MYSTICISM IN AMERICAN WESLEYANISM: THOMAS UPHAM

Darius Salter

Thomas Upham (January 30, 1799-April 2, 1872) was widely respected academically. He wrote approximately twenty major works; his best known within the academic community being A Philosophical and Practical Treatise on the Will (1834), called by Frank Hugh Foster "one of the first original and comprehensive contributions of American scholarship to modern psychology."1 His work Outlines of Imperfect and Disordered Mental Action (1840), is said by Herbert W. Schneider to be the first full treatise on abnormal psychology written in the United States. Because of Upham's work entitled Elements of Mental Philosophy (1841), Schneider calls him "the first great American textbook writer in mental philosophy."2 Jay Wharton Fay, in his American Psychology Before William James (1939), assessed that Upham anticipated "many ideas commonly supposed to be modern."3

The historical thesis underlying my investigation of Upham's theology is that his greatest recognition came from identifying himself with the nineteenth century holiness movement, which was largely Methodist. He was the first man to attend the highly publicized Tuesday meetings for women, directed by Phoebe Palmer, and counted her his spiritual advisor. Not only was he the first man, but as a Congregationalist the first prominent person from outside Methodism to adopt the perfectionistic teachings of the Palmers.

In a sense, Upham was the progenitor of the ecumenicity created by the American search for entire sanctification. Besides the religious works which Upham wrote,4 he personally contributed to the movement by opening his own home in Maine for meetings patterned after those in New York City, and was a constant contributor to the best known holiness periodical of the time, the Guide to Christian Perfection. Even though the immediate cause of Thomas Upham's experience of "entire sanctification" was the Wesleyan theology of Phoebe Palmer, the actual substance of his theology was influenced by his study of French Catholic mysticism, his Scottish common sense philosophy, the general tenor of theological change within America (1800-1850), and his understanding of the psychological makeup of humanity.

Upham's writings are the first attempt to weigh the tenets of holiness theology against the rubrics of psychological investigation. His findings are an integral chapter in the history of the psychology of religion. Upham's Principles of the Interior Life (1843), may be the best attempt to stress experiential holiness theology within a psychological context in the first half of the nineteenth century. His writings are the most extensive and most gratifying contribution to spiritual nurture within all of the ante-bellum holiness movement.

In a sense, Upham was simply a product of his time. Mental philosophy, Scottish common sense philosophy, and Newtonian physics all served to provide a certitude about existence that was not unlike the certitude about spiritual life, which was inherent to holiness theology. Arminian-Wesleyan theology was not only better adapted to the academic climate of ante-bellum America, but was existentially oriented to the optimistic-economic-millenarian fervor. Understanding and confidence concerning God and his universe were intellectual precedents for the certitude within perfectionism. Transcendentalism and holiness theology were not unlike Upham's study of inner consciousness; they all focused on an immanent God, who was interested in man's harmony, happiness, and holiness.

The intense spirituality which marked Thomas Upham's writings, relied on the thought patterns of seventeenth and eighteenth century European mysticism more than any other source. More specifically, Upham drew from the French Quietists Francois de Sales, Francois Fenelon, Madame Guyon, and the Italian Catherine Adorna.5 Christian mysticism, despite its frequent usage in either general theological conversation or formal writings, is a word with ground rules poorly laid and not easily agreed upon. On the one extreme, mysticism may connote an immediacy or immanence which disregards historical roots, sacraments, original sin, scriptures, means of grace, and that which is worthy of a sane Christian gospel. At the other end of the continuum, it may be loosely defined as that element of contact with God, which differentiates genuine worship and life from dead formalism.6 The purpose of this essay will not be to expound on how the writer believes the word "mysticism" is to be used, but will seek to discover the particular influence which the above writers and others had on Upham, how he interpreted them, and what differences from Wesleyan holiness, if any, they imparted to his theology.

Sanctification Through Suffering

Throughout his writings, Upham evidences a notable accordance with the mystics' concept of sanctification through suffering. "The crucifixion of our inward nature cannot take place without the experience of suffering."7 Attractive objects that draw our attention from God must be removed from our lives by the divine, sovereign, sanctifying process.8 Physical suffering and weaknesses are to be welcomed as "a means of growth and grace" and "as the forerunners of increased purity and happiness."9 Upham comments on Catherine Adorna that "she held with great truth, that it is by means of such temptations and afflictions accompanied by the influence of the Holy Spirit that God, as a general thing, destroys those depraved tendencies, which constitute 'what is denominated the life of nature.' "10

Upham's definition of sin is at the heart of his sanctification theory of suffering. Sin primarily consists of desires and affections attached to wrong objects. God sovereignly changes our value structure by destroying and removing those objects on which we place inordinate value.

And this is done by a course, the reverse of that which sin has previously prompted it to take, namely, by the substitution of a right faith for a wrong one, by taking the desires from wrong objects, and by suppressing all their inordinate action. But this is a process which is not ordinarily gone through without suffering.11

Throughout Madame Guyon's biography, Upham has stayed true to her own account that suffering is crucial to the sanctifying process. This is how Madame Guyon understood her unhappy marriage, mistreatment by her mother-in-law, her physical illnesses, and attacks by the church; Upham understood them no differently. Both are in agreement with John Tauler that God would sooner "send an angel from heaven, to refine his chosen vessel through tribulations, than leave it without sufferings."12 Commitment, consecration, and love to God can be best nurtured by sorrow, earthly loss, and earthly pain.13 Suffering will be the means of testing our consecration and assuring us of its sincerity. Sanctification is enhanced by the crucifixion of every psychological and material prop, which depreciates reliance upon divine grace. Upham quotes from Lady Maxwell: "Put a thorn in every enjoyment, a worm in every gourd, that would either prevent our being wholly thine or any measure retard my progress in the divine life."14

Acquiescence

Upham consistently maintains that acquiescence to providence and the sovereignty of God in the sanctification process gives validity to suffering. Upham defends Fenelon: "That quietude is bad which is the result of the ignorant and unbelieving pride of self; but it is not so with the quietude which is the result of an intelligent and believing acquiescence in the will of God.''15 Complacency and confidence in the character and administration of God are foundational for complete acquiescence in the will of God in all things.16 Growth in sanctification is to a great extent evidenced by being able to accept cheerfully greater and greater crosses and burdens. Acquiescence purifies the tendencies of the will to rebel against the providence of God which is a mark of a sinful disposition.17 Right feelings about adverse circumstances are unmistakable indications of the extent of our sanctification.18

For Upham, acquiescence in the laws of providence are just as important as obeying the law of scripture; the two are in agreement.19 We cannot lay claim to the God of scripture without accepting the arrangements of providence, of which God, excepting sin, is the chief and only originator. God's direction applies to all events, except sin, and at that point, there is simply divine permission. "We must then sacrifice the riches, privileges and gifts, both spiritual and temporal, to the arrangements of Providence, in order that we may retain and enjoy, what is infinitely more valuable, the God of Providence."20 But even though sin does not come from God, God directly uses the wickedness of others to be the instrumentality of our suffering, just as if it were God inflicting the blow.21 There is a sovereign will in control of all events whether great or small, and affection for those events, positive or negative, is tantamount to affection for the God behind them.22 Upham clearly states the relationship of providence and holy affections:

The law of Providence requires the modification of the feelings as strictly and as truly as the written law; so that we may lay it down as a principle, that the law of Providence must regulate, to a considerable extent, not only our outward acts, but our affections. It is Providence which places before us the objects we most love; and, what is more, it indicates the degree of our love, and the ways of its manifestation. And, on the other hand, the same Providence indicates to us the objects which should excite our disapprobation, and also the degree and manner of our disapprobation.23

Wesley also emphasized the necessity of providential suffering. Though it may not always be understood, it promotes spiritual keenness and growth, may be a form of chastisement, and can always be used for profit. To Lady Maxwell in 1769, he wrote: "You have accordingly found pain, sickness, bodily weakness, to be real goods; as bringing you nearer and nearer to the fountain of all happiness and holiness."24 Pain serves the purpose of cleansing us from remaining sinful affections, and from stifling temptations, which would otherwise prevent the perfect work of holiness. There is, likewise, the indication that this infliction is directly imposed by God because of his determined purpose to honor that person through his hallowing purpose.25 One of the clearest, concise statements of the relation of suffering to Christian perfection, was written by Wesley to Mary Bishop in 1777:

We have now abundant proof that very many are made better by sickness; unless one would rather say in sickness. This is one of the grand means which God employs for that purpose. In sickness, many are convinced of sin, many converted to God, and still more confirmed in the ways of God and brought onward to perfection.26

Until this point, most of what has been said would be agreeable to Wesley and subsequent nineteenth century holiness theology. But the hallmark of Wesleyan holiness has been moderation, while one of the chief characteristics of Quietism has been logical conclusions. The two logical conclusions of acquiescence to providence have been the extreme positions of the Quietist principle of "indifference" and the "dark night of the soul." The ultimate spiritual state for Quietism was not assurance but indifference, later to be theologically designated as disinterested benevolence. The French Mystics expound this doctrine as consistently as any other single group within the history of the church.

Upham does not remain uninfluenced by these two stoical and mystical characteristics. The philosophical premise behind Upham's disinterested love is that "right love is love precisely conformed to its object in all the facts and relations of the object, so far as the object is susceptible of being known."27 God contains everything that is loving or perfect and thus is deserving of pure love.28 It will be a love that terminates in the object loved, rather than the person who loves.29 Upham argues that perfect love is not truly self-sacrificing if it has any regard to its reward.30 It never thinks of what consolation may come in the relationship of divine union, because "it thinks more of what God is than what God gives.''31 Thus, there is no distinct teaching in all of Upham's writings concerning assurance or the direct witness of the Spirit.

Robert Tuttle argues that Wesley completely bypassed the mystical concept of "the dark night of the soul." He quotes Wesley's premise that "so long as they believe, and walk after the spirit, neither God condemns them, nor their own heart."32 And, again from Letters, Wesley writes: "It is no more necessary that we should ever lose it (the sense of God's love) than it is necessary we should omit duty or commit sin."33 Wesley found it was difficult to divorce emotions from obedience or non obedience to the Holy Spirit. In order to protect his doctrine of assurance, he perceived the emotional state and spiritual health to be vitally related. The following excerpt from one of Wesley's letters demonstrates the attention which, unlike the mystics, he paid to the emotions.

What is the difference between 'the frame of my mind and the state of my soul?' Is there the difference of an hair's breadth? I will not affirm it. If there be any at all, perhaps it is this: the frame may mean a single, transient sensation; the state, a more complicated and lasting sensation; something which we habitually feel. By frame, some may mean fleeting passions; by state, rooted tempers. But I do not know that we have any authority to use the terms thus or to distinguish one from the other. He whose mind is in a good frame is certainly a good man as long as it so continues. I would no more require you to cease from judging of your state by your frame of mind than I would require you to cease from breathing.34

The Quietists were at opposite positions with Wesley at the points of both darkness and sheer, naked faith. Darkness for the Quietists, and at times for Upham, is preferable to assurance, even if it could be avoided in spite of circumstances. The "dark night of the soul" is much more profitable to spiritual development than the assurance of faith. There is an indifference to everything and especially the assurance of salvation.35 In fact, the way of faith will be directly opposed to the way of assurance. Madame Guyon comments on the conversion of Father La Combe from light, knowledge, ardor, assurance, sentiments; to the poor, low, despised path of faith and of nakedness.36 The following from Madame Guyon is in marked contrast to the triumphant death bed scenes of John Wesley and Francis Asbury:

Many people have been astonished to see very holy persons, who have lived like angels die in terrible anguish, and even despairing of their salvation. It is because they have died in this mystical death; and as God wished to promote their advancement, because they were near their end, He redoubled their sorrow. The work of stripping the soul must be left wholly to God.37

The Will

Historically, Wesleyans have no problem with the equating of consecration without reserve with the negation of self-will. Upham states that those who aim at the highest results of the divine life ought not to have and cannot have a will of their own, in distinction from and at variance with the divine will.38 The aspect of the human will that needs to die, is the part which is "resting in the origin of its movement on the limited and depraved basis of personal interest, and out of harmony with the will of God."39 The language of Upham places the will at the heart of Madame Guyon's sanctification experience. She not only desired to be holy, but resolved to be holy. "Her will was in the thing,—the will, which constitutes in its action the unity of the whole mind's action, and which is the true and only certain exponent of the inward moral and religious condition."40

Upham takes the spiritual development of the will one step further. The affections can be so sanctified that doing the will of God is somewhat automatic, "a life springing up and operative within," the will of God done "quietly, freely, naturally, continually."41 In a sense, the sanctified will no longer needs "the constraints of conscience, because being moved by perfect love, it fulfills the will of God, and does right without constraint."42 The sanctified individual does not so much rely on conscience, but is said to act by nature, and not by constraint; by a self moved life at the center, and not by a compulsive instigation, which has no higher officer than to guard and compel the centre.43 Still the language can safely be said to be consistent with Wesleyan teaching. In speaking of someone justified but not sanctified Wesley wrote:

His will was not wholly melted down into the will of God: But although in general he could say, " I come 'not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me,' " yet now and then nature rebelled, and he could not clearly say, "Lord, not as I will, but as thou wilt." His whole soul is now consistent with itself; there is no jarring stirring.44

But when the human will becomes so absorbed in the divine, that persons become oblivious to natural desire, the case is overstated One wonders if Upham is consistent with the Wesleyan position that sin is primarily an act of the will. He writes: "The life of faith, which cherishes the love of God, as the supreme inward principle allows of no desire, no emotion, no passion, which is inconsistent with this love."45 Upham does not censor Madame Guyon when she says that "nothing entered into my imagination but what the Lord was pleased to bring."46

Upham gives the impression that our natural desires are so automatically fulfilled doing the will of God, that we are not even conscious of human or earthly needs.47 Upham often makes the distinction between a legitimate self love and selfishness, but at other times, he implies that there is an indifference to self as well.48 Desires are so distinguished that the circumstances of life, whether oppressive or delightful, adverse or favorable, are all the same.49 In describing the sanctified life: "Whether he suffers or does not suffer, the throne of peace is erected in the center of his soul. Wretchedness and joy are alike. He welcomes sorrow, even the deepest sorrow of the heart, with as warm a gush of gratitude, as he welcomes happiness, if the will of God is accomplished."50

The above language sounds more like some of Wesley's rash statements at the beginning of his ministry than his more mature assessments of spiritual experience, which he made in later years. In 1741, Wesley wrote that the sanctified are "free from self-will, as desiring nothing but the holy and perfect will of God, not supplies in want, not ease in pain, or life, or death, or any creature; but continually crying in their inmost soul, 'Father, thy will be done.'" In 1777, he commented on the above: "This is too strong. Our Lord Himself desired ease in pain. He asked for it, only with resignation: 'Not as I will, I desire, but as thou wilt.' "51

Temptation
Upham's above depreciation of the desires in favor of an assimilation of the human psyche into the divine mind, lends a quite non-Wesleyan understanding to his theory of temptation. Upham is clear with both the Wesleyan and Oberlin perfectionists, that man in whatever spiritual state he may be, is susceptible to temptation. In an article on "Peculiar Dangers Attending a State of Holiness," Upham discusses increased vulnerability to temptation because of lack of awareness.52 He gives a helpful psychological suggestion in overcoming temptation, i.e., instead of giving direct resistance to the temptation, keep the mind focused on God in prayerful trust.53 There is also a helpful distinction between evil thoughts and thoughts of evil, the latter which are not sinful because there is no consent or feeling added to them.54 But when Upham advocates that when temptation moves past the intellect into the affections and there is the least amount of desire for that object which is out of God's will, it is sin, he makes a serious blunder; "if temptations advance in their influence beyond the intellect, and take effect in the desires and will, prompting them to action when they should not act at all, or prompting them to a prohibited and inordinate degree of action when they are permitted to act, they are always attended with sin."55

Upham's explanation of the temptation of Christ is that the offers of Satan were merely propositions and there was no desire in the mind of Christ attached to them. Upham's intellectual theory of temptation, when compared to most concepts of inner spiritual warfare, is no temptation at all. Temptation for Upham does not mean that an act or object has to be presented to the mind which is actually appealing, but simply that there is a possibility for the will making a choice in regard to the proposition.56 Merritt Caldwell correctly points out that the practical application of Upham's theory is that the automatic horror at objects of temptation rules out the spiritual contest and there is "no other alternative but loathing or sin."57

Upham had somewhat removed the liability to and danger of sinning from the Christian pilgrimage. But then at times, Wesley exhibited superhuman security in the matter himself; when using the illustration of a solicitous woman in clarifying how temptation is concurrent with sanctification: "But in the instant I shrink back and I feel no desire to lust at all, of which I can be as sure as that my hand is cold or hot."58 At other times, he seemed more realistic and demonstrated progression of thought. When describing the sanctified life in 1741, he stated: "They are in one sense, freed from temptation; for though numberless temptations fly about them, yet they trouble them not."59 He later responded in 1777: "Sometimes they do not; at other times they do, and that grievously."60 The historical Wesleyan interpretation has been that temptations are not real unless there is affinity between the enticement and natural desire, and there is an ensuing struggle between the desire and the moral ought.

Divine Union

Even a casual perusal of the mystics will clue us as to why Upham suggested a third stage of spiritual experience or work of grace which he designated "Divine Union." Nowhere does Upham state this belief in a third stage of spiritual experience more than in the following:

Divine union is to be regarded as a state of the soul different from that of mere sanctification both because it is subsequent to it in time and sustains the relation of effect; and also because its existence always implies two or more persons or beings, who are subjects of it.61

Although neither Upham nor Wesley ever taught permanent sanctification, there is a confident attainment of grace by the Bowdoin professor of which Wesley, at least in his later years, would have been wary. The state of divine union is a static concept, which does not lend itself to a dynamic ongoing relationship with and reliance on Christ. Wesley saw the danger of thinking in terms of spiritual experience as a plateau which had been reached, and once and for all, conquered. A minute of the 1770 Conference, is crucial for retaining a concept of dynamic sanctification; and correcting any misconception that a single work of grace wrought in a moment of time, will unconditionally validate one's spiritual security:

Does not talking . . . of a justified or sanctified state, tend to mislead men, almost naturally leading them to trust what was done in one moment. Whereas we are every moment pleasing or displeasing to God according to our present inward tempers and outward behaviour.62

But the foregoing discussion should not imply that Upham does not at all keep a critical distance from the mystics. He often explains or qualifies exaggerated or overly-simplistic language. Concerning Madame Guyon, he wrote:

I am aware that some of the methods she took seem to imply an undue degree of violence to principles of our nature, which are given us for wise purposes, and which in their appropriate action are entirely innocent.63

Such corrections are in keeping with Upham's understanding of the psychological drives and human propensities which can be used for the glory of God while at the same time maintaining their distinctive purposes. When Madame Guyon speaks of a will lost or annihilated, Upham argues that if such language was actually fact, moral agency would be destroyed. At this point, Upham is expressing, in psychological language, the Wesleyan assertion that the "bent to sinning" which clings to our will, can be crucified. The will's

. . . original life such as it had when it came from the hand of God is not necessary to destroy; but it is necessary, indispensably necessary to destroy all that fake and vitiating life, which sin, availing itself of the immense influence of the law of habit, has incorporated so strongly with the will's original nature that they now seem to be one.64

Upham asserted that any union between God and man that would imply physical union would endanger our personality and moral accountability.65 There needs to be a modified interpretation of those passages of scripture which speak of the union of the regenerated with the mind of God.66 What is to be recognized is not a union of substance or essence, but of morality, spirituality, and religion.67 But on the other hand, a person can testify to self-annihilation, though not literally, because he "knows enough of himself as an individual to know that he is not his own, that his soul has become, a living fountain which takes its use from God, and flows out to all the boundless variety of existences."68

Upham was most often correcting or qualifying Quietists' statements concerning loss of desire or of the will. He paraphrased Catherine Adorna's claim that she was without desire, by saying "that the sanctified or holy soul is a soul so united to God by conformity with the divine will as to be without desire; that is to say without any desire of its own, or any desire separate from the will of God."69 In fact, as human beings, we do not even have the right to not desire our own good or to act in a way which would be destructive to our well being.70 Loss of will does not differentiate us from our fellow men in essence, and neither does it mean that we cannot have a strong energetic will, but only that our will cannot be at variance with God's will.71 The will shall cease to act on the depraved basis of personal interest, but the will itself will remain, as it is psychologically essential to human existence.72

But Upham's corrections of the Seventeenth Century mystics did not completely satisfy his spiritual mentor. Phoebe Palmer was of the firm opinion that Upham was too extreme in his treatment of the will. She thought his "death of the will" to be an over-statement and unrealistic in view of true spirituality and scriptural teaching. Palmer argued that those who thought the life of nature to be extinct, would be more susceptible to the onslaughts of Satan. Because self, human nature and the individual will has been completely absorbed into the divine, then the Christian will not be on guard against temptation.73 The issue at stake was loss of self-identity, i.e., completely annihilating the human traits and limitations.

There is plenty in Upham's writings to counteract fanatic irrationality in terms of spiritual experience. Upham's teachings on the propensities is enough to tell us that a person after sanctification will retain a strong sense of self. Appetites and desires are legitimate in themselves, and it is only when the love of self or self interests are not controlled by the Holy Spirit, that they become inordinate. Upham tersely reminds us that "the scriptures require us to become Christian; but they do not require us to cease to be men."74

Upham defines what he means by death of the will in that the phrase Suggests we cannot have a will of our own; our own will cannot be at variance with the divine will.75 He was too much of a psychologist and too concerned with the integrity of humanity to turn people into robots. He qualified this teaching by stating ". . . man's will can never die. A will is essential to man's nature, as it is to the nature of every moral being."76 The sense that the will must die is that it, through the power of grace, must be harmonized with God's will and must cease to operate "on the limited and depraved basis of personal interest."77

Conclusion

Melvin Dieter's defense of Upham in the face of Phoebe Palmer's criticism, needs to be further explicated. Concerning Palmer's charge that Upham's "divine union" moved beyond the clear teachings of scripture, Dieter states: "A careful reading of Upham's writings does not seem to bear out the intensity of these fears or the continuing charge of 'heresies.'"76 The question was not so much with heresy (though Upham was charged with it), as with extremism of language, which needed to be qualified. Upham was at times contradictory when he tried to be both psychologically true to reality and simultaneously use mystical language. For the most part, the contradictions can be explained away. But the mentality that wants theology meticulously, consistently, and systematically presented, may call for Upham to do a lot of explaining. Indeed, the concepts of indifference, inactivity, absorption, etc., may have been too extreme for nineteenth century holiness exponents, even with a lot of qualifying. Upham left himself open, but then again, he was not all that concerned about being on guard.

Even though Wesley abhorred much of the mystics' practice, there was an intimacy with God and a discipline of devotion which he inherited from them and never lost. Experiential piety and a faith beyond philosophical speculation were streams that flowed from the mystics to Wesley, and subsequently to the holiness movement. The radical "death" and "crucifixion" language used by Wesley and the American exponents of entire sanctification was not unlike the spiritual descriptions of the seventeenth century European mystics. Upham fused them together in a manner that demonstrated a good deal of agreement and compatibility. In a sense, Upham's writings are Wesley's spiritual discoveries from the mystics (1725-38), coming home to roost. Whether John Wesley would have been somewhat chagrined, is another question.

At the core of both Wesleyan perfectionism and Madame Guyon's mysticism was the religion of the heart. Upham's introspective psychology was easily adapted to both. Each aimed at total commitment of the "will" to God and each strove for an intimacy with God, which was beyond nominal Christianity and sheer rationalism. The holiness movement, at least for Upham, epitomized in contemporary form that which he had read about in a century gone by.

Notes

1 Frank Hugh Foster, A Genetic History of the New England Theology (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1907), p. 249.

2 Herbert W. Schneider, A History of American Philosophy, Second Edition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963), p. 210.

3 Jay Wharton Fay, American Psychology Before William James (New York: Octagon Books, 1966), p. 186.

4 The most popular of these was Life, Religious Opinion and Experiences of Madame Guyon, 37 editions and Principles of the Interior or Hidden Life, 18 editions. Also, Christ in the Soul, Divine Union, Inward Divine Guidance, The Life of Faith in Three Parts, Madame Catherine Adorna, and Ratzo, Discipline or the Constitution of the Congregational Churches.

5 Other mystics whom Upham quotes from are William Law, George Fox, Thomas á Kempis, and Jacob Boehme.

6 "No deeply religious man is without a touch of mysticism; and no mystic can be other than religious, in the psychological, if not in the theological sense of the word." Evelyn Underhill, Mysticism (New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, Inc., 1961), p. 70.

7 Thomas C. Upham, The Life of Faith in Three Parts (Boston: Waite, Pierce and Company, 1845), p. 244.

8 Thomas C. Upham, Divine Union (Boston: George C. Rand and Avery, 1856), p. 168. 9**Ibid., p. 394.

10 Thomas C. Upham, Madame Catherine Adorna (Boston: Waite and Pierce, 1845), p. 179.

11 Upham, Divine Union, p. 168.

12 Thomas C. Upham, Life, Religious Opinion and Experiences of Madame Guyon (London: H. R. Allenson, Ltd., 1908), Volume II, p. 365.

13 Thomas C. Upham, American Cottage Life (Boston: American Tract Society, 1850), p. 127.

14 Thomas C. Upham, Principles of the Interior or Hidden Life (Boston: Waite and Pierce, 1845), p. 222.

15 Upham, Madame Guyon, Volume II, p. 330.

16 Upham, Interior Life, p. 147.

17 Upham, Divine Union, p. 166.

18 Ibid

19 Ibid., p. 196.

20 Ibid, p. 210.

21 Upham, Madame Guyon, Volume II, p. 43.

22 Upham, American Cottage Life, p. 176.

23 Upham, Divine Union, p. 197.

24 John Wesley, Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, edited by John Telford. (London: Epworth Press, 1931), Volume V, p. 134.

25 Ibid, Volume, I, p. 103.

26 Ibid, Volume VI, p. 279.

27 Upham, Interior Life, p. 111.

28 Ibid, p. 113.

29 Ibid., p. 111.

30 Ibid, pp. 149-150.

31 Ibid., p. 156.

32 Robert G. Tuttle, Jr., John Wesley: His Life and Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978), p. 339.

33 Ibid, p. 340.

34 Wesley, Letters Vol. V, p. 200.

35 Francois Fenelon, Fenelon's Letters to Men and Women, edited by Derek Stanford (London: Peter Owen Ltd., 1957), p. 19.

36 Madame Guyon, The Exemplary Life of the Pious Lady Guion, translated from her own account by Thomas Digby Brooke (Philadelphia: Joseph Crukshank, 1804), p. 281.

37 Madame Guyon, Spiritual Torrents, translated from the Paris edition of 1790 by A. W. Marston (London: H. R. Allenson, Ltd.), p. 64.

38 Upham, Life of Faith, p. 211.

39 Upham, Divine Union, p. 157.

40 Upham, Madame Guyon, Volume I, p. 109.

41 Upham, Madame Guyon, Volume I, p. 186.

42 Upham, Divine Union, p. 391.

43 Ibid, p. 392.

44 John Wesley, Works (London: Wesleyan Conference Office, 1872. Reprinted Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, no date given), Volume VI, p. 489.

45 Upham, Life of Faith, p. 456.

46 Upham, Madame Guyon, Volume I, p. 338.

47 Upham, Madame Guyon, Volume II, p. 165.

48 Ibid, p. 228.

49 Ibid., p. 366.

50 Upham, Interior Life, p. 109.

51 Wesley, Works, Volume XI, p. 379.

52 Thomas C. Upham, "Peculiar Dangers Attending a State of Holiness," Advocate of Christian Holiness, (July, 1872), p. 13.

53 Upham, Life of Faith, p. 431.

54 Upham, Interior Life, p. 161.

55 Ibid., pp. 157-158.

56 Ibid, p. 159.

57 Merritt Caldwell, The Philosophy of Christian Perfection (Philadelphia: Sorin and Ball, 1848), p. 141. Upham is a better psychologist than theologian, but this is one point where expertise in the former does not enhance the latter. In other words, Upham's theory of temptation does not make sense in view of his psychology on conscience. "The class of mental states, which are termed emotions, are followed not merely by desires, but also by another class, distinct from desires, and yet sustaining the same relation of proximity to the will, which, for want of a single term, we have been obliged to denominate feelings of obligation. Desires are founded on the natural emotions, or those which involve what is pleasurable or painful, while obligatory feelings are exclusively based on emotions of a different kind, viz., moral emotions, or emotions of moral approval and disapproval. The obligative states of mind, although they are easily distinguished by our consciousness from desires or the decisive states of mind, agree with the latter in being in direct contact with the voluntary power, and not infrequently these two classes of mental stand before the will in direct and fierce opposition to each other." "Theory of Temptation," Methodist Quarterly Review, Volume 24 (1842), p. 153.

58 Wesley, Works, Volume XI, p. 419.

59 Wesley, Works, Volume XI, pp. 379. 380.

60 Ibid., p. 380.

61 Upham, Catherine Adorna, p. 236. John Tauler spoke of three phases of personal life: the sensuous nature, the reason, and the third way, the spiritual life of pure substance of the soul. The number three dominates the writing of Hugo de Saint Victor. In contemplation, there are three kinds: suspense, silence, sleep; and of silence, three stages (which sounds similar to Madame Guyon), the silence of lips, thought, and reason. Ignatius of Loyola explicated the three states of humility; the third is the way of the perfect in which the Christian's will "is completely set upon one object, for which they easily abandon everything else—to make their lives harmonize with the life of Christ.' "

62 Wesley, Works, Volume VIII, p. 338.

63 Upham, Madame Guyon, Volume I, p. 84.

64 Ibid, p. 133.

65 Upham, Interior Life, p. 374.

66 Ibid.

67 Ibid.

68 Upham, Absolute Religion, p. 264.

69 Upham, Catherine Adorna, p. 92.

70 Ibid., p. 93.

71 Upham, Life of Faith, pp. 210-211.

72 Upham, Divine Union, p. 157.

73 Richard Wheatley, Life and Letters of Mrs. Phoebe Palmer (New York: W. C. Palmer, Jr., 1876), pp. 518-523.

74 Upham, Interior Life, p. 211.

75 Upham, Life of Faith, p. 211.

76 Ibid, p. 157.

77 Ibid

78 Melvin E. Dieter, The Holiness Revival of the Nineteenth Century (Metuchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1980), p. 53.

Edited by Jason Gingerich
for the
Wesley Center for Applied Theology
at Northwest Nazarene University
© Copyright 2000 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology

Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes. The Wesleyan Theological Society has granted the Wesley Center exclusive rights to publish back issues (five years after publication) of its journal on the World Wide Web. 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.