JOHN WESLEY AND THE ISSUE OF AUTHORITY IN THEOLOGICAL PLURALISM

by Allan Coppedge

A prime concern of theological pluralism is the question of the criteria for truth in Christian theology, and one aspect of being pluralistic is sometimes described in terms of a commitment to multiple authorities in religious matters. Four criteria are usually mentioned in this regard: Scripture, tradition, experience and reason. The frequent reference in such discussion to a "Wesleyan quadrilateral" would seem to indicate that Wesley himself used these four criteria in a similar manner. Yet, Wesley borrowed from the Church of England an Article of Religion on the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures that was written during the Reformation Age and included the Articles for the Methodist Church of America which appears to align him with the Classical Protestant position regarding the final authority of the Scripture. Which is correct? Did Wesley view the four norms as co—ordinate authorities of equal value, or did he believe that the Scripture was the final authority in matters of truth? If the first is true, then it will be quite right to classify him as a strong supporter of at least this aspect of theological pluralism. If the second option is correct, then it will be very difficult to claim Wesley as the forerunner of contemporary theological pluralism.

Because the basic question is so intimately bound up with Wesley's attitude toward the Scripture, our study begins with the development of his views about the Word of God. Wesley's understanding of the role of the Bible was first shaped in the Epworth rectory under the influence of his father. Samuel Wesley had a deep personal commitment to the Scripture as the Word of God, and his own scholarly writings reflect his passion for the Bible.1 An indication of its importance can be seen in his counsel that John not enter into Holy Orders unprepared, and the most significant part of this preparation was personal familiarity with the Bible, based on a knowledge of the text in the original languages. John later paid tribute to his father in a review of his early years:

If what John was taught was an accurate reflection of his father's conviction about the order of religious authority, then it is clear that for Samuel Wesley, Scripture was to be given priority over tradition.

This crucial importance of the Bible was reinforced for John during the Oxford years by his reading of Jeremy Taylor's The Rule and Exercises of Holy Living. Taylor repeatedly returns for his base authority to the Word of God, which he confines to the Bible. All commandments and revelations promises and threatenings, stories and sermons in the Bible belong to the Word of God, and even the best books of devotion or sermons cannot be compared with it. As Martin Schmidt rightly observes, "It was certainly of significance for John Wesley's development that in this book he was so strongly directed to the Bible."3

The relation of Scripture to authority was probably more specifically raised for Wesley at the time of his ordination. Receiving Holy Orders in the Church of England required subscription to the Thirty—nine Articles of Religion, and one of these Articles dealt with the role of Scripture in the Church. Wesley's correspondence with his parents during this time clearly indicates he was giving the Articles very careful attention. In particular Article XVII on Predestination raised enough problem for him to question whether or not he could in good conscience subscribe to the Articles without reservation.4 After much consideration and a careful study of John Ellis' A Defense of the Thirty—Nine Articles of the Church of England,5 Wesley was able to commit himself to the Articles, and later was to reaffirm that allegiance:

It was Article VI on the Holy Scriptures that specifically spelled out the Anglican position on religious authority:

The Article then makes a distinction between the canonical books "of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church," and the apocryphal books. The latter are read by the Church "for example of life and instruction of manners; but it doth not apply them to establish any Doctrine." By this the Church of England aligned itself with Classical Protestantism's commitment to sola scriptura. In addition to the declaration that the Scriptures contain all things necessary for salvation, the Article makes it clear that no doctrine is to "be believed as an article of faith" unless it may be read in the Bible—or proved thereby. So by this declaration of faith, the Holy Scriptures were definitely established as final authority in the Church, and clearly distinguished from tradition.

A standard interpretation of the Articles in Wesley's day was that of Bishop Gilbert Burnet. In discussing this Article, Burnet points out that the important point to be established is "the rule of this faith." He then shows how the Church of England differs from the Roman Church:

The fact that the Scripture was recognized in the Church of England as the final authority in all matters of doctrine and practice was certainly not lost upon the conscientious young Wesley as he pored over the Articles of Religion in preparation for his ordination. Further, the very action of subscribing to the Articles at that time is a very strong indicator that Wesley was beginning to make the Bible his "complete rule" in matters of religious authority.

In looking back over early Methodism, Wesley pinpointed 1729 as the year in which he "began not only to read but to study the Bible, as the one, the only standard of truth, and the only model of pure religion."9 This was the year he began to meet with the Oxford Methodists for the serious study of certain key books, including the Greek Testament. Although Heitzenrater has pointed out that the Oxford circle did not begin their more concentrated study of the Bible until 1734—35,10 still 1729 is a significant point at which a fresh appreciation of the Scriptures is realized by Wesley. Yet, when Wesley wrote in 1766 that it was the year 1729 in which he began to study the Bible as "the only standard of truth," even he may be placing the date too early. That certainly was his position in 1766, but in 1729, he still had not finished working through two thorny issues related to authority, viz., the relation of Scripture to experience, which was to pertain to his struggle with the mystics in the mid—1730's, and the relation of Scripture to tradition, which was to relate to his evaluation of the Early Church during his sojourn in Georgia.

The first of these questions to be answered, i.e., the relationship of experience to Scripture, is wrapped up with Wesley's involvement with the mystics. Robert Tuttle has pointed out that between 1732—1735, Wesley became heavily influenced by the speculative mysticism of William Law. During this time, Wesley traveled several times to London for personal interviews with Law. Wesley had been attracted to Law by his books A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life and Christian Perfection, but by the time Law had become Wesley's spiritual director in the mid—thirties, he had become a convert to the German mysticism of Tauler and Boehme. Under this influence, Wesley began to search after salvation and assurance by means of contemplation. Here the emphasis was upon personal experience of God according to the mystical scheme of inner penance11 Wesley summarized the views of the mystics in a letter to his brother, Samuel, in November, 1736, in which he pointed out his chief objection was that they rejected the means of grace as God's scripturally—ordained instruments for communicating His favor to men. Wesley synthesized the mystics' approach:

One of the chief means was the Scripture, which the mystics bypassed: "The Scripture they need not read; for it is only His letter with whom they converse face to face." It was this view of the means of grace, and the Scriptures in particular, that Wesley came to see in Georgia as the rock which nearly shipwrecked all his faith. On his return voyage to England, he penned his evaluation of those who placed experience above Scripture:

It is important to realize that Wesley was rejecting the mystical emphasis upon experience, because they set aside the means of grace. Just as important, however, is the underlying reason that Wesley placed such a high premium on the means of grace. They were crucial in his eyes because they were the "scripturally ordained" means of grace:

The authority for evaluating their importance was the Bible, rather than experience or tradition. So that by the time he returned from Georgia, the Scriptures had become the touchstone by which he tried all opinions.

This same question arose again when Wesley had to confront a mystical quietism in the early years of the revival. The debated question was how to wait upon God? with the means of grace or without them? Wesley responded:

While he made clear his position on the essentialness of means of grace, it must also be observed that Wesley left no doubt as to why he took this view. It was the position of Scripture, and that for him was determinative.

The second issue with which Wesley continued to grapple after 1729 was the relation of Scripture to the tradition of the Early Church. During the time of his missionary service, he was heavily influenced by reading William; Cave's Primitive Chnstianity,16 and for a time apparently began to place the tradition of the first three or four centuries on a par with the authority of Scripture. But while still in Georgia, he also read Bishop William Beveridge's Synodikon, which convinced him that much of the Early Church tradition was not of apostolic origin, and that he could not place tradition, even that which was closest to the New Testament Church on the same level of authority as the Scripture.17 He rejoiced on his return to England that he had been delivered from the error of "making antiquity a co—ordinate rather than a subordinate rule with Scripture."18

So by the first of 1738, Wesley had squarely faced the question of the relation of Scripture to both experience and tradition, and he had settled the issue for himself that Scripture was to be the undisputed final authority in all religious matters. He wrote at this time to Lady Cox, "To anyone who asketh me concerning myself or these whom I rejoice to call my brethren, what our principles are, I answer clearly, We have no principles but those revealed in the Word of God."19 The following year, he responded to some reservations about his conduct in promoting the revival, and he clearly justified his actions upon the authority of Scripture:

A convincing demonstration of how the Scripture served as final authority for Wesley at this time is found in the way he dealt with theological issues just prior to his evangelical conversion. As Wesley wrestled from March to May, 1738, with a new definition of faith and a different understanding of justification, his intellectual and spiritual pilgrimage was under the heavy influence of Peter Bohler. Although Bohler was both persuasive and persistent, Wesley was not to be convinced by reasoned argument alone, but began to test Bohler's views against the Bible:

A month later, Wesley struggled to comprehend Bohler's assertion that conversion could be instantaneous, and again, he turned to the Scripture:

It was this confidence in the authority of Scripture that made it possible for Wesley in future years to invite others to convince him of a different view, but only from the Bible. In the preface to his Sermons, which he described as "what I find in the Bible concerning the way to heaven," Wesley indicated by what standard he is willing to be corrected:

The issue of final authority of Scripture was settled none too soon. The great revival of the eighteenth century had been going only a few months before major doctrinal question arose, and as in so many theological disputes, the root issue was one of authority, i.e., how was this matter to be settled. This first theological controversy of the revival provided a unique opportunity for Wesley to test his own recently—established commitment to the Scripture as the final authority for Christians. It arose in the closing weeks of 1739 and the first half of 1740, when Wesley found himself occupied at the Fetter Lane society in a doctrinal disagreement with the Moravians.

When he arrived that fall from Bristol, he immediately realized he had a major problem:

That evening, he heard Mr. Bray commending this same "stillness," and speaking against the danger of outward works, attendance at church, and the sacrament. Behind these testimonies stood the influence of Philip Henry Molther, a former tutor to the son of Count Zinzendorf, who had been ordained as a missionary to Pennsylvania. Arriving in London en route, he was very anxious to bring the society there under stronger Moravian influence. He taught a kind of "Quietism" called "stillness" and persuaded many that the faith they professed was not true faith, and that they must remain "still," without using any means of grace, until they were given faith.25

Wesley recognized the problem as a form of antinomianism that was rapidly becoming a threat to all he had designed to promote, holiness of heart and life, and he took steps to correct it. He had a conference with the Moravian leaders, Molther and Augustus Spangenberg, in order to understand their position, after which he recorded in his Journal the difference between Molther and himself on the nature of faith, the way to faith, the manner of propagating the faith, and the fruits of Moravian effort in England. In addition, he wrote what might be called certain "position papers" on his own views "with regard to the question in dispute with the Moravians" and inserted them in the Journal. He dealt first with the questions of faith and assurance, and then with the doctrine of the true Church.26

Because Wesley recognized that the Moravians' positions were contrary to Scripture, he immediately began to challenge them, and his attempts at correcting the problem began with a Scriptural base. He recorded that he began the year 1740 by endeavoring "to explain to our brethren the true, Christian, Scriptural stillness, by largely unfolding those solemn words, 'Be still, and know that I am God.' "27Throughout the spring, Wesley continued to explain in public and private the Scriptures which had been misunderstood.28 The base of the Moravian error was bypassing the means of grace in the same manner as the mystics. But Wesley had already worked through the implications of that view at Oxford and in Georgia, so he was not unprepared for the Moravians. From 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" he explained the ordinances of God as means of grace:

Since the Scripture was final authority, to show that the means of grace were Biblical was to settle the matter for Wesley.

During the last week in June, at the height of the controversy, Wesley delivered a series of morning and evening expositions specifically designed to combat the Moravian influence. In the Fetter Lane Society, he began with an account of the work of God in their midst over the past two years with special reference to the doctrines of salvation, faith and ordinances. He followed this with preaching on obedience after conversion, the confidence of believers, sin in believers, Scripture as a means of grace, and the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. Finally, two of Wesley's "Standard Sermons" from this period, "The Means of Grace" and "The Spirit of Bondage and of Adoption," were directed to the questions raised by the Moravians.

On July 18, a company met with Wesley at his mother's for a Thanksgiving service. Afterwards, they "consulted how to proceed with regard to our poor brethren of Fetter Lane. We all saw the thing was now come to a crisis, and we, therefore, unanimously agreed what to do." On the following Sunday, he attended the society's lovefeast, and when it was over, he read a paper reviewing the errors into which they had fallen. He concluded: "I believe these assertions to be flatly contrary to the Word of God. I have warned you hereof again and again, and besought you to turn back to the 'law and the testimony.' I have borne with you long, hoping you would return. But as I find you more and more confirmed in the error of your ways, nothing now remains, but that I should give you up to God. You that are of the same judgment, follow me."30 Eighteen or nineteen followed him out of the meeting, and five days later, he met three or four hundred at the Foundry, and after explaining his position almost all present agreed to join him in a new society.

After the division, Wesley detailed his theological difference with the Moravians in a letter to the Church at Herrnhut. Toward the close of the letter, he touched their view of the Scripture:

With his brother, Charles, he was even more pointed: "As yet I dare in no wise join with the Moravians . . . because their general scheme is Mystical, not scriptural—refined in every point above what is written, immeasurably beyond the plain doctrines of the gospel."32

This controversy is relevant to a study on authority and religious pluralism for several reasons. First, it shows that while Wesley did not hastily create division over doctrine, theology was important enough to cause disruption. There was a clear limit to the latitude Wesley was willing to allow on central doctrines like salvation and the nature of faith. The Moravians dealt a blow to these essentials in Christian theology, and for these Wesley was ready to separate. Correct theology no less than a very "practical divinity" was at the center of the dispute.

Second, Wesley began to see the practical effects of false theology on the spiritual life of believers. The Moravian teaching on the role of the Church, prayer, the Scriptures, good works, and the ordinances of God undercut all those "means of grace" which Wesley believed were essential for the cultivation of Christian holiness. The central importance of sanctification in his theology caused him to reject Molther's views as a form of antinomianism. Whatever undermined growth in godliness, Wesley saw as contrary to the "Oracles of God," and consequently, to be dismissed out of hand. His theological "tolerance" of divergent views was directly related to whether such a position encouraged or discouraged holiness of heart and life.

Third, Wesley revealed that his standard for judging a doctrine was the Scripture. Whatever did not accord with 'the law and the testimony' was not to be received. Further, it was by the Bible that Wesley sought to establish members of the societies in solid theology, and this was the weapon he wielded to correct erroneous doctrines. Wesley thought it quite proper to separate himself from those that refused to recognize the ultimate authority of the Word of God in doctrine and practice.

Finally, these events also indicate that Wesley was patient regarding even doctrinal differences. The fact that almost nine months passed from the beginning of the controversy to the separation shows that Wesley desired to give men time to weigh their theological views. But patience was not indifference, and after a time, division occurred because the Moravian position extended beyond the latitude of Scripture.

We may conclude then that the evidence seems to indicate that from 1738, Wesley had settled the question about the relationship of Scripture to other criteria for truth. Scripture is not seen as only the first in a line of coordinate criteria, but as the final authority in all religious matters. As Snyder puts it, Wesley had "Scripture as the 'norming norm' to be placed above all other authority."33 Because of this, Wesley must be classified on the question of religious authority as firmly in the Classical Protestant tradition. Colin Williams in identifying Wesley with this position observes, "That Wesley continually subjected tradition and experience to the 'written Word of God' even a casual reading of his works will reveal."34

Not only did Wesley begin the revival with his view, but he continued to maintain this conviction throughout his lifetime. Nearly fifty years after the Methodists "began to preach that grand scriptural doctrine, salvation by faith," Wesley could reaffirm his identification with the Reformation position:

It is significant for contemporary Methodism to note that this was not only Wesley's personal position, but that it characterized the Methodists as a whole. In 1742, Wesley wrote in the "Character of a Methodist":

But if Wesley's position on Scripture was so strong, was there any room in his thinking for other criteria for truth such as reason, experience and tradition? What role, if any, did they play in his thinking? This is a particularly pertinent question to an age that has come to assume the coordinate authority of the so called "Wesleyan quadrilateral." The answer to the question is that for Wesley, all three are quite significant, but only as a secondary means of evaluating truth, never as the primary means. They were viewed always as subordinate criteria, and never as equal authority with that of Scripture. These were always judged by Scripture, never Scripture by them. Thus, with regard to the truth given by God, Wesley could affirm:

As Williams observes about Wesley, "His point is that the final authority in matters of religion is the Bible, and all other writings must be judged in the light of this once—for—all revelation."38

Yet, within the parameters of Biblical truth, there were many things that needed clarification and others where the Scripture was not explicit in details. This was the place, i.e., under the umbrella of the Word of God, that Wesley saw the proper role for reason, experience and tradition. Since each of these subordinate criteria plays an important role for Wesley, it is appropriate for this study to include an evaluation of the place of each in his thinking. First, is the position of reason, which Wesley saw as a part of the image of God in man. It was a gift from God, and though it had been adversely affected at the Fall, by the grace of God, it was still operative. Because it was reflective of the image of God, all true religion, Wesley thought, would be reasonable in essence. When the Methodists were accused of renouncing reason, Wesley responded:

In his sermon "The Case of Reason Impartially Considered," Wesley distinguished himself from both those who undervalue reason and those who overvalue it. To those mystics and others who did not believe in its importance, he pointed out how essential reason was, not only for everyday life, but also to understand the Word of God.

On the other hand, to the rationalists who believed that reason was God's highest gift, Wesley pointed out the dangers of overvaluing it. While it is the handmaiden of faith in that it makes possible the reception of revelation, it can never produce the vital content of the Christian faith. The fact that reason did not produce revelation was the reason Wesley did not make it a coordinate authority with scripture. But he was willing for it to do all that was possible:

Wesley was also vitally concerned that the truth of the Christian faith be actualized in personal experience, and so the place of experience in the structure of authority needs to be considered. Wesley was convinced that Biblical truth does work in everyday life, and if not, something is wrong. He feared the formalism of the Church of England in which so many had a proper understanding of Christianity, but had no vital experience of it in their lives. He wrote concerning one friend, "The theory of religion he certainly has. May God give him the living experience of it."42

Wesley was also willing for experience to drive men back to Scripture to see if they had understood it. This was certainly the situation in his own life when his own experience led him to consider the Scriptural data on the nature of faith and the character of conversion. Further, he thought that experience might clarify and confirm Scripture, but it was never to supercede it.

While Wesley feared any approach to Christianity that overlooked personal appropriation, he was also aware of the danger of making experience normative. Therefore, for him "experience is not the test of truth, but truth the test of experience.43 Thus he warned fellow Christians against "that daughter of pride, enthusiasm," and the peril of "hastily ascribing things to God" such as dreams, voices, impressions, visions or revelations. His constant counsel was:

In an evaluation of the Quakers, Wesley objected to their principle of making the Scriptures "a secondary rule, subordinate to the Spirit." "The Spirit is our principal leader," responded Wesley, "yet He is not our rule at all; the Scriptures are the rule whereby He leads us into all truth."45 Wesley was convinced that the Spirit of God would never lead in personal experience contrary to the Word of God.

Finally, we must consider the place of tradition in Wesley's criteria for truth. Tradition was important to Wesley for the same reasons that reason and experience were important to him, i.e., because tradition in many ways is primarily a history of the Christian Church's use of reason as well as its experience. For Wesley, tradition was never to be taken lightly, and he had a special appreciation, as we have seen, for the positions of the Early Church. He particularly found them helpful in interpreting Scripture, and he would have been quite unsympathetic to those who did not take seriously the history of Biblical interpretation. To the accusation by William Dodd that he rejected all ancient and modern authorities, Wesley replied:

So while Wesley was willing that the great expositors of the Church serve as a check on his own interpretation of Scripture, he was not willing for them to become final authority. This fits with what we have seen earlier regarding his rejection of a position that made "antiquity a coordinate rather than a subordinate rule with Scripture."47 In his tract "Popery Calmly Considered," he made his position clear relative to the Catholic practice of placing the traditions of the Church on an equal base with the Scripture: "The Scripture therefore, being delivered by divinely—inspired men, is rule sufficient of itself: so it neither needs, nor is capable of, any farther addition."48 But not only did he insist that the theology of the Church be under the authority of the Bible, but the institution as well. "In all cases the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not Scripture by the Church.''49

Since Wesley is so clear in making reason, experience and tradition not coordinate with the authority of Scripture, but subordinate criteria for truth, it may be legitimately asked why did he at times string them together in what would appear to be a listing of equal value? Why does he sometimes imply that he can be convinced of a different view by plain proof from Scripture and reason, or from Scripture, experience and tradition, or from some other combination of the four criteria?50

It is evident from the evidence that whatever purpose Wesley had in mind when he listed several of the criteria together, he did not mean to say that they were all of equal authority and that "none could be subsumed under any other." It is obvious that for him, Scripture did not just have "primacy" over the other three. Primacy could easily be interpreted as meaning only the first of several equal authorities consulted. Whereas for Wesley, there is no question that the Scripture is the final authority. The answer to our question must be sought elsewhere.

It would seem that if Wesley saw a legitimate place for reason, experience and tradition, it would not be surprising that he mentioned them repeatedly as significant. The fact that they are sometimes linked with Scripture would suggest Wesley's awareness of two things. First, that Scripture needed to be interpreted, and that there were legitimate, God-given tools for that task. He is not necessarily to be faulted for sometimes speaking in a popular manner and not distinguishing on every occasion the tools from the ultimate authority. He certainly spoke on enough other occasions with the theological precision necessary to articulate his position. Thus, he was desirous to see Scripture confirmed in experience. Further, it was obvious to him that understanding the Scripture was only possible through reason. In addition, he did not see himself isolated from all others who had interpreted the Bible from previous generations. Wesley was willing that all three of these be used to correctly interpret Scripture, and where any one of them came into conflict with Scripture, he was ready to examine the Bible again to see if it had been improperly understood. But when the Scripture was rightly interpreted and still seen in conflict with one of the other criteria it was the Scripture that prevailed as the final word on any subject.

The second reason Wesley may have linked Scripture with other criteria was that he was aware that on many things, the Scripture does not give guidance, and in many other cases, gives only general principles. It was in these situations that Wesley felt it was right to use other criteria for truth. Here it was not a matter of reason, experience or tradition contradicting Scripture, but complementing it; these were not for rejecting its authority, but for applying it. Where Scripture is not precise, reason, experience and tradition are the next best means for determining truth or discerning its specific application. Colin Williams has captured Wesley's perspective when he writes:

And where these insights were congruous rather than contradictory to Scripture, Wesley was prepared to make use of them. Their authoritative status was, no doubt, more tentative, and they were not to be used in the same absolute sense as principles from scripture. Nevertheless, they were to be used fully within their limitations.

In conclusion, then, it cannot be said that Wesley views Scripture as a co—ordinate authority with tradition, experience or reason. Whatever the source of the expression "Wesleyan quadrilateral," it is clearly a misleading phrase. It tends to imply that Wesley put all four criteria for truth on the same plane of value and authority, and this is certainly not the case. Accordingly, it would not be possible to legitimately claim Wesley as support for this part of theological pluralism. In reality, the opposite would seem to be more true. Not only can he not be referred to as the one who established a pluralism of religious authority, but the evidence strongly suggests that he would resist any theological stance that was contrary to Scripture, or that did not continue the Classical Reformation commitment to sola scriptura. If his relationship with the Moravians is any indicator at all, it appears that there could be circumstances in which he would be willing even to separate from those whose theological positions were "flatly contrary to the Word of God."

Notes

1Cf. Samuel Wesley's The Life of Our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. An Heroic Poem, The History of the Old and New Testaments, and in Latin his Dissertations on the Book of Job.

2Arminian Magazine, XIII (1790), p. 214.

3Martin Schmidt, John Wesley: A Theological Biography (Nashville and New York: Abingdon Press, n.d., pp. 76—77).

4For a fuller discussion of Wesley's consideration of the Articles see Allan Coppedge, "John Wesley and the Doctrine of Predestination," University of Cambridge, Ph. D. dissertation, 1976, pp. 4—6. Also cf. Susannah's reply, Arminian Magazine, I (1778), p. 37.

5Richard Heitzenrater, "John Wesley and the Oxford Methodists 1725—35," Duke University, Ph. D. dissertation, 1972, p. 503.

6John Wesley, The Letters of the Reverend John Wesley (London: Epworth Press, 1931), II, p. 70.

7Gilbert Burnet, An Exposition of the Thirty—nine Articles of the Church of England (Oxford: University Press, 1831; 1st ed. 1699), p. 92.

8Ibid., p. 93.

9John Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection (London: Epworth Press, 1952), p. 6.

10Heitzenrater, op. cit., p. 289.

11Robert Tuttle, Jr., John Wesley: His Life and Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), p. 150.

12Letters, I, p. 207—8.

13John Wesley, The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M. (London: Robert Culley, 1909), I, p. 420.

14John Wesley, The Standard Sermons of John Wesley (London: Epworth Press, 1921), I, p. 245.

15Ibid.

16Journal, I, pp. 264—268.

17Howard Snyder comments, "This meant Scripture and tradition were not an unbroken line, but that the two were sometimes in conflict. And, in case of conflict, tradition must give way." The Radical Wesley (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter—Varsity Press, 1980), p. 69.

18Ibid. p. 419. January 24, 1738. Baker feels Wesley became convinced "uncorrupted antiquity was the co—ordinate with reason in interpreting a supplementing Scripture." Frank Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England (London: Epworth Press, 1970), p. 139.

19John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), Vol. 25, p. 533. Hereafter referred to as Works (Oxford).

20Ibid, p. 615. Cf. Snyder's evaluation that Wesley "was always clear as to the priority of Scripture, especially from 1738 on." Op. Cit., p. 71.

21Journal I, p. 447. March 23, 1738.

22Ibid, p. 454. April 22, 1738. Bohler also brought living witnesses to testify to their conversion in this manner. For Wesley, the testimony from experience served to confirm Scripture, but not supersede it as final authority. Cf. Journal, I, pp. 471—72.

23Serrnons, I, pp. 32—33.

24Journal II, p. 312.

25Ibid For more on the impact of stillness see MS: Martha Jones to Charles Wesley, and MS: T. Cowper to Charles Wesley, Early Methodist Volume, Methodist Archives, The John Rylands Library, Manchester, and The Arminian Magazine, IV (1781), p. 153.

26Journal II, p. 328—331, 333. 335.

27Journal, II, 331. Cf. Wesley's disagreement with a Bristol man January 25, 1740: "I cannot approve of your terms, because they are not scriptural. I find no such phrase as either 'faith of assurance' or 'faith of adherence' in the Bible." Ibid., p. 333.

28Ibid, p. 345. Cf. also his exposition of the book of James the first week in June. p. 349.

29Ibid, p. 359—60.

30Ibid., pp. 354—56, 369, 70.

31Letters, I, p. 350. August, 1740.

32Ibid, p. 353. Cf. his earlier statement to James Hutton: "I think the Brethren wrong in a few things . . . because I believe the Bible. The chief thing wherein I think them wrong is in mixing human wisdom with divine. " p. 342.

33Snyder, op. cit., p. 71.

34Colin Williams, John Wesley 's Theology Today (Nashville—New York: Abingdon Press, 1960), p. 23.

35Works, VII, pp. 198—99.

36Works, VIII, p. 340.

37Letters, II, p. 117.

38Williams, op. cit., p. 25.

39Letters, V, p. 164.

40Works, IV, p. 354. Cf., also Wesley's "Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion," in which he says that to decry reason is utterly unscriptural . . . Works, VIII, pp. 11—12.

41Ibid, p. 360. Cf., Williams: "The importance of reason is not that it provides another source of revelation, but that it is a logical faculty enabling us to order the evidence of revelation." p. 32. And Letters VII, p. 319.

42Letters, VII, p. 47.

43Williams, op. cit., p. 34.

44Works, XI, p. 429.

45Letters, II, p. 117.

46Letters, III, p. 172.

47Journal, I, p. 419.

48Works, X, p. 141.

49Ibid, p. 142.

50The author has been unable to locate in Wesley's writings any single place where all four parts of the "quadrilateral" are mentioned together.

51Williams, OD. cit., pp. 25—26.