in the forefront of these. Law's ethical mysticism forms a very significant part of Wesley's early religious experience. It is a program centered in Christian Perfection, a conception embracing (1) the perfect love of God and Man, (2) self-denial, (3) humility, and (4) renunciation of the world and worldly pursuits.

C. Wesley Goes to Georgia

John Wesley's decision to go to Georgia as a missionary to the Indians and a pastor to the settlers was one that included several motivations. He explained his reasons, at least partially, in the Journal entry of October 14, 1735:26

Wesley had not made the progress he desired under the tutelage of Law and Law's books, and his quest for the assurance of salvation took him to more extreme measures, to the shores of that primitive world-America.

Law's books were Wesley's constant companions on the voyage to the new world and were the mainstay of his devotional life, as well as his teaching ministry upon arrival in Georgia. The reading of pertinent sections of Law's tracts was the prescription for Mrs. Hawkins' "varying moods," as well as for the problems Wesley had with Miss Sophy-though even the "most affecting parts" were without effect upon her.27 The reading of passages of Christian Perfection and A Serious Call was very much a part of the devotional life of Wesley's "little company," as well as of his own private devotions.28 So important were these little books to Wesley's ministry that he began translating Christian Perfection into German for the German-speaking settlers on June 14, 1736.29

Despite the fact that Law's writings were continually at Wesley's side in the missionary undertaking, Wesley's spiritual state was no better. Indeed, things had become worse. Wesley came to America seeking salvation, his own and others', and returned a failure on both accounts. The result of this was that Wesley's faith in the mystical-ethical route of salvation was soundly shaken, as his letter to his brother Samuel (Nov. 23, 1736) clearly indicates: "I think the rock on which I had nearest made shipwreck of faith was the writings of the mystics...."30

A second contributing factor in the erosion of Law's influence on Wesley was Wesley's contact with the Moravians during this same period. The Moravians reflected the sort of concerns for personal piety and devotion shared by Wesley and Law but they also combined these with the Reformation doctrines of justification by faith, and the Theology of the Cross. Peter Bohler, the Moravians personified for Wesley, pricked him with sharp questions at just the points where Wesley was the most sensitive-personal faith and the assurance of it.3l

It needs to be noted briefly that while John Wesley's religious experience was being tried to its limits in Georgia, William Law's own thought was undergoing a significant transition. Law had become attracted to the thought of Jacob Behmen, and Behmen's theology was beginning to make its mark on Law's writings after 1736. This amounted to an inventive coupling of Law's ethical mysticism with Behmen's more philosophical system.

Charles Wesley's Journal entries for August 31, and September 9, 1737, show Law to be slipping into a more mystical and philosophical frame of thought, one less concerned with the ethical route than his previous writings. Law's advice to Charles was: "Renounce yourself and be not impatient."32 It was at this same juncture that Law pronounced his famous judgment that nothing Charles could write to John would "do him (John) any good."33

II. The Letters of 1738

A. John Wesley's First Letter

John Wesley returned from Georgia, landing at Deal on February 1, 1738.34 Within the week he met with the dominant influence of this brief period of his life, Peter Bohler.35 The Journal testifies to the large amount of time these two spent in conversation. It is clear that they dialogued on at least six separate occasions after the initial meeting and prior to Bohler's leaving for Carolina on May 4, 1738.36 Bohler's theological agenda with John Wesley and brother Charles always revolved around the center pole of justification by faith and the personal appropriation of the merits of Christ. Bohler seeks to "purge away" John Wesley's "philosophy," urging Wesley to full reliance on Christ.37 So powerful was Peter Bohler's message that finally Charles Wesley's "eyes were opened" during their conversation of May 3, 1738, the day prior to Bohler's embarkation.38 Bohler's letter to John, dated 8 May, 1738, pressed the same agenda; appropriation of Christ and His merits by faith:39

Beware of the sin of unbelief; and if you have not conquered it yet see that you conquer it this very day, through the blood of Jesus Christ. Delay not, I beseech you, to believe in your Jesus Christ; but so put Him in mind of His promises to poor sinners that he may not be able to refrain from doing for you what He hath done for so many others.... Surely He is ready to help; and nothing can offend Him but our unbelief.

It is difficult to escape the fact that Wesley's first letter to William Law, May 14, 1738, was written out of a spiritual depression that carried with it a sort of desperation. Since arriving in England Wesley had been serving his ministerial function but with "a continual sorrow and heaviness of heart."40 Although Wesley has accepted Bohler's teaching of justification by faith, and Wesley presses Law hard on that very point, Wesley still had not entered into the assurance he sought.

This is not to brush aside Wesley's claim that he wrote on the injunction of what he took to be "the call of God;" but it is to say that the letter is tinged by as much or more of Wesley's spiritual frustration as it is basic concern for Law's own situation or doctrine.41

Wesley's despair and frustration had been increased by the fact that after preaching for two years "after the model of your (Law's) two practical treatises" he found neither himself nor his parishioners greatly improved.42 The ideals Law propounded were "great, wonderful and holy" but they were too high for men to fulfill; Wesley specifically identifies Law's formulation with a sort of works righteousness, "by which no living flesh shall be justified.''43 Thus, Wesley characterized his own preaching at Savannah as "beating the air."44 He described his own spiritual state as "one under the law," "in bondage to sin," "fighting continually but not conquering."45

While in this situation, which Wesley described as being "under his heavy yoke," God directed "a holy man" to speak to Wesley about justification by faith: "believe and thou shalt be saved."46 Wesley assumed that if Law too was born of God he would grasp the significance of this teaching and "approve of its design;" if not, then Wesley expresses sorrow for Law's own state.47

Enter the indictment: "How will you answer it to our common Lord that you never gave me this advice?"48 The only answer Wesley can muster is that Law did not own this saving faith for himself. He added that Peter Bohler, "the holy man" had seen this in Law immediately.49 It was only in retrospect, far removed from the heat and despair of the moment, that Wesley was able to write to the Countess of Huntingdon (Aug. 14, 1771), that certainly William Law was "a child of God."50

The rather harsh tones of Wesley's letter of May 14, 1738 flowed out of the well-spring of his own spiritual despair. Coupled with the apparent betrayal or failure of such a trusted and revered spiritual guide as William Law had been to Wesley, it is easy to see the letter as the product of a sad man. It is proper, as Overton points out, to recall that Wesley is generally "the most outspoken of men," but the language of this letter reaches beyond the typical and reveals more than Wesley's "plainness of language."51 J. Brazier Green is well within the mark when he writes:52

B. Wesley's Second Letter

Wesley's letter of May 20, 1738 brushes aside Law's claim to have offered instruction in justifying faith through the books he placed in Wesley's hands. Wesley still presses home the same two arguments: Law does not teach about justification by faith and he is, therefore, responsible for Wesley's spiritual state.53

The language of the second letter was more restrained; apparently Wesley's indignation had subsided, but the agenda had not changed- Wesley closes, "I ask pardon, sir, if I had said anything disrespectful – I am, reverend sir, your most obedient servant."54 Wesley apparently suspected that his earlier letter was a bit strongly worded.

C. William Law's Replies to Wesley

Law's replies to Wesley were hardly pastoral ones, though it must be said that Wesley's first letter sets the tone of the ensuing correspondence. Both of Law's letters were attempts at self-justification in the face of Wesley's charges. There is an obvious lack of sensitivity to the mood and motivations of Wesley's writing. In both of his letters William Law treats the "issues" without really touching upon the person involved. He really did not seem to see the depth of Wesley's need and the importance he placed upon this doctrine of salvation by faith.

Law's replies showed him to have been wounded by Wesley's attacks, and he responded defensively, striking out at Peter Bohler rather directly, and in some instances, at Wesley himself.

D. The Issues

As often happens in theological controversy, the theological issues become interwoven with matters of personality and correlative considerations. It is regrettable that Wesley made so much of Law's complicity in the "heavy yoke" that bore down upon him; certainly this aspect stemmed as much from Wesley's spiritual state as it did from the difference in their approaches to the understanding of justification.

Nor should the theological dynamics involved be ignored. It must be said that Law and Wesley now represent two different styles of theology. And while it could be argued from the broader context of Law's entire corpus that he did treat the cross more extensively than in the two practical treatises, his thought is certainly not characterized by an insistence on the objective "onceness" of the cross, and the passivity of faith as the human appropriation of the merits of Christ. Law's thought was structured around the understanding of justification as a process, an active undertaking by the believer. The Theology of the Cross and the Way of the Cross are not mutually exclusive, but they do reflect different theological frameworks. This was, principally, the chasm between Wesley and Law, and the reason why Wesley, flushed with this new knowledge of salvation, could find none of the sort of language he sought in Law's theology.

E. Aldersgate

It is interesting to notice that Wesley's two letters to William Law in May 1738 preceded Wesley's Aldersgate experience. The relation between Aldersgate and the letters offers two important side notes to the discussion. First, as is apparent from the first letter, Wesley wrote to Law lacking the inner assurance and spiritual rest he sought. Second, it is also apparent from these letters that Wesley was in possession of rudiments of justification by faith (and even turns the doctrine upon Law), prior to his internalization of the doctrines in such a way that they become a part of his own religious experience. This would seem to force us to consider Aldersgate in the entire context of the events of the spring of 1738. This does not diminish the validity of Aldersgate as a turning point in Wesley's life and thought, but it does suggest that it is not the isolated event it is sometimes portrayed to be.

III. 1738 to 1756

Wesley's references to William Law in this period are few. The Journal entries for June 11, and November 7, and 8, 1739 indicate that John Wesley continued to read Law's Christian Perfection as a part of his devotional life.55 Charles Wesley's Journal records a visit with William Law on August 10, 1739. Charles made the following observation on Law's doctrine:56

He agreed to our notion of faith, but would have it, that all men held it; was fully against the laymen's expounding, as the very worst thing, both for themselves and others. I told him, he was my schoolmaster to bring me to Christ; but the reason why I did not come sooner to Him, was, my seeking to be sanctified before I was justified.

In this context we see Law standing against two basic Methodist tools, meeting in bands and lay preaching. More important was Law's interest in a universalist approach, and Charles Wesley's statement on the relationship between justification and sanctification he knew under Law's tutelage. John Wesley's Preface to a Collection of Hymns and Sacred Poems (1739), shows him to be increasing his polemic against mysticism. In fact, as Green points out, virtually the whole preface is devoted to this single topic.57 The teaching which Wesley sets out in that Preface is summarized under these points:58

1. We believe ourselves indispensably obliged in the presence of God and angels, and men, to declare wherein we apprehend those writers (the mystic divines) not to teach the truth as it is in Jesus. (ix)

2. And first, we apprehend them to lay another foundation. They are careful indeed to pull down our own works, and to prove that by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified. But why is this? Only, to establish our own righteousness in the place of our own works.... Still the ground of our acceptance is placed in our selves.... These suppose we are to be justified for the sake of our inward righteousness.... (ix-x)

3. They advise 'to the desert, to the desert, and God will build you up.' Numberless are the commandments that occur in all their writings not of retirement intermixed with conversation, but of an entire seclusion from men . . . in order to purify the soul. (xx)

4. So widely distant is the manner of building up souls in Christ taught by St. Paul from that of the mystics! . . . For contemplation is with them the fulfilling of the law, even a contemplation that 'consists in a cessation of all works.' (xxi)

5. Directly opposite to this is the gospel of Christ. Solitary religion is not to be found there. 'Holy solitaries' is a phrase no more consistent with the gospel than holy adulterers. The gospel of Christ knows no religion, but social; no holiness, but social holiness. Faith working by love is the length and breadth and depth and height of Christian Perfection. (xxii)

Green is correct to suggest that this same preface, no doubt, greatly irritated William Law.59

John Wesley's Journal records him reading William Law's book on the New Birth (October 23, 1739). He found it "philosophical, speculative, precarious; Behmenish, void and vain."60 Charles Wesley's comments, written three days earlier, follow the same line of thought: "how promising a beginning! how lame a conclusion!"61 The contents of the book were such that Charles concludes that Law's "knowledge of the new birth is mostly in theory."62

Following 1739 the Journal and Letters of John Wesley are relatively silent about William Law. No longer is Law mentioned as a portion of Wesley's devotional reading, nor does Wesley recommend Law's work to others through his pastoral correspondence. When Law's name does come up during this period it is often linked to that of Jacob Behmen, and in such a way that is not flattering to Law.63

Reviewing Law's Spirit of Prayer in his Journal (July27, 1749),Wesley found it "another Gospel" (a Wesleyan synonym for "heresy").64 John Wesley's criticism of Law's book revolved, once again, around the issue of reconciliation:66

This middle period of relative silence shows that the issues laid out in the 1738 correspondence, particularly those issues relating to salvation by faith in Christ, were continued. It also shows that the division between Wesley and William Law was deepened by Law's growing affinity with the thought of Jacob Behmen and Wesley's growing rebellion against mysticism and philosophical religion. The only factor missing from the 1738 agenda was matter of the personal accusations and recriminations as to guilt and responsibility. John Wesley's statements of this middle period were pretty much restricted to the issues at hand. He was less concerned with attacking Law than he was interested in discrediting Law's theology.

IV. Wesley's Letter of 1756

John Wesley's Journal gives no indication as to the specific occasion of the writing of this letter. The focus was the same as the last Journal entry mentioning Law (July 27, 1749), those fundamental issues upon which scriptural Christianity stands or falls. Overton suggests that Wesley is writing out of concern about the effects Law's latest books would have upon the Methodists, and certainly this idea carries some credence.66

Wesley's "vigorous language" and "relentless logic" are not, as Green points out, inconsistent with the purity of his motives.67 The letter is a relentless expose of Law's philosophy and its theological implications, but nowhere does Wesley attack Law's character or motives. Indeed, as the opening and closing sentences of the letter suggest, part of the agenda is to call Law back to a scriptural faith.

Wesley's theological critique of Law's position revolves around seven basic points:68

While it is no doubt true that Wesley did not always grasp the spirit of Law's formulations, it is also apparent that he sought to present Law's case as fairly and extensively as was possible.69 Green is certainly correct in seeing the significance of this Open Letter of 1756 as "clarifying the essentials of the faith for himself and his followers. As such the letter is perhaps the most effective statement of his most cherished theological beliefs that John Wesley ever produced."70 By the same token it must also be said that Wesley felt that these same cherished essentials stood as a barrier between him and William Law.

Not all of Wesley's theological allies approved of this Open Letter to William Law. Charles Wesley's conversation with Law's close friend Dr. Byrom gives a hint of this:71

George Whitefield's comments were more severe. He calls Wesley's publication "unchristian and ungentlemanly."72 It certainly could be said that Wesley mounted an all out attack on Law's theology, but there is really nothing "ungentlemanly" about it. Never does Wesley move from the courtesy of his preface, nor is there any clear indication of the earlier resentment or bitterness toward William Law.

William Law's reaction to Wesley's Open Letter is difficult to assess. Law published no reply and only passing remarks in his personal correspondence give any indication of his feelings about the letter by Wesley; and even these indications are inconsistent.

Law's letter of February 16, 1756 to "a person of quality" (assumed to be the Countess of Huntingdon) states:73

An even-tempered tolerance was the prevailing mood there. But Law's Letter XIX evidences a different tone:74

How different this is from the earlier passage to the Countess of Huntingdon! This letter certainly reveals traces of bitterness in its indictment of both Wesley's motives and character. Law's April 10, 1757 letter to George Ward is tinged with the same sort of bitterness. In that letter the indictment includes Wesley and his aged companion Dr. Samuel Johnson.75 It is clear that Law resented Wesley's attack. It remains an open question why he never published a response to Wesley's arguments.

The publication of Law's Collection of Letters in 1760 renewed the dialogue between Wesley and Law because that collection included the letters with rather harsh language about John Wesley. The publication of these letters motivated Wesley to make further reply to Law, this time in the form of a letter to the editor of The London Chronicle.

V. Letter to the London Chronicle (Sept. 27,1760)

Wesley's letter was occasioned by the publication of William Law's Collection of Letters earlier in the same year. Law's motivation in publishing the letters is unclear. Telford suggests Law's friends Ward and Langcake were the real forces behind the move and certainly they edited and collected the correspondence for publication.76 But it is also difficult to escape the fact that Law, who undoubtedly retouched some of the letters in the Collection, allowed the statements about John Wesley and his associates to stand as they do. Whether this is to be interpreted as a continuation of the bitterness between them, or as an oversight on Law's part in his declining years is open to question.

In Wesley's letter to the London Chronicle he took the time to cite the full text of the letters of Law which make reference to him. Wesley asks the reader to judge for himself if Law's remarks require reply. Wesley's opinion is that they do require reply and he sets himself to the task.

Wesley prefaced his remarks with an explanation of the relationship between Law and himself. "It is true," writes Wesley, "that Mr. Law, whom I love and reverence now, was once 'a kind of oracle' to me."77 Law found Wesley functioning under "his own spirit," and therefore not under the unction of the Spirit of God. Wesley replies that he has merely exchanged the Mystic writers for the Scriptural ones. The obvious implication here is that Wesley and Law are on rather different theological routes.

Apparently sensitive to Law's charge that he used ridicule as well as argument in "exposing the philosophy of Behmen" Wesley offers examples of similar treatment from Law. But the most significant portion of the letter is yet to come. In this letter to the editor of the London Chronicle Wesley stated the basis of his opposition to Law's philosophy:78

Wesley went on to add that he has rarely mentioned Law's books, either positively or negatively, and that who ever informed Law otherwise "wanted either sense or honesty."79

A secondary charge was leveled in the concluding paragraph of Wesley's letter. It was against William Law's distrust of learning. This, Wesley concluded, was the basis of Law's remark about Dr. Johnson and his dictionary.80 Education was an issue that had long lurked in the background of the dialogue between Wesley and Law, particularly in the context of Wesley's rejection of Law's quietism and withdrawal from the world.

This letter to the London Chronicle was the last correspondence or dialogue between Wesley and William Law. Law died soon afterward.

VI. After William Law's Death

Wesley's treatment of Law and his thought remained much the same following Law's death in 1761. He recognized fundamental theological differences between Law's position and his own, yet he expressed both debt and appreciation for Law's tutelage.

Wesley's Journal account of "a letter to a friend" dated May 14, 1765, linked the reading of Law's practical treatises with Wesley's early resolution to live a life wholly devoted to God.81 Wesley's letter to John Newton, of the same year, made a similar connection.82

Wesley still maintained, in his letter to the Countess of Huntingdon of August 14, 1771, that Law "flatly denies" the "great truth Justification by Faith."83 But Wesley recommended Law and Baxter's writings to Richard Lockes as "useful writers."84 Wesley's sermon "On a Single Eye," preached at Bristol on September 25, 1786, recommended Law's Serious Call:85

During this same period John Wesley complimented Mr. Skelton by comparing him favorably with William Law:86

Wesley was able, on the one hand, to recommend Law's tracts to Elizabeth Richie as being useful for meditation;87 yet on the other hand, he criticized Law's later works to Mary Bishop, particularly emphasizing Law's lack of a doctrine of the atonement. The doctrine of the atonement was the point that Wesley saw as "the distinguishing point between Deism and Christianity."88

Wesley's use of William Law's work in this later period showed two interesting distinctions. First, Wesley seemed to distinguish Law's early, practical treatises from his later more philosophical ones. The early practical treatises were recommended as guides to piety and disciplined life, but not principally as teachers of the doctrine of salvation they presented. Second, the later writings of Law, which Wesley found particularly deficient in their theology of the cross, were not recommended to seekers or inquirers after the path of salvation. Thus, Wesley seemed to distinguish between the earlier and later works of William Law, as well as between the specific needs of various readers.

VII. Conclusion

It is difficult to examine the dialogue between John Wesley and William Law without feeling that they were like two men involved in a chance meeting on the street. They walked steadily towards each other and paused for a brief moment, and then continued past each other, hurrying off in different directions.

The early Wesley, the "legal man," was strongly drawn to Law's presentation of a highly ethical, devotional, disciplined way of life. The men showed the same sort of interest in a disciplined, reasonable religious life. We saw Wesley finding Law as "a sort of oracle" in these early years. Law, an older and established thinker, offered the younger man many of the ideals he sought.

As this strongly mystical and ethical conception of Christianity failed to satisfy Wesley's longing for inner assurance Wesley took upon himself more extreme measures: finally venturing to America to save the Indians and himself as well. The failure of his work in Georgia, coupled with the evaporation of much of the naivete Wesley might have had about human nature, laid him lower after the Georgia mission than he was when he first undertook the venture. Wesley's meeting with the Moravians and their piety of Reformed extraction offered Wesley another theological option, one that led directly away from the route prescribed by William Law.

When Wesley committed himself whole-heartedly to the proposition of justification by faith in the atonement of Christ the theological break with William Law was complete. The events of 1738 cloud the primary doctrinal issues with feelings of betrayal and resentment, but the conclusion that the doctrinal break is the primary consideration seems inescapable.

The doctrinal split can be viewed most clearly from the difference between Wesley and Law in the basic definition of "justification." Wesley viewed the category, following the lead of the Protestant Reformers, primarily in terms of "pardon." It is received by a faith that is "trust" in God and Christ, by Whose merits we are reconciled.

Law's definition of justification was more closely akin to that of Catholic Mysticism, and historical Catholicism in general. For Law "justification" means "being made just." This formulation blurs the distinction between justification and sanctification. Justification is seen as a process, and not principally as an event based on the "onceness" of the cross. "Faith" in this theological context becomes more of a "longing" for unity with God than it is a "trust" in the God revealed in the event of the cross. The focal point of the activity involved in Law's view was not upon the atoning grace of God in Christ, but upon the life-long quest of the inquirer.

This basic difference in theological format underlies the entire dialogue between Wesley and Law. There are many ways of describing this

71 difference: passive and active faith, objective and subjective views of the atonement, Theology of the Cross and the Theology of Glory, and so forth. The point is that Wesley and William Law wind up on opposite sides of the fundamental theological question of what it means to be justified, and how one is to be justified.

Charles Wesley, whose terse Journal entries are sometimes more enlightening than his brother's, pin-pointed this matter of justification as the problem area:89

While it would be foolish to lay the entire blame for this confusion of justification and sanctification at the feet of William Law, the fact that precisely this sort of confusion is at work in Law's thought seems inescapable.

A secondary difference in the theological pattern of William Law and John Wesley revolves around Law's ideal of separation from the things of this world. This eventually evolved, in Law, to a sort of anti-intellectualism and quietistic withdrawal from society-both of which were intolerable to John Wesley.

The most obvious contribution of William Law to Wesleyan theology is in the doctrine of Christian Perfection. While in their mature thought Wesley and Law formulated this doctrine quite differently, it is undeniable that under Law's influence Wesley was "seized of an idea that never after that let him go."90

We see in both men an interest in Christian Perfection that fills all of life with a devotional quality. And in his practice of "works of piety" Wesley closely follows William Law's example; both insist on the importance of self-discipline, private prayer, fasting, stewardship of time and wealth, propriety in amusements (though in this Law was more rigid than Wesley), and modesty and plainness in attire.91

It has been argued by competent commentators that Wesley never really understood William Law's position.92 It can be said that Wesley, particularly in his early writings against Law, wrote as much out of emotion as out of logic and insight; but the same cannot be said for Wesley's later polemics. Wesley's lack of sympathy for Law's soteriology should not be taken for ignorance. Indeed, Wesley consistently showed himself well read in Law's many books. Even in 1738, when Wesley's letters seem to reflect as much of his own spiritual state as of the theological differences he had with Law, Wesley was still able to discern a theological format that was substantially different from the one he had only recently adopted himself. The failure to see two fundamentally different styles of theology at work in Wesley and Law is a dangerous one.

It should also be noted that these doctrinal differences did not cause Wesley to renounce William Law or the effect that Law had upon his own theological pilgrimage. The letter to the editor of the London Chronicle indicated that while Law "was once a sort of oracle" to Wesley, even at that writing he was loved and revered by Wesley.93

Again, it is Charles Wesley who offers the terse summary; this time on the impact William Law had on the brothers Wesley. Charles aptly describes Law as "our John the Baptist."94

The vertical lines represent the lines of development and affinity of the thought of John Wesley and William Law.

1738 is the pivotal year. It marks the personal and theological break between Wesley and William Law. Wesley's 'evangelical conversion' assures him of the importance of justification by faith and its related doctrines. The breach with Law is also accompanied by a feeling of betrayal, in that Law (according to Wesley) did not mention that foundational principle to him. This was a period of personal bitterness as well as theological difference.

During this same period (1736 and onwards) Law's open thought began to become more and more affected by the work of Jacob Behmen. Thus Law's theology began moving in one direction at just about the same time Wesley's theology began moving in another direction.

In the later years the personal differences were apparently overcome, at least on Wes1ey's part, though the profound theological differences remained.

1 William Law, A Serious Call to A Devout and Holy Life (Romsey: S. Kackson Printer, 1819), p. 219.

2 Ibid., p. 88.

3 William Law, Christian Perfection, in The Pocket William Law, A. W. Hopkinson, editor (London: Latimer House, 1950), p. 19.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid., p. 26.

6 Law, Serious Call, p. 134.

7 Ibid. p. 329.

8 Ibid., p. 7.

9 Ibid., p. 370.

10 Ibid., p. 381.

11 William Law, An Appeal to All Who Doubt, in The Pocket William Law, A. W. Hopkinson, editor (London: Latimer House, 1950), pp. 103-104.

12 Law, Serious Call, p. 266.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid., pp. 264-65.

15 Ibid., p. 267.

l6 Law, Christian Perfection, p. 48.

17 Law, Serious Call, pp. 398-99.

18 Ibid., p. 253.

19 Ibid., p. 27.

20 Cf. John Wesley's Standard Sermons: "The Scripture Way of Salvation," and "On Working Out Your Own Salvation."

21 John Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1966), p. 10.

22 John Wesley, The Journal of John Wesley, Vol. V, edited by N. Curnock (London: Robert Culley Press, 1916), p. 117.

23 Ibid., Vol. I p. 467.

24 John Wesley, The Letters of John Wesley, Vol. I, edited by John Telford (London: The Epworth Press, 1931), pp. 161-163.

25 Wesley, Journal, I, p. 87f.

26 Wes1ey, Journal, I, p. 109, cf. Letters, I, pp. 190-191.

27 Ibid., pp. 124, 283.

28 Wesley, Journal, Vol. I, pp. 231, 233, 268, 269, etc.

29 Ibid., p. 232. Curnock suggests that this "translating" was merely an oral exercise, not actually involving a written copy; there seems to be no way of knowing for certain.

30 Letters, I, p. 207.

31 Journal, I, pp. 436, 440, 442, 447, 454, 471.

32 Charles Wesley, The Journal of Charles Wesley, Vol. I, edited by Thomas Jackson (London: John Mason Press, 1849), p. 74.

33 Ibid.

34 John Wesley, Journal, I, p. 432.

35 Ibid., p. 436.

36 Ibid., pp. 436-460. (Feb. 17, March 4, 23, April 22, 23, 26.)

37 Ibid., p. 440.

38 Ibid., p. 459. It is very curious that Charles Wesley's Journal makes no mention of this event!

39 Ibid., pp. 461-462.

40 Ibid., p. 464. Also cf. p. 460.

41 Ibid., p. 467. Cf. Letters, I, pp. 238-240.

42 Ibid., Also Letters, I, p. 239.

43 Ibid., p. 470.

44 Ibid.

45 Ibid.

46 Letters, I, p. 239.

47Ibid., p. 240- 49

48 Ibid.

49 Ibid.

50 Letters, V, p. 274.

51 J. H. Overton, John Wesley (London: Methuen and Co., 1905), p. 63.

52 J. Brazier Green, John Wesley and William Law (London: The Epworth Press, 1945), p. 66.

53 Letters, I, p. 241.

54 Ibid.

55 Wesley, Journal, II, pp. 216, 314.

56 Charles Wesley, Journal, I, p. 159.

57 Green, Wesley and Law, p. 180.

58 G. Osborn, The Poetical Works of John and Charles Wesley, Vol. I (London: Wesleyan-Methodist Conference Office, 1868), pp. ix-xx.

59 Green, Wesley and Law, p. 180.

60 John Wesley, Journal, II, p. 297.

61 Charles Wesley, Journal, I, p. 191.

62 Ibid.

63 Wesley, Letters, III, pp. 208, 215, 332, 370; IV, p. 106.

64 John Wesley, Journal, III, p. 442.

65 Ibid.

66 Wesley, Letters, III, p. 332.

67 Green, Wesley and Law, p. 130.

68 Wes1ey, Letters, III, p. 332f.

69 Green, Wesley and Law, p. 160.

70 Ibid.

71 Charles Wesley, Journal, II, p. 129.

72 Green, Wesley and Law, p. 130.

73 Wesley, Letters, IV, p. 105.

74 Ibid.

75 Ibid. Cf. Green, Wesley and Law, p. 165.

76 Wesley, Letters, IV, p. 105.

77 Ibid., p. 106.

78 Ibid.

79 Ibid.

80 Ibid., p. 107

81 John Wesley, Journal, V, p. 117.

82 Wesley, Letters, I V, p. 299.

83 Ibid., V. p. 274.

84 Wes1ey, Letters, V, p. 199.

85 John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, Vol. VII, edited by Thomas Jackson (Salem, Ohio: Schmul Publishers, 1978 reprint), p. 297.

86 Wesley, Journal, IV, p- 405.

87 Wesley, Letters, VI, p. 125.

88 Ibid., pp. 297-298.

89 Charles Wesley, Journal, I, p. 159.

90 George C. Cell, The Rediscovery of Wesley (New York: Holt and Co., 1935), p. 354.

91 Eric Baker, A Herald of the Evangelical Revival (London: The Epworth Press, 1948), pp. 93-99.

92 For example: Keith Walker, William Law (London: SPCK, 1973), p. 133f. Cf. A. W. Hopkinson, About William Law.

93 Wesley, Letters, IV, p. 106.

94 Green, Wesley and Law, p. 211.

© Copyright 1999 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology. Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes , provided this notice is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.

Edited by Aaron R. Bynum of Northwest Nazarene University (Nampa, Idaho) for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology.