David L. Cubie

Two questions under investigation in contemporary Wesleyan research are (1) to what extent must Wesley be considered a serious theologian? and (2) how does Wesley's quadrilateral of scripture, experience, reason and tradition relate to his theological enterprise? Wesley was not a systematic theologian. Yet that he thought systematically is evident from the organization of his sermons and hymns. That the hymns themselves were a theological enterprise is amply demonstrated by the lengthy theological introductions which he gave to his Hymns and Sacred Poems of 1739, 1740, 1745. He specifies this systematic purpose in Hymns: For the Use of the People Called Methodists (1780):

The hymns are not carelessly jumbled together, but carefully ranged under proper heads, according to the experience of real Christians. So that this book is, in effect, a little body of experimental and practical divinity.1

Two questions need to be asked: (1) Was Wesley a consistent thinker? and if so, then (2) What principle provides coherence to his thought? If it can be demonstrated that Wesley is a consistent thinker with a coherent principle, then he must be reconsidered as a serious theologian. Furthermore, his fourfold authority of scripture, reason, experience and tradition, instead of being seen as an eclectic and scholastic listing of authorities, will need to be re-evaluated to see if there is an underlying synthesis and wholeness to his thought.

Albert Outler has described him as a folk theologian.2 Though some have taken this in a pejorative sense,3 this was not Outler's intent, for he also called Wesley "the most important Anglican theologian in his century.4 Rather what he was describing was what Wesley stated as his intent in publishing his Sermons: "I design plain truth for plain people.''5 Wesley was a serious theologian, but one who instead of writing for theologians, wrote for the people. A better term, less subject to misinterpretation, would be to refer to him as a pastor theologian. His office was that of the ancient bishop, who counted among his responsibilities that of teaching his flock.

Wesley has been accused of being an eclectic. Certainly his use of scripture, experience, reason and tradition as authorities would not give the lie to that accusation. In fact, it could support it. That which could deliver Wesley from this accusation is the demonstration of coherence throughout this usage. The principle which gives coherence to Wesley's thought is love. Love is the controlling principle in all his theological activity. Wesley sought to understand all of life from the perspective that God is love. As he asked his episcopal opponents who denounced the Methodist lay preachers as being out of order, "What is this order of which you speak? Will it serve instead of the knowledge and love of God."6 This search began as far back as his undergraduate years. As he recalled those years,

The fundamental constitutions of the University of Oxford . . . require every Bachelor of Arts . . . to read three public lectures on moral philosophy, on whatever subject he chooses. My subject, I well remember, was 'the love of God.'7

Other coordinating principles have been suggested, including Outler's "Sustained Evangelical Concern"8 and Randy Maddox's "Responsible Grace,"9 which he derives from Outler. Frederick Dryer would throw out the whole theological enterprise. He asserts, "The question to be asked concerns not Wesley's theology, but his epistemology. . . . In all of his controversies, he assumes this same principle: nothing is known that cannot be felt."10 As will become evident, for Wesley, responsible grace is defined by love. Furthermore, the epistemological question is itself a question of authority, that is, of identifying that which is true, and is another way of addressing the quadrilateral. Dryer's research into Wesley's epistemology is useful in identifying what Wesley meant by experience, but it does not ask, how can one know which experience is true? Wesley was not interested in the variety of religious experiences. Instead, his concern was for that which is ultimately true. As he said, "I want to know one thing—the way to heaven; how to land safe on that happy shore."11

We should be alerted to the possibility that love is Wesley's coordinating principle by such expressions as "the heaven of heavens is love;"12 "love . . . is His [that is, God's] darling, His reigning attribute, the attribute that sheds an amiable glory on all his other perfections;"13 and "Love is the sum of Christian Sanctification.''14

To say that Wesley's coordinating principle is love does not, of course, imply that his doctrine of love is in harmony with the New Testament. That certainly was his aspiration, but the concept of love, because of its importance to the Church throughout its history, had developed great complexity. To be Christian was to love God and neighbor, but what does it mean to love neighbor? The Augustinian tradition added to the scribal question, "Who is my neighbor?", another which is, "how should I love my neighbor?" Though, according to Christian teaching, every neighbor should be loved, the quality and manner of giving love began to be seen as varying according to the worthiness of the neighbor. This resulted in a complex theory of love. As John F. Burton observes,

The idea that love, expressed reasonably and appropriately, is a good thing, can be found throughout medieval society. In religious terms every Christian should love his neighbor, and in feudal terms, vassal and lord and their families should be bound by love. According to a ninth century manual a vassal should 'fear, love, worship and cherish' the relatives of his lord. Neither Christian charity nor feudal love necessarily involved an emotional or passionate personal attachment. . . . Love could express a purely formal relationship, a political alliance, the deference of a vassal before his lord, the bond of all the monks in a monastery, including those who dislike each other. In these terms, it increased one's worth to 'love' another worthy person, as it increased one's honor to 'love' a person of higher status.15

D. R. Howard indicates how inclusively the concept of love became. It was applied to all of life:

Charity is, then, the whole moral expression of the Christian life; it is both individual and social. It is so broad a concept, amenable to so much variation, that it did not limit the medieval artist. But however broad, it is specifically Christian, is indeed the very core of Christian doctrine; and it is the set theme of all 'serious' medieval poetry.16

From the Biblical command "thou shalt love," there developed a casuistry of love which described how love was to be applied in all circumstances and in all relationships.

In the succeeding centuries not every thinker made love central, but for those who did there was a vocabulary of love available. Wesley made use of this vocabulary. One example of Wesley's use of these terms occurs in the several articles and sermons which he wrote to defend his relationship to the Church of England. The terms of love which Wesley used in his teaching regarding the Church are ( 1 ) Storge: love or loyalty to family and nation; (2) Benevolence or beneficence: an equal compassion and care for all; (3) Complacence, delight: love for the saints; (4) Reciprocal love: the Koinonia fellowship love which is the opposite of schism; (5) Catholic love: a comprehensive love which includes all the preceding, plus an ecumenical concern for the whole Christian Church; (6) Zeal: love aflame, but prioritized according to the degree of value in its object. It is by the interplay of these concepts that Wesley explained and defended his relationship to the Church of England. The love terms which Wesley used to maintain union with the Church of England were storge and benevolence. He also used the concept of unity which, though not a term for love, he defines as a primary characteristic. The term which he used to argue for some type of separation, at least from sinners within the Church, was complacence. Around zeal he organized his priorities of love, that is, whether love for the Church or love for the souls of men should come first.17

A similar complex vocabulary was used both in describing the Christian's relationship to God and man and in defining perfect love. Love for God was both thankful love and desire. When the latter was used to define perfect love, a psychological problem was created as the Christian sought to maintain all desire for God. Similarly, perfect love for neighbor allowed a distinction to be made in the kind of love given to the neighbor, whether benevolence, which for Wesley was equal mercy to all, or complacence, which was delight for the saints. This distinction permitted Wesley to say that "From a wrong apprehension, I may love and esteem you either more or less than I ought.''18 Even when the various distinguishing terms were not used, the contrasting thoughts symbolized by these terms is evident.

The centrality of love is such that one could as easily refer to a quinquelateral as a quadrilateral. Truth for Wesley had a moral test, the test of love, but as no test for Wesley stands by itself, it is appropriate to examine how love is applied within those four tests by which Wesley himself evaluates truth. These are scripture, reason, experience, and tradition. We will look at tradition first, then experience and scripture, and then conclude with reason.

Among the four sources of authority, often referred to as Wesley's quadrilateral, tradition is that to which Wesley appealed the least and which for him, though important, was the least reliable. His letter to Conyers Middleton gives his most thorough analysis of tradition. In this letter he was comparing tradition with the inward evidence. Thus in comparison with the inward principle, Wesley said of tradition " I cannot set it on a level with this."19 His reason is that "traditional evidence is of an extremely complicated nature. . . . On the contrary, how plain and simple is this. . . . 'One thing I know; I was blind, but now I see?'. . ."20 Furthermore,

The traditional evidence of Christianity stands as it were, a great way off. . . . Whereas the inward evidence is intimately present to all persons, at all times, and in all places. It is nigh thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, if thou believest in the Lord Jesus Christ.21

His final argument in this comparison with the inward witness anticipates the age of criticism, just then beginning. He wrote:

If then it were possible (which I conceive it is not) to shake the traditional evidence of Christianity, still he that hath the internal evidence (and every true believer hath the witness or evidence in himself) would stand firm or unshaken.22

Wesley with prophetic vision saw the day when the external evidence should be shaken, but contrary to expectations, with beneficial results. As he saw these bicentenary years:

In a century or two the people of England will be fairly divided into real Deists and real Christians.

And I apprehend this would be no loss at all, but rather an advantage to the Christian cause. Nay, perhaps it would be the speediest, yea, the only effectual way of bringing all reasonable Deists to be Christians.23

Then with ironical tone he even encouraged those who would shake this external evidence:

Go on, Gentlemen, and prosper shame these nominal Christians out of their poor superstitions, which they call Christianity. Reason, laugh them out of their dead empty forms, void of spirit, of faith, of love. . . . Press on; push your victories, till you have conquered all, that know not God. And then He whom neither they nor you know not, shall rise and gird himself with strength, and go forth in his almighty love, and sweetly conquer you all together.

O that the time were come! How I do long for you to be partakers of the exceeding great and precious promise!24

The worthy tradition is one in which both tradition and faith combine to reproduce the character of love. Thus in this comparison of tradition and inner witness, Wesley defined this teaching as follows:

Christianity . . . is that system of doctrine which describes the character . . . particularly in [1 Cor. 13 and the Sermon on the Mount]. Secondly, Christianity promises this character shall be mine, if I will not rest until I attain it . . . [Thirdly] Christianity tells me . . . how I may attain the promise; namely by faith.25

This respect was derived from the Epworth parsonage. As he wrote:

From a child I was taught to love and reverence the Scripture, the oracles of God; and next to these, to esteem the primitive Fathers, the writers of the three first centuries. Next after the primitive church, I esteemed our own, the Church of England, as the most scriptural national church.26

Though he was to change from rigid adherence or, to use Wesley's expression, from being "strongly attached" he maintained these points of reference throughout his life. Thus in 1748 in replying to Conyers Middleton's attack on miracles, he refused to discuss miracles beyond the first three centuries. Regarding Middleton's reference to Hilarion and Jerome, Wesley said: "I have no concern for either, for they did not exist in the three first centuries."27 Even late in life the point of reference for the uncorrupted Church was that prior to "that evil hour, when Constantine the Great, called himself a Christian."28

Though by no means receiving the same fullness of praise, Wesley had a similar regard for the Church of England during its reformation, especially during the brief reign of Edward VI (1547-53), who Wesley implied was a Biblical monarch who sent priests "to search into the law of God and teach it to all the people."29 During his reign, Wesley's second source for tradition was adopted. This included the liturgy, The Book of Common Prayer (the Second, 1552) and the first collection of Homilies (1547). This same evangelical influence was to re-assert itself early in the reign of Elizabeth I (1558-1603), resulting in the adoption of the remaining Homilies and the Thirty-Nine Articles (1571).30 Archbishop Secker (alias 'John Smith') also identified Wesley's preference for the Reformation period of the Church of England. The following is Wesley's quotation from Secker's letter.

When your adversaries tax you with differing from the Church they cannot be supposed to charge you with differing from the Church as it was a little after the Reformation, but as it is at this day. And when you profess deference and veneration for the Church of England, you cannot be supposed to profess it for the Church and its pastors in the year 1545, and not, rather in the year 1745. If, then, by 'the Church of England' be meant (as ought to be meant) the present Church, it will be no hard matter to show that your doctrines differ widely from the doctrines of the Church.

Wesley's answer was, "Nay, I think, unless I differ from these men (be they bishops, priests, or deacons) just as widely as they do from those Articles and Homilies, I am no true Church of England man."31 These are the writings to which Wesley principally appeals as authoritative.

Wesley was not locked into two sets of golden years. In these two periods, and more especially throughout the long centuries between and after, Wesley evaluated tradition by a moral standard. So for Wesley there was a holy tradition. Thus in his reply to Conyers Middleton he refused to discuss miracles beyond the

three first centuries. . . . Because "after the empire became Christian" . . . "a general corruption of faith and morals infected the Christian Church . . ." And this very reason St. Chrysostom himself gave . . . "that it was owing to the want of faith, and virtue and piety in those times."32

He could also reject an appeal to St. Augustine by the retort, "When Augustine's passions were heated, his word is not worth a rush." He described that saint "as full of pride, passion, bitterness, censoriousness, and as foul-mouthed to all that contradict him, as George Fox himself."33 In contrast to Augustine, Pelagius was "one of the holiest men of that age."34 Elsewhere though he quotes sayings of Augustine with approval.

This Holy tradition, though basically closed at the end of the third century, did include those who expressed true religion, by which he meant "the love of God filling the heart and governing the life." The sure effect of which was "the uniform practice of justice, mercy, and truth." Some exemplars of this whom he included are "Archbishop Fenelon, in France; Bishop Ken, in England; and Bishop Bedell, in Ireland,"35 both Roman Catholic and Anglican, but all men of piety and good conscience. Wesley's evaluation of tradition by moral guidelines was further underlined by his concept of "apostolic" succession. In 1745 after reading Lord Peter King's and Bishop Edward Stillingfleet's refutations of the concept that authority was conveyed from Christ through an unbroken succession of bishops, Wesley defined spiritual authority as being conveyed through "a succession of Pastors and Teachers; men both divinely appointed; and divinely assisted; for they convert sinners to God."36 These indicate that Wesley's primary tradition was that originating with and passed on by holy men.

Wesley's seemingly exaggerated evaluation of the Apostolic Fathers becomes understandable when one sees that his principle of evaluation was moral. In his Christian Library he introduced the Apostolic Fathers as those who not only . . . "were not mistaken in their interpretations of the Gospel of Christ; but that in all the necessary parts of it, they were so assisted by the Holy Ghost, as to be scarce capable of mistaking."37

The key term is "the Gospel of Christ." In other areas, he admitted their limitations. Writing to Conyers Middleton he stated:

I allow that some of these had not strong natural sense, that few of them had much learning. . . .

Hence I doubt not but whoever will be at the pains of reading over their writings for that poor end, will find many mistakes, many weak suppositions and many ill drawn conclusions.38

His reason for revering these, which included

Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyprian; . . . Macarius and Ephraim Syrus, . . . [was] . . . because they were Christians, such Christians as are above described. And I reverence their writings, because they describe truly genuine Christianity, and direct us to the strongest evidence of the Christian doctrine. . . .

. . they never relinquish this: what the Scripture promises, I enjoy. Come and see what Christianity has done here; and acknowledge it is of God.39

The character of these trustworthy conveyors of truth is love. Wesley by this emphasis does not de-emphasize either the necessity of knowledge or the assistance of the Holy Spirit. But he is saying that tradition is most truly maintained by one who loves. Thus in his response to Middleton he said that a primitive Christian is one in whom "the ruling temper of his heart is . . . grateful love."40 Notice that love which is described as directed toward the variety of neighbors included benevolence (a universal disinterested love), storge (a family or loyalty love), and complacence (a love given only to the righteous). As he typically does, he then elaborated on the inclusive character of this one who so loves that he is a worthy conveyor of the tradition. He not only loves God with "grateful love" but he also loves his neighbor. Above all

remembering that God is love, he is conformed to the same likeness. He is full of love to his neighbor; of universal love; . . . And yet this universal love does not interfere with a peculiar regard for his relations, friends, benefactors; a fervent love for his country; and the most endeared affection to all men of integrity, of clear generous virtue.41

This individual has "universal, disinterested love (which) is productive of all right affections." Such a witness is trustworthy because

this love constrains him to converse, not only with a strict regard to the truth, but with artless sincerity and genuine simplicity, as one in whom there is no guile. And, not content with abstaining from all such expressions as are contrary to justice or truth, he endeavors to refrain from every unloving word, either to a present or of an absent person. . . . The same love is productive of all right actions.42

This is the tradition which Wesley recommends.

As noted, Wesley had a very high evaluation of experience, especially as an inward principle, which, as he says in his letter to Middleton, "I conceive to be the strongest evidence of the truth of Christianity.43 This is not to place scripture in a secondary place. Instead he affirms, "what the Scripture promises, I enjoy."44 Experience stands as fulfillment in relationship to scripture, which is the promise. Thus he says, "Christianity, considered as an inward principle, is the completion of all these promises."45 As noted, this evidence has an immediacy: "directly from God into the believing soul;" a simplicity: "One thing I know; I was blind but now I see;" a proximity: "intimately present to all persons, at all times, and in all places;" and an unshakableness which the traditional evidence does not possess.

Frederick Dryer's article entitled "Faith and Experience in the Thought of John Wesley" underlines the importance of experience in Wesley's thinking by affirming that empiricism is the organizational principle of Wesley's thought. He does so both by rejecting a possibility of finding a theological principle: "Whoever interprets Wesley's thought in theological terms must concede that it is incoherent, that Methodism is in some measure a pastiche,"46 and by affirming the empirical evidence of feeling: "In all of his controversies, he assumed the same principle: nothing is known that cannot be felt."47 While Dryer does demonstrate the method, he does not recognize that the content is love. The empirical test has theological content.

Wesley's affirmation that true Christianity is recognizable by inward feelings stirred up charges of enthusiasm by such Anglicans as Dr. Thomas Rutherford (1768), Dr. Conyers Middleton (1748-49), Archbishop Thomas Secker (1745-48), and William Warburton, Bishop of Gloucester. In his defense both against concerned churchmen such as Archbishop Secker, and inflammatory controversialists such as Bishop Warburton, Wesley took great pains to explain what he meant by inward feelings.

First it must be observed that what Wesley meant by feeling was not emotion but an awareness of the mind. As Dryer comments, Wesley "was . . . a thoroughgoing adherent of the principles of Locke's epistemology. . . . What the mind could know was restricted to the ideas that it received from the senses."48 The following passages from Wesley's "An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion" (1743) and the sermon "On the Discoveries of Faith" (1788) demonstrate this empiricism. In the former Wesley stated:

Seeing our ideas are not innate, but must all originally come from our senses, it is certainly necessary that you have sense capable of discerning objects of this kind: Not those only which are called natural sense, which in this respect profit nothing, as being altogether incapable of discerning objects of a spiritual kind; but spiritual senses, exercised to discern spiritual good and evil.49

Similarly, he wrote in the latter,

For many ages it has been allowed by sensible men, Nihil est in intellectu quod non fuit prius in sensu: That is, 'There is nothing in the understanding which was not first perceived by some of the senses.' All the knowledge which we naturally have is originally derived from our senses. . . . Some indeed have, of late years, endeavored to prove that we have innate ideas, not derived from any of the senses, but coeval with the understanding. . . . It is agreed by all impartial persons, that although some things are so plain and obvious, that we can hardly avoid knowing them as soon as we come to the use of our understanding; yet the knowledge even of these is not innate, but derived from some of our senses.50

In this latter sermon written in 1788 Wesley identified this spiritual sense as faith. "He hath appointed faith to supply the defect of sense. . . . Its office begins where that of sense ends. Sense is an evidence of things that are seen. . . . Faith, on the other hand, is the 'evidence of things not seen' of the invisible world."51** This, of course, is not Wesley's only definition of faith.

In contrast Wesley's earlier works described the means of knowing, not so much in terms of a new sense, as in the distinguishable character of the objects. The objects observed are distinct dispositions, such as ease and pain, wrath and love:

How does it appear to you, that you are alive, and that you are now at ease, and not in pain? Are you not immediately conscious of it? By the same immediate consciousness, you will know if your soul is alive to God; if you are saved from the pain of proud wrath, and have the ease of a meek and quiet spirit. By the same means you cannot but perceive if you love, rejoice, and delight in God. By the same you must be directly assured if you love your neighbor as yourself; if you are kindly affectioned to all mankind, and full of gentleness and longsuffering.52

In the sermon, "The Discoveries of Faith," (1789) the two aspects of knowing are combined. Wesley was not analyzing faith, but relating faith's operation in the Christian as he progresses from the state of a servant to that of the son and in the state of sonship from the stage of being a babe in Christ, through that of the young man, to that of being a father in Christ. Of interest is the distinction he makes between the faith of a servant and that of a son. Faith is transformed from spiritual sight regarding the things that one needs to know to the living experience of a son. As he stated, "The faith of a servant implies a divine evidence of the invisible and the eternal world; yea, an evidence of the spiritual world, so far as it can exist without living experience."53 This evidence includes such a "knowledge" of my own soul, of God as "He that is, that was, and that is to come," of the Trinity, "that these Three are One," and "that the Holy Spirit is the giver of spiritual life," of heaven and hell, of the general judgment, and of sin. "The faith of a son," in contrast, is a "living experience." The transition includes passing "from faith to faith"; from the faith of a servant to the faith of a son; from the spirit of bondage unto fear to the spirit of childlike love: "Love is the new object of this new faith. Sonship includes being able to testify, 'The life that I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me,'—the proper voice of a child of God." Furthermore, "He will experience what St. Paul means by. . . . 'the love of God is shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost who is given unto him' (Rom. 5:5)54 Both in the controversial correspondence and in the sermons on the "witness of the Spirit," the empirical evidence, whether direct or indirect, is summarized as love.

The fact toward which faith points is love. The direct witness of God's love is given to assure even when the evidences that faith and sight are supposed to bring are unsure. His argument hinges on knowable evidence, which once given, is unmistakable. Love, by its fruits, is open to all and becomes a means of awakening and convicting the sinner. Thus Wesley's argument never takes the turn which is so possible from the argument of the gift of faith as a sixth sense, that the sinner just doesn't understand. Though Wesley can affirm that he may not, the potential for understanding is there. The evidence is open to all. Wesley's Christian is not a Gnostic, one of a select group, however achieved, who have their own secrets gained by a special sense or sight or revelation. The Biblical evidence may be evaluated by all. This method of verification asks whether love and other holy evidences are present. This is expressed by the following explication of the verse "God 'reveals them unto us by his Spirit.' "

Reveals, that is, unveils, uncovers, gives us to know what we did not know before. Have we love? It 'is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.' He inspires, breathes, infuses into our soul, what of ourselves we could not have. Does our spirit rejoice in God our Savior? It is 'joy in,' or by 'the Holy Ghost.' Have we true inward peace? It is the 'peace of God,' wrought in us by the same Spirit. Faith, peace, joy, love, all his fruits. And as we are figuratively said to see the light of faith; so, by a like figure of speech, we are said to feel this peace and joy and love; that is. we have an inward experience of them, which we cannot find any fitter word to express.55

The evidence which the sons and daughters receive is not of a different kind but one that is open to the evaluation of all. That which is inwardly and directly known by a child of God can be known outwardly and indirectly—by the "natural man" or servant. The children of God experience God by the inward awareness of love, both that God loves them and that they love both God and neighbor. Those who are not sons and daughters of God also see love, but they see it in its outward manifestations. In his dialogue with the unregenerate, Wesley observes:

Perhaps you will say, 'But this internal evidence of Christianity affects only those in whom the promise is fulfilled. It is not evidence to me' . . . . And yet it may bring a degree of evidence, it may reflect some light on you also.

For first, you see the beauty and loveliness of Christianity. . .

Secondly, you know the Scripture promises this, and says it is attained by faith, and by no other way.

Thirdly, you see clearly how desirable Christian faith is, even on account of its own intrinsic value.

Fourthly, you are a witness, that the holiness and happiness above described can be attained no other way. . . . Thus far you have personal experience.

Fifthly. . . . Now transfer this to the case before us: And those who were blind, but now see,—those who were sick many years, but now are healed,—those who were miserable, but now are happy,—will afford you also a very strong evidence of the truth of Christianity; . . .56

Wesley was convinced about the effectiveness of this love. As he wrote to Bishop Thomas Secker (alias 'John Smith'), "The speaking of faith working by love, of uniform outward religion springing from inward, has already been the means of converting several Deists and one Atheist (if not more) into real Chrigtiang."57 The outward evidence which was the principle means of convincing others was love.

As was noted, the identification of feeling in terms of the moral quality of love was his principle defense against enthusiasm. The language of experience and feeling has been frequently distorted both by its proponents and opponents to mean unusual and extraordinary emotional manifestations. This was not what Wesley meant, anymore than it was what Schleiermacher intended by his definition of religion as a "feeling of absolute dependence." Wesley had to defend himself and his Methodists from this misapprehension. The two basic accusations in Wesley's day were that the Methodists laid claim to an extraordinary inspiration, not available to all, and that they excited or indulged in emotional excesses. Wesley's careful answer regarding feeling was that he was not talking about emotional manifestations, but rather about the perceptible evidence of love and other graces. His repeated distinction is "by the operations (inspirations or workings) of the Spirit, I do not mean the manner in which he operates, but the graces which He operates (inspires or works) in a Christian."58 He made a similar distinction in his letter to Dr. Thomas Rutherford (March 28, 1768)59 and rebuked Rutherford's misinterpretation of Wesley's "Journal." He asks, "in which of these passages do I 'call fallings and roarings by the name of convictions?' Excuse me; if I cannot distinguish God from the devil, I can at least distinguish the soul from the body."60 Rutherford had quoted Wesley's description of some that professed "feeling the blood of Christ running down their arms, or going down their throats, or poured like water upon their breast and heart." Wesley's response was "I will tell you more. I was so disgusted at them for those dreams, that I expelled them out of the society."61 Wesley sought to guard his methods from dependence upon both emotionalism and inner impression. As he wrote to Thomas Maxwell,

I dislike something that has the appearance of enthusiasm, over-valuing feeling and inward impressions; mistaking the mere work of imagination for the voice of the Spirit; expecting the end without the means; and undervaluing reason, knowledge, and wisdom in general.62

In practice this distinction between emotions and the inward fruits of the spirit was difficult to maintain. As Wesley admitted in his correspondence with Archbishop Thomas Secker, the 'John Smith' of his correspondence, "It is not easy (at least to me) to be 'always zealously affected in a good thing' without being so sometimes affected in things of an indifferent nature."63 Archbishop Secker had written to him, "The son of a Wesley and an Annesley is in no danger of lukewarmness, but ought to take great care on the side of impetuosity and zea1."64 Even here, though, Wesley makes the same careful distinction between the degree of emotion and love: "I detest all zeal which is any other than the flame of love."65 As he stated in his sermon "On Zeal," "Christian zeal is all love. . . . It is fervent love. True Christian zeal is no other than the flame of love."66 Thus true Christian experience, even as emotion, must be evaluated by whether it purely expresses love. Even where God is genuinely present Wesley wanted to be careful to keep the graces in focus, rather than the manner or degree. Thus to Rutherford's attempt to pick on some of Wesley's own witnesses, Wesley replied, " 'Lucy God shall felt the love of God in an unusual manner.' She did, I mean in an unusual degree," and regarding another incident about which he had written,

I mean thereby that the comfort which God administers, not his power distinct from it, the love and purity which he works, not his act of working distinguished from it, are as clearly discernible by the soul as outward objects by the senses. And I never so much as dreamed that any one could find any other meaning in the words.67

As he also explained to Rutherford, "(1) The fruit of his ordinary influences are love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness. (2) Whoever has these, inwardly feels them; and if he understands the Bible, he discerns from whence they came. Observe, what he inwardly feels is these fruits themselves: Whence they come, he learns from the Bible."68

In summarizing his arguments regarding "inward feelings," Wesley made love central, "For take away the love of God and our neighbor, the peace of God, and joy in the Holy Ghost, or, which comes to the same, deny that they are felt, and what remains but a poor lifeless shadow?"69 Similarly, in his correspondence to Archbishop Secker his repeated description of that which is perceived was "faith, hope, and love,"70 and "peace and joy and love."71

For Wesley, even where a person claims not to have had the witness, love is still the measure. While arguing for the perceptible witness, he nowhere argued that those who have not the witness are by that fact alone, outside of God's covenant of salvation. As he wrote to Secker, there are many, including himself, before 1738, who are in

"invincible ignorance. In this case, undoubtedly many thousands are saved who never heard of these doctrines; and I am inclined to think this was our own case, both at Oxford and for some time after. Yet I doubt not but, had we been called hence, God would first, by this inspiration of His Spirit, have wrought in our hearts that holy love without which none can enter glory."72

In the letter of June, 1746, he reaffirmed this principle.73

Over and above a doctrine of the perceptible witness, what matters most is the reality of love. As he stated in the same correspondence,

I suppose that every Christian believer, over and above the imperceptible influence, hath a direct perceptible testimony of the Spirit that he is a child of God. . . .

I would add that I regard even faith itself not as an end but a means only. The end of the commandment is love, of every command, of the whole Christian dispensation. Let this love be attained, by whatever means, and I am content; I desire no more. All is well, if we love the Lord our God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves.74

Thus we see that for Wesley, what mattered was the presence of love. It is love, with also the other fruits of the spirit, which is that which can be distinctly perceived. When love is not present, all experiences are invalid.

As is evident in the previous quotation, though he clearly states the primacy of love, he is nevertheless affirming the importance of the witness. Thus in the same correspondence Wesley gives the often quoted testimony which Samuel Wesley gave to John on his deathbed, "The inward witness, son, the inward witness . . . that is the proof, the strongest proof, of Christianity." When John asked him, " 'Sir, are you in much pain?' he answered aloud, with a smile, 'God does chasten me with pain—yea, all my bones with strong pain; but I thank Him for all, I bless Him for all, I love Him for all!' "75 In this, both the witness and its content, love, are present.

This same correspondence asks whether this witness is given instantaneously. Wesley answers, "I do not deny that God imperceptibly works in some a gradually increasing assurance of his love."76 As is evident, what matters is that the change wrought is love.

When Wesley analyzes the witness of the spirit into components of perception, each one of these components of perception or feeling has love as its chief characteristic. These components of perception include the direct and indirect witness. Furthermore, the direct witness contains two witnesses, God's Spirit and ours. As he states in his first discourse on "The Witness of the Spirit" written in 1746: The "testimony of the Spirit of God must needs in the very nature of things, be antecedent to the testimony of our own spirit."77 In 1767 he affirmed the same, but around the evidence of love: "Now we cannot love God, till we know he loves us: 'We love him, because he first loved us': And we cannot know his love to us, till his Spirit witnesses to our spirit."78

God's love is central to the witness, not only initially, so that "We 'know the things that are freely given us of God,' "79 (1 Cor. 2:12), but also throughout the life of the Christian. God's witness quietens the troubled, especially the babe in Christ who is aware of the carnal mind, about whom he writes, "And which way can these souls possibly be comforted, but by a divine testimony (not that they are good or sincere, or conformable to the Scripture in heart and life, but) that God justifieth the ungodly."80 Faith itself is "A divine elegchos (evidence or conviction) of the love of God the Father, through the Son of his love, to him a sinner, now accepted in the Beloved."81 For Wesley, God's love is the identifiable sign of his presence.

The direct witness of our own spirit is also love and as such can be distinctly perceived. He asks, "How does it appear, that we do love God and our neighbor, and that we keep his commandments . . . [That is,] How does it appear to ourselves, not to others?" He answers,

How does it appear to you that you are alive . . . ? Are you not immediately conscious of it? By the same immediate consciousness, you will know if your soul is alive to God; if you are saved from the pain of proud wrath, and have the ease of a quiet Spirit. By the same you must be directly assured, if you love your neighbor as yourself; if you are kindly affectioned to all mankind, and full of gentleness and longsuffering . . .

He continues,

Now this is properly the testimony of our own spirit; even the testimony of our own conscience, that God hath given us to be holy of heart, and holy in outward conversation. It is a consciousness of our having received, in and by the Spirit of adoption, the tempers mentioned in the Word of God, as belonging to his adopted children; even a loving heart toward God, and toward all mankind;82

One indirect witness is the witness of our conscience, functioning empirically and discursively:

God has made us thinking beings, capable of perceiving what is present, and of reflecting or looking back on what is past. In particular, we are capable of perceiving whatsoever passes in our own hearts or lives; . . . But what we usually term conscience, implies somewhat more than this. . . . Its main business is to excuse or accuse, to approve or disapprove, to acquit or condemn.83

The conscience itself is love in operation. It is the law written upon the heart. This is "that blessed love of God . . . 'shed abroad in our hearts' which enables us to love one another as Christ loved us."84 This is partially restored to those in the natural man and the servant states, but is fully restored in those who have become sons of God by faith. "Faith," Wesley writes, "was originally designed of God to re-establish the law of love. . . . It is the grand means of restoring the holy love wherein man was originally created."85

Wesley wants all to go beyond the indirect witness. As he states, "Yet all this is no other than rational evidence, the witness of our spirit, our reason, our understanding. It all resolves into this: Those who have these marks are children of God."86 The empirical evidence is made secure by the conjoining of the direct and indirect witness. "And while they are joined, we cannot be deluded: Their testimony can be depended upon."87 Love is the essential quality and the thread running through each aspect of the witness. God's witness, my witness and the witness of a transformed life.

We can now again ask Wesley the question, How can we know which experience or feeling is true? In his first discourse on "The Witness of the Spirit" (1746) Wesley answers,

Hereby you shall know, that you are in no delusion, that you have not deceived your own soul. The immediate fruits of the Spirit, ruling in the heart, agree 'love, joy, peace, bowels of mercies, humbleness of mind, meekness, gentleness, longsuffering.' And the outward fruits are, the doing good to all men, the not doing evil to any; and the walking in the light,—a zealous, uniform obedience to all the commandments of God.88

Briefly stated: for Wesley, "You know that you are in no delusion" by love. Thus the consistent principle by which Wesley evaluates the Christian experience is love. He asks, do you have the inner witness of God's love to you, and do you have both the direct and indirect inner evidence and the indirect external evidence of your life that you love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and your neighbor as yourself?

To understand Christian experience as fulfillment of the Biblical promise brings into focus the primacy of scripture. While discussing the comparative value of experience and tradition, Wesley could say about the inward principle. "And this I conceive to be the strongest evidence of the truth of Christianity."89 What must be remembered, as already noted, is that "the truth [or knowledge] of Christianity" is derived from scripture. As he said about the person who asked about the source of the inward feelings of "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness," "if he understands the Bible, he discerns from whence they come. Observe, what he inwardly feels is the fruits themselves: whence they come, he learns from the Bible."90

The Bible itself is never sufficient in and of itself but it is intertwined with the other authorities of the quadrilateral. Though Wesley could describe himself as "homo unius libri," "a man of one book,"91 the Bible must be correlated with both reason and experience. Wesley's strong statement is "that to renounce reason is to renounce religion; that reason and religion go hand in hand.''92

Yet reason, experience, and scripture are insufficient, because a further question must be asked, who is "the safest guide" to interpret scripture? Wesley's answer is, he who "has meditated on these things, and given himself wholly to them." If such persons have not done so, though they "understand philosophy ever so well, and be such critics in Greek and Hebrew, 'they will pervert the Scriptures when they pretend to interpret them' and that not only to their own destruction."93 That which has priority "for a guide of souls" and by implication, an interpreter of scriptures "is, a faith unfeigned, the love of God and our neighbor, a burning zeal for the advancement of God's Kingdom, with an heart and life wholly devoted to God."94 To be "homo unius libri," "a man of one book,"95 as Wesley describes himself, is not just to be a man knowledgeable in the scripture, but a man saturated in it both as word and life. Using some of the language of Rutherford, Wesley contrasted his lay preachers to "cursing, swearing, drinking clergyman" and in the process gives his own pictures of a sound interpreter of scripture. His typical lay preacher is "a tradesman, who has . . . 'from childhood known the Holy Scriptures, and has for five years (to say no more) faithfully and diligently made use of all the helps, which the English tongue has put into his hand, who has given attendance to reading, has meditated on these things, and given himself wholly to them."96

The importance of a godly life is based on the fact that sound interpretation is dependent upon God's aid. His opponents sought to turn this claim to God's assistance for the unlearned and unordained, but godly tradesmen preachers into the accusation, "What! Then you make yourselves like the Apostles." Wesley replied with an affirmation that God who equipped the apostles was able to prepare the Methodists:

Woe unto every ambassador of Christ, who is not like the Apostles in this! in holiness, in making full proof of his ministry in spending and in being spent for Christ! We cannot, and therefore we need not, be like them in working outward miracles; but we may, and ought, in working together with God for the salvation of men. And the same God who was always ready to help their infirmities, is ready to help ours also. He who made them 'workmen that needed not to be ashamed, will teach U9 also 'rightly to divide the truth.'97

Some, such as Archbishop Secker, saw in this type of answer an appeal to the value of ignorance. Wesley denied this. Furthermore, when Thomas Maxfield, George Bell, and others became unteachable because they thought they were perfect, Wesley rebuked Thomas Maxfield:

I dislike your saying that one saved from sin needs nothing more than looking to Jesus, needs not to hear or think of any thing else; believe, believe, is enough; that he needs no self-examination, no times of private prayer; needs not mind little or outward things; and that he cannot be taught by any person who is not in the same state.98

Thus his appeal was not to ignorance but to understanding equipped by love.

The importance of love to his theological method is evidenced not only by affirming that the trustworthy exegete is one who loves, but also in that within scripture, a writing is given comparative value in relationship both to the holiness of the author and the moral content of the scripture itself. There is some danger of magnifying Wesley's few statements into a radically moralistic approach to scripture. Nevertheless, he does give the principle in Discourse I, of the series of sermons "Upon Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount," that "from the character of the speaker we are well assured that he hath declared the full and perfect will of God."99 Wesley seems to judge Paul's writing in this way. After stating, "That the generality of believers whom we have hitherto known (Aug. 2, 1745) were not so sanctified till near death," he further adds about Paul, "Nor he himself at the time of writing his former Epistles."100 Was Wesley making a judgment regarding Galatians, especially its contentious passages? If he was, he does not reveal this opinion either in his translation or comments on Acts 15:39 and Galatians 2:9 and 5:12.101 One could well imagine that Paul's language in Galatians was in violation of Wesley's standard of perfect love. This opinion is further implied by Wesley when in dialogue with those who taught that of necessity, all sin in thought, word, and deed every day, he kept open the possibility that Paul, Peter and Barnabas may have sinned in this contention.102

Wesley did compare scripture with scripture, even in an evaluative sense. For example, in identifying the law which Paul says is good (1 Tim. 1:8), he made a sharp distinction between "the Mosaic dispensation," "that imperfect and shadowy dispensation"103 and the New Law in Christ. The comparison being made is not between the texts of the Old and New Testament so much as between dispensations, between that written on stone and that written upon the heart.104 Nevertheless, a comparison between the Old and New Testaments is implied. He also compared the law-giver Moses and "the great Author of it himself."105 It is as the "authentic comment on all the branches of [the law]" by the Great Law-giver, that the Sermon on the Mount and other teachings of Jesus surpass all other passages of scripture.

Love is central to his hermeneutic. Even a passage of Scripture, Wesley says, cannot prove "that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works— that is, whatever it prove beside, no scripture can prove predestination." '[It were better] to say it had no sense at all, than to say it had such a sense as this."106 Similarly, in the introduction to his book of worship for the American churches, he states that there were "Many Psalms left out and many parts of others, as being highly improper for the mouths of a Christian Congregation."107 The psalms omitted are the psalms of imprecation.

There is a limit to such an exegesis for Wesley. Though he may work comparatively within scripture, he does not do so to the rejection of scripture. He will not follow William Law in the logic of love so as to deny God's wrath and judgment versus sin. Part of his rejection of William Law's thesis was his concern for the doctrine of the atonement. As he wrote to Mary Bishop, "But it is certain, had God never been angry, He could never have been reconciled. So that, in affirming this, Mr. Law strikes at the very root of the Atonement."108 A further concern was for the validity of scripture. As he wrote cryptically to William Law, "No hell, no heaven, no revelation."109

That love is his coordinating principle in exegesis can also be seen by examining several of his sermons. An investigation of Wesley's thirteen discourses, "Upon Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount," reveals that all of these are constantly ordered by the theme of love. Discourses VI and VII may be exceptions, but even these tell the reader, 'do not forget love.' This is true even in Discourse VII, which is a somewhat medieval exposition on fasting and on the dangers of "sensualizing the soul."110 This sermon describes the soul as "sinking into a level with the beasts that perish" and "the inferior appetites [as those] which naturally tend to chain it down to earth."111 Discourse VI (1750) interprets the Lord's Prayer around the theme of intention. Though Wesley does not focus this sermon toward love, he affixed to it a nine stanza poem, entitled "A Paraphrase On the Lord's Prayer," which is a trinitarian exposition of love.113 In this the "FATHER of all" shows "bounteous love to all . . . and fillest every ["creature's"] mouth with good." His hallowed name, his "attributes divine" are described as, "Wisdom and might, and love are thine. " His reign on earth is a work of love equipping us to do His will: As Creator,

Thee Sovereign Lord let all confess

That moves in earth, or air, or sky;

Revere thy power, thy goodness bless

Jehovah reigns! Be glad, O earth!

And shout, ye morning stars, for joy!

As Redeemer

Son of thy Sire's eternal love,

Take to thyself thy mighty power;

Let all earth's sons thy mercy prove,

Let all thy bleeding grace adore.

The triumphs of thy love display . . .

As indwelling Spirit,

Spirit of grace, and health, and power,

Fountain of light and love below;

Abroad thine healing influence shower,

O'er all the nations let it flow.

Inflame our hearts with perfect love;

In us the work of faith fulfil,

So not heaven's host shall swifter move

Than we on earth to do thy will.

The work which faith fulfills is love. The poem also affirms that through the continuous grace of "the living bread" and the ever-sprinkling of the blood of the "Eternal, spotless lamb of God," God equips us to forgive men their trespasses and reveal his love to all. Thus,

To every soul (all praise to Thee!)

Our bowels of compassion move:

And all mankind by this may see

God is in us; for God is love.

The result is,

Blessing and honor, praise and love

to the

Co-equal, co-eternal Three.

Discourse VIII, which further develops the theme of intention begun in Discourse VI, around Jesus' words, "the light of the body is the eye" (Matthew 6:22), defines intention as "the eye of the soul" and "the eye of the mind." For Wesley, intention's purpose is to be the spiritual eye "fixed . . . on God in Christ . . . [until] we are more and more filled with the love of God and man."114 The telos of intention is love. Both faith and intention are the means to love immediately, finally and eternally. Other characteristics are introduced as worthy goals of intention, but love for God and man is the goal which is consistently mentioned. Other doctrines are correlated with love, including an interpretation of Acts 2:42 in which communion (koinonia) is interpreted by "they had all things common" (Acts 4:32). Wesley indicates his meaning by the command, "We charge you who are rich in this world . . . to be habitually doing good, to live in a course of good works. . . . Be a steward, a faithful and wise steward, of God and the poor."115 What Wesley implies in Discourse VI he makes explicit in Discourse VIII.

A similar relationship exists between two discourses which follow the series on the Sermon on the Mount. Both are entitled "The Law Established Through Faith." In Discourse I, the Law is the moral law, in relationship to which love is only mentioned. In the second, the Law is love. Faith, its handmaid, is a means toward it. As he says, "Faith, then, was originally designed of God to re-establish the law of love."116 Love is thus the telos of Divine purpose.

In "Sermon on the Mount, Discourse I," the kingdom that belongs to the poor in spirit is "the image of God stamped upon the heart . . . [which is] but the love of God, because he first loved us, and the love of all mankind for his sake,"117 and comfort by "his Spirit" is a "fresh manifestation of his love."118

Sermons II, VIII, and IX of this series deal with the restoration of the image. Love is described in Sermon II as the goal of the Christian's desire:

The painful thirst, the fond desire,

Thy joyous presence shall remove,

But my full soul shall still require

A whole eternity of love.119

Love for God and neighbor are applied in sermon XIII. Faith is the power to love in sermons IV, V, VIII, IX, and X. The inwardness of love is taught in III, VIII, and IX.

After his thirteen sermons on the Sermon on the Mount, Wesley added three sermons on the Law in which he first by implication and then explicitly defines the law as love, and then faith as the handmaid who brings us to love. In these, love is described as both the original condition and the ground and the goal of all. Thus it can be concluded that love is the authoritative principle by which scripture is interpreted.

These sermons take us beyond hermeneutics and demonstrate that love is the coordinating principle within the rational process. Reason, along with scripture, is always mentioned when he is listing the Quadrilateral. Experience or tradition may interchange.120 "We prove the doctrines we preach by Scripture and reason; and, if need be, by antiquity."121 This is not to say that reason is more important than experience—"Our ideas are not innate, but must all originally come from our senses"122—but that demonstrating that Methodism was reasonable was essential to his dialogue with his Anglican peers. "Experience" could be and was translated "enthusiasm" by his opponents who were not observing his careful use of the term. Wesley was far from being an irrationalist. Thus, when Dr. Thomas Rutherford charged that

"It is a fundamental principle in the Methodist school, that all who come into it must renounce their reason," Wesley retorted, "Sir, are you awake . . . ? It is a fundamental principle with us, that to renounce reason is to renounce religion; that religion and reason go hand in hand— and that all irrational religion is false religion."123

His emphasis upon reason not only occurred in defense but also against "enthusiasm" within Methodism and in his rejection of mysticism. Thus he rebuked Thomas Maxfield, one of his preachers, for "undervaluing reason, knowledge, and wisdom in general."124 He rejected the "mystic divines," that "utterly decry the use of reason."125 He valued scripture precisely because it is reasonable. Hebrews surpasses "all the productions of ancient or modern time" in its "chain of reasoning or argumentation" and Paul of Tarsus is "the strongest reasoner whom we have ever observed (excepting only Jesus of Nazareth)."126 After re-reading Luther's commentary on Galatians in 1741, he observed,

How does he (almost in the words of Tauler) decry reason, right or wrong, as an irreconcilable enemy to the Gospel of Christ! Whereas, what is reason (the faculty so called) but the power of apprehending, judging and discoursing? Which is no more to be condemned in the gross, than seeing, hearing, or feeling.127

Contained in this statement is Wesley's definition of reason: "The power of apprehending, judging, and discoursing." Similarly, in his "An Earnest Appeal" (1743), "before it is possible for you to form a true judgment, . . . it is necessary that you have a clear apprehension . . . fixed, distinct, and determinite."128 Discourse is "the inferring one thing from another."129 In his sermon, "The Case of Reason Impartially Considered" (1781), he defined the components of reason as follows:

Simple apprehension is barely conceiving a thing in the mind; the first and most simple act of the understanding. Judgment is the determining that the things before conceived either agree with or differ from each other. Discourse, strictly speaking, is the motion or progress of the mind from one judgment to another.130

He concludes, "The faculty which includes these three operations I here mean by the term reason."131 Where experience enters the process, for Wesley, is that "our ideas are not innate, but must all originally come from our senses."132 In his appeals to the "Men of Reason and Religion," both "An Earnest Appeal" and "Farther Appeals," he repeatedly appeals to (1) experience, (2) "Reasonable Men"—a common sense concept—and (3) consistency to one's own principles. By this last, when addressing Christians and Jews, he argues for consistency with Biblical principles. To the other men of Reason and Religion, he appeals to conscience and the evidence from nature itself.

That which is central to our investigation is that he makes love the principle which cannot be avoided if we are truly reasonable. This does not mean that reason can produce love. He specifically denies the possibility. Reason alone cannot produce faith or hope and thus, as he says, "however cultivated and improved, cannot produce the love of God" or neighbor.133 This latter love he defines as "a calm, generous, disinterested, benevolence to every child of man."134 True to his empirical theory, that which is needed are "spiritual senses. . . . the hearing ear and the seeing eye."135 Though love so defined is not possible to the natural man from his own experience, as Wesley testifies, the rational necessity of it is one of his appeals to the man who neither believes the Scripture nor "the Christian system to be of God."136

The religion Wesley would talk about to these is one that is "worthy of God that gave it." This, he states, "we conceive to be no other than love; the love of God and of all mankind; the loving God with all our heart and soul and strength, as having first loved us, as the fountain of all the good we have received, and of all we ever hope to enjoy; and the loving every soul which God hath made every man on earth, as our own soul."137 This religion he further describes as "The religion of love: the law of kindness brought to light by the gospel. What is this good for? To make all who receive it enjoy God and themselves; to make them like God, lovers of all."138

The very language used in reference to God, such as "worthy of God," "from above," "just and good" are, as he comments, "attributes inseparable from the very idea of God."139 >From this premise regarding God's goodness, he then argues, "ought we not thus to seek him with all diligence?"140 Wesley then appeals to their "own conscience" and asks them, "Is it not reasonable to love God? . . . Whether, therefore, you do love God or no, you cannot but own 'tis reasonable so to do; nay, seeing he is the parent of all good, to love him with all your heart."

In all of this Wesley argued that love is reasonable. Thus he asked, "Is it not reasonable to love our neighbor: every man whom God hath made?"141 Regarding love for neighbor, he asked, "And can there be a more equitable rule of our love" and affirmed, "You will plead for the reasonableness of this, as also for that golden rule (the only adequate measure of brotherly love, in all our words and actions), "whatsoever that ye would that men should do unto you, even so do unto them."142 Wesley pushed reason toward its ultimate concern and declared that its goal is love. As he addressed these non biblical "Men of Reason and Religion,"

But one question still remains to be asked: 'What do you mean by reason?' I suppose you mean the eternal reason, or the nature of things: the nature of God and man, with the relations necessarily subsisting between them. Why, this is the very religion we preach: a religion evidently founded on, and every way agreeable to eternal reason, to the essential nature of things. . . . it begins in knowing him. . . . It goes on in loving him and all mankind—for you cannot but imitate whom you love. It ends in serving him in doing his will, in obeying him whom we know and love."143

Love, being the very religion that reasonable men want and because it is unattainable by reason, ought to be sought where it is promised. Nevertheless, these rational men tolerate the idea of being saved by love, but not by faith. But to reject faith knowing that it promises the reasonable religion of love is irrational. Wesley's reason is, "You cannot do this without a secret condemnation in your own breast. O that you would at length cry to God for that heavenly gift whereby alone this truly reasonable religion, this beneficent love for God and man, can be planted in your heart! "144

In turning to those who believe in both scripture and Christianity, the rational principle Wesley argues is consistency. To these men of Reason and Religion, he asks, "Do you answer to the character under which you appear? If so, you are confident with yourselves: your principles and your practices agree together."145 He then questions whether their claim is true: "How is it you call yourselves men of reason? Is reason inconsistent with itself? . . . A common swearer, a sabbath-breaker, a whoremonger, is a monster upon earth, the greatest contradiction to his own as well as to the reason of mankind . . . Either profess you are an infidel, or be a Christian."146 The religion which is consistent with the Bible and "which alone is of value before God, is. . . the religion of love."147 In "A Farther Appeal. . . . Part II," he addresses the old non-conformists, Quakers and Baptists ("Anabaptists"), and asks whether their lives are consistent with what they teach, especially whether their lives are in harmony with love for God and neighbor. To the Quaker who is still wearing black, but now expensive black, he asks, "surely you cannot be ignorant that the sinfulness of fine apparel lies chiefly in the expensiveness. In that it is robbing God and the poor: it is defrauding the fatherless and widow: it is wasting the food of the hungry, and withholding his raiment from the naked to consume it on our own lusts."148 The Quakers failed in love for neighbor. As they prospered, and after they had ministered to their own, they "did not bestow what was more than enough for all your own ["all that you had to spare"], on the poor belonging to other societies.149

No stronger statement could be made regarding the centrality of love for Wesley, than the following affirmation of Wesley's in his "Farther Appeal:"

No stress has been placed on anything as though it were necessary to salvation but what is undeniably contained in the Word of God. And of the things contained therein the stress laid on each has been in proportion to the nearness of its relation to what is there laid down as the sum of all—the love of God and neighbor. So pure from superstition, so thoroughly scriptural is that religion which has lately spread in this nation.

"It is likewise rational, as well as scriptural; it is as pure from enthusiasm as from superstition. . . . Who will prove that it is enthusiasm to love God?150

Love is central to both the interpretation of scripture and rational method.

The centrality of love in Wesley's concept of reason is further demonstrated by a brief review of some of his doctrines. Wesley's statement that "Love is the sum of Christian sanctification"151 takes on new significance as does his identification of perfection as perfect love. Love is not oriented toward this single issue, but permeates all of life. As noted in the hierarchy of ideas, "the stress laid on each has been in proportion to [its] . . . nearness . . . to . . . the love of God and neighbor." The same pattern of priorities is found in his doctrine of the Church. In his sermon "On Zeal," which he describes as a treatise on "comparative divinity,"152 love expressed as love for God and neighbor, takes priority over the Church and its ordinances. The church is a means toward love. Love itself is the summum bonum: "see that you must be zealous for love."153

This teleology of love is also seen in its relationship to faith. A study of this relationship also gives more precise understanding of Wesley's analogy of salvation, that repentance is the porch, faith the door, and holiness the house. Faith is the means to make love operative, but as means faith becomes secondary to love. Love is the Summum Bonum. Faith, for Wesley, is grace for fallen man. In this he follows Clement of Alexandria who said, "Faith, so to speak, is the attempt generated in time; the final result is the attainment of the promise, secured for eternity."154 One could hardly expect Luther to make the following statement by Wesley:

What St. Paul observed concerning the superior glory of the gospel, above that of the law, may, with great propriety, be spoken of the superior glory of love, above that of faith. . . . Yea, all the glory of faith, before it is done away, arises hence, that it ministers to love: It is the great temporary means which God has ordained to promote that eternal end.''155

Though love never ceases, faith shall. As he comments in his Notes on 1 Cor. 13: "Faith, hope, love—are the sum of perfection on earth; love alone is the sum of perfection in heaven." And in his Sermons, "The angels . . . had no occasion for faith." Neither did Adam. Only fallen man needs faith.156

For Wesley, faith answers to two lacks in fallen man: his lack of knowledge and his lack of moral right and ability. These two lacks relate to two kinds or operations of faith. The first is "faith in its general notion." This is "faith . . . as the evidence of things not seen, whose office is to supply the want of sight."157 The second is "faith in particular" which is "faith in the blood of Jesus"158 and "in the atonement"159 or stated as trust in God, "confidence in redeeming love"160 and "confidence in a pardoning God.''161 Neither of these faiths is needed by angels or man before the fall, but both are needed after the fall. Faith, to Wesley, is a special grace for fallen man, grace for an inferior dispensation.

Regarding faith in "its general notion," his argument is that "the angels who, from the moment of their creation, beheld the face of their Father that is in heaven, had no occasion for faith." Similarly, Adam before the fall did not need faith since "it is highly probable that Adam, before he rebelled against God, walked with Him by sight, and not by faith. . . . He was then able to talk with Him face to face."162 This faith is fulfilled in sight.

Faith in general is closely related to the rational faculty of intention. Both intention and faith are described by Wesley as "the eye of the soul."163 Both are the means by which "we are more and more filled with the love of God and man"164 and "our affections are more and more loosened from earth, and fixed on things above. So that faith, in general, is the most direct and effectual means of promoting all righteousness and true holiness; of establishing the holy and spiritual law in the hearts of them that believe."165 Here faith in its general sense contributes to the restoration of the image, which as the law written upon the hearts, is love.

Just as faith in the general sense was not needed by angels or man before the fall, so also faith in the particular redemptive sense was not needed before man sinned. Faith in this sense "pre-supposes sin, and the wrath of God declared against the sinner. . . . Consequently, as there was no need of an atonement before the fall, so there was no place for faith in that atonement."166 This is saving faith and is distinct from faith in general," which establishes "the holy and spiritual law in the hearts of them that believe."167 Faith . . . in a pardoning God . . . enables us . . . to give our hearts to Him who was given for us."168 This faith also is fulfilled in love. "Faith [in this particular redemptive sense] . . . was originally designed of God to reestablish the law of love. . . . It is the grand means of restoring that holy love wherein man was originally created . . . it leads to that end, the establishing anew the law of love in our hearts.''169 He further adds:

For there is no motive so powerfully inclines us to love God, as the sense of the love of God in Christ. And from this principle of grateful love to God arises love to our brother also . . . this love to man, grounded on faith and love to God, 'worketh no ill to' our neighbor": consequently it is . . . 'the fulfilling of the whole negative 'law' . . . ["likewise"]. It continually incites us to do good. . . . It is therefore, the fulfilling of the positive law.170

The difference between Wesley and Luther is that for Luther justification is the coordinate, whereas for Wesley love was. In Wesley with love as the coordinate, what happens to faith? (1) Faith becomes a means toward the goal of love; (2) faith is temporal; (3) faith is a handmaid to eternity; (4) nevertheless, faith is essential until faith becomes sight and entire love is perfected in the eternal life with God.

Regarding this last, Wesley is very careful not to imply, as did the mystics, that faith could be eclipsed by union, sight, knowledge, or even love in this life. The fact is that for Wesley, in this life we always need the atonement. There is no such perfect freedom from sin in this life or perfect love that we no longer need particular faith, faith in a crucified Savior, and no such perfect knowledge that we no longer need general faith.

How important love is to him as a rational discipline is seen in that it is precisely when discussing love that he comes the closest to becoming what he tried to avoid, that is, becoming a speculative theologian. Wesley has a metaphysic of love. As he stated, "the heaven of heavens is love"171 and regarding God, love "is His darling, His reigning attribute, the attribute that sheds an amiable glory on all his other perfections.''172

His metaphysical tendency is evident in his sermons dealing with the Law, especially "The Original, Nature, Property, and Use of the Law" and "The Law Established Through Faith, Discourse II." In the first of these he is defining the "law [which] is holy, . . . just, and good" (Rom. 7:12). This law "is not the ceremonial law," "neither . . . the Mosaic dispensation." "The Apostle," Wesley says, "never bestows so high commendations as these upon that imperfect and shadowy dispensation. He nowhere affirms the Mosaic to be a spiritual law or; that it is holy, and just, and good."173 Instead, it "is no other than the moral law."174 "It is the face of God unveiled. . . . It is the heart of God disclosed to man."175 "The law of God is all the virtues in one."176 It is "the law of liberty," "the law of mercy and truth, of love to God and man, of lowliness, meekness and purity."177 As he forthrightly states, "O stand fast in this liberty . . . ! Stand fast in loving God and to walk in all his commandments.''178

In the following, love takes on a personification similar to "Wisdom" in Proverbs 8; then like the divine Logos of John, it becomes Christ: These laws in one are "in such a shape as to be beheld with open face by all those whose eyes God hath enlightened. What is the law but divine virtue and wisdom assuming a visible form?"179 It is "the offspring of God, . . . the copy of all his imitable perfections.''180 Both Christ and love seem to be intended by reference to the eternal law, for the sermon closes; " 'Look unto Jesus;' and in order thereto, look more and more into the perfect law, 'the law of liberty'; and 'continue therein'; so shalt thou daily 'grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.' "181 The moral law is also described as "an incorruptible picture of the High and Holy One that inhabiteth eternity. . . . It is the face of God unveiled;. . . . It is. . . the streaming forth or out beaming of his glory, the express image of his person."182

In the sermon, "The Law Established Through Faith, II," the law which is eternal is specifically described as love. Thus love is described as pre-existent, as the original nature of angels and men at their creation and as the telos of all that is made. It is cosmic, transcendent and eternal: "Love existed from eternity, in God, the great ocean of love. Love had a place in all the children of God, from the moment of their creation: They received at once, from their gracious Creator, to exist and to love."183 This latter is, of course, a direct allusion to his statement regarding "the original of the law of God." "With regard to man, it was coequal with his nature; but with regard to the elder sons of God [the angels], it shone in its full splendour."184

In the following Wesley gives a metaphysical application to the words, "the end of the commandment is love."185

God hath given this honor to love alone: Love is the end of all the commandments of God. Love is the end, the sole end, of every dispensation of God, from the beginning of the world to the consummation of all things. And it will endure when heaven and earth flee away; for "love" alone "never faileth.''186

The law, then, which is "the streaming forth or out beaming of his glory" 187 is love. Notice how he waxes eloquent over the eternal law, which is love:

We may trace its origin higher still, even beyond the foundation of the world; to that period, unknown indeed to men, but doubtless enrolled in the annals of eternity, when 'the morning stars' first 'sang together,' being newly called into existence. It pleased the great Creator to make these, his firstborn sons, intelligent beings that they might know Him that created them.188

In this passage he could have been a ghost writer for J.R.R. Tolkien in his Silmarillion.189 Again, Wesley states:

Love is the end of all the commandments of God. Love is the end, the sole end of every dispensation of God, from the beginning of the world to the consummation of all things. And it will endure when heaven and earth flee away; for 'love' alone 'never faileth.' Faith will totally fail; it will lie swallowed up in sight, in the everlasting vision of God. But even then, love,—


Its nature and its office still the same,
Lasting its lamp and unconsumed its flame,—
In deadless triumph shall for ever live
And endless good diffuse, and endless praise receive.190

These passages evidence that Wesley had a strong bent toward the speculative and mystical. No wonder he reacted so strongly to "Mr. Law's book on the New Birth" as "Philosophical, speculative, precarious; Behmenish, void and vain!"191 Yet what is important for us is that in this metaphysical exercise his logic is always the logic of love.

Love as the coordinating principle is nowhere more grandly expressed than in his eschatology regarding the Church. Though in a variety of ways and through a variety of terms, he had argued that love unites and that the Methodists ought to remain in the Church of England, nevertheless division was occurring. Wesley saw the inevitable. He ordained first for the Methodist Church in America, then for Scotland, and then for England itself, though the last is sometimes disputed. Amazingly, at the same time as he was ordaining, he was also writing his sermon, "The General Spread of the Gospel" (1783, AM), in which he looked forward to the day when God's promises regarding the church would be fulfilled. As he states,

The grand 'Pentecost' shall 'fully come' and 'devout men' in every nation under heaven . . . shall all be filled with the Holy Ghost . . . And there shall be no 'root of bitterness' springing up either to defile or trouble them. . . . There will be no partiality. . . . Consequently, . . . .

They all are of one mind and soul And only love informs the whole.192 Wesley was not blind toward the difficulty of attaining unity. In fact he questioned the physical possibility of organizational unity.193 Nevertheless, a union of love was possible. As he asks about the differences of opinion, "Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike?"194 Despite the artificial barriers which men or the devil have built, Wes1ey sought for a way to encourage "every child of God to say, . . . 'whosoever doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."195 He looked for the day when "the true primitive Christianity" of Catholic love should "spread over all the earth."196

The above exposition of Wesley's theology demonstrates the consistency of his thought and would underline his nomination by Outler as "the most important Anglican theologian in his century."197 Wesley is the theologian of love, but not just love in a speculative sense, but love which is both informed by scripture, reason, experience and tradition, and also is the coordinating principle around which these are organized. His system is love. In light of this research, it may be inadequate to refer to the quadrilateral alone, especially when we consider that for Wesley "only love informs the whole." Instead we must recognize a genuine quinquelateral of scripture, reason, experience, tradition and love.

Notes

1 "List of Poetical Works" II, IV, V, XLI; The Works of Rev. John Wesley, A.M., 3rd ed. (Ed. by Thomas Jackson. London: Wesleyan Methodist Book Room, 1829-31; reprint, 5th ed., London: Wesleyan Conference Office, n.d.), XIV, 319-345. Hereinafter referred to as Works. In his A Pocket Hymn Book, he referred back to this 1780 hymn book as having "a clear explication of every branch of speculative and practical divinity." Ibid, XLIX; Works, XIV, 345.

2 Albert C. Outler, John Wesley, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. vii.

3 See Frederick Dryer, "Faith and Experience in the Thought of John Wesley," American Historical Review (The American Historical Association, Feb., 1983), vol. 88, no. 1, p. 28.

4 Albert C. Outler, "John Wesley As A Theologian—Then and Now" (Willson Lectures at Wesley Theological Seminary, Washington, D.C., Oct. 18-19, 1973), p. 1.

5 "Preface, § 3, Sermons on Several Occasions, Series I"; Works, V, p. 2.

6 "A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion" Part III, (1745), § III, 15; Works, VIII, 224-225.

7 "A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion" Part III, (1745), § III, 13, 15; Works, VIII 223.

8 Albert Outler. John Wesley, p. 120.

9 Randy Maddox, "Responsible Grace: The Systematic Perspective of Wesleyan Theology" (A paper presented at the American Academy of Religion 1984), p. 10.

10 Dryer, p. 29.

11 "Preface," 5; Sermons on Several Occasions, Series I; Works, V, 3.

12 "Farther Thoughts on Christian Perfection" (1759); "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection" (1725-1777), § 19; Works, XI, 397.

13 Explanatory Notes on the New Testament (1754) (London: The Epworth Press, 1950), 1 John 4:8; p. 914.

14 Sermon: "On Patience" (Published 1784 in the Arminian Magazine, and preached, according to Timothy Smith, in 1761), § 10; Works, VI, 488.

15 John F. Burton, "Clio and Venus: An Historical View of Medieval Love" in The Meaning of Catholic Love, edited by F. X. Newman (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1968), pp. 29-30.

16 Donald R. Howard, The Three Temptations: Medieval Man in Search of the World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966), p. 19. He is summarizing from D. W. Robertson Jr.'s "Historical Criticism."

17 See my article "Separation or Unity? Sanctification and Love in Wesley's Doctrine of the Church" in Wesleyan Theological Perspectives, IV: The Church (Anderson, IN: Warner Press, Inc., 1984), pp. 333-395.

18 Sermon: "On Perfection" (1785 AM; 1761 Smith), §10; Works, VI, 412.

19 Letter, "To the Reverend Doctor Conyers Middleton (Jan. 4, 1749), § VI, III, 1; Works, X, 75. The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., ed. by John Telford (London: The Epworth Press, 1931), vol. II, p. 383. Hereinafter referred to as Letters.

20 Ibid, § VI, III, 2; Works, X, 75-76; Letters, II, 384.

21 Ibid, § VI, III, 3; Works, X, 76; Letters, II, 384.

22 Ibid, § VI, III, 4; Works,, VI, 76; Letters, II, 384.

23 Ibid, § VI, III, 6; Works, X; Letters, II, 385.

24 Ibid, § VI, III, Sects. 8-9; Works, X, 77; Letters, II, 386.

25 Ibid, § VI, II, 1-5; Works, X, 72-73; Letters, II, 380-81.

26 "Farther Thoughts on Separation From the Church of England" (1789), § 1-2; Works, XIII, 272.

27 Letter, "To Conyers Middleton" (1748-49), § III, 7; Works, X, 43.

28 Sermon: "The Ministerial Office" (1790 AM), §8; Works, VII,276. For another example, see Sermon: "Of Former Time," (1787 AM), § 16; Works, VII, 164.

29 "Ought We to Separate From the Church of England" (1755), § II. [4]; in the "Appendix" of Frank Baker's John Wesley and the Church of England (Nashville: 1970), pp. 330-331.

30 See The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. by Elizabeth Livingston (Oxford: 1977).

31 Letter, "To John Smith" (Sept.1745), § 20; Letters, II, p. 50. "It is believed that 'John Smith' was the nom de plume of Thomas Secker, who was born in 1693, was consecrated Bishop of Bristol in 1735, and in 1737 became Bishop of Oxford. . . . He was made Archbishop of Canterbury in 1758, and died in 1768," Telford, Introductory note to this correspondence (1745-1748); Letters, p. 48.

32 Letter, "To Conyers Middleton" (1748-49), § 4; Works, X, 1-21.

33 Sermon: "The Wisdom of God's Counsels (c. 1784), 9; Works, XIII, 328-329.

34 Ibid

35 Sermon: "Of Former Times" (1787), § II: Works, VII, 162.

36 Letter, "To the Editor of the London Chronicle" (Feb. 19, 1761), § I; Works, III, 42.

37 "Preface to The Epistles of the Apostolic Fathers, . . ." § II; "Preface to A Christian Library" (1749-1755); Works, XIV, 225.

38 Letter: "To Dr. Conyers Middleton" (Jan. 4, 1748-49), § VI, III; Works, X, 79; Letters, II, p. 387.

39 Ibid, VI, III, 11-12; Works, 79; Letters, II, 387.

40 Ibid, § VI, I, 3; Works, X, 67; Letters, II, 376.

41 Ibid, § VI, I, 3-5; Works, X, 6748, Letters, II, 376-77.

42 Ibid, § VI, I, 7-9; Works, X, 68-69; Letters, II, 377.

43 Letter: To Middleton (1748-9), § VI, III, 1; Works, X, 75; Letters, II, 383.

44 Ibid, § VI, III, 12; Works, X, 79; Letters, II, 387.

45 Letter to Middleton, § VI, II, 12; Works, X, 75; Letters, II, 383.

46 Dryer, "Faith and Experience," etc., p. 28.

47 Ibid, p. 29.

48 Ibid, p. 22.

49 "An Earnest Appeal" (1743), § 32; Works, VIII, p. 13.

50 Sermon: "Discoveries of Faith" (1761: AM 1789) § 1: Works. VII. 231.

51 Ibid, Par. 4, p. 232.

52 Sermon: "The Witness of the Spirit, Discourse I" (1746), par. I, 5; Works, V, 114.

53 Sermon: "The Discoveries of Faith" (1761, SR; 1789, AM) § 14; Works, VII, 236.

54 Ibid, Sects. 4-14; Works, VII, 232-236.

55 "A Further Appeal" (1744), par. V. 28: Works. VIII. 106.

56 Letter to Middleton, § III, 10; Works, X, 78.

57 Letter, "To 'John Smith' " (Dec. 30, 1745), par. 6; Letters, II, 59.

58 Letter, "To 'John Smith' " (June 25, 1746), par. 9; Letters, II, 74.

59 Letter to Dr. Thomas Rutherfcrd (March 28, 1768), par. III, 5; Letters, V, 5; also Works, XIV, 355.

60 Ibid, III, 9; Letters, V, 366-67; Works, XIV, 357.

61 Ibid

62 Letter, "To Thomas Maxwell," (Nov. 2, 1762), § 2; Works, III, 120; Letters, IV, 193.

63 Letter, "To 'John Srnith' " (June 25, 1746), § 1; Letters, II, 68.

64 Ibid, p. 75.

65 Ibid

66 Sermon: "On Zeal" (1758, SR), § I, 2-3; Works, VII, 59.

67 Ibid, III, 6; Letters, V, 368; Works, XIV, 357-358.

68 Letter, To Dr. Rutherford (1768), § III, 1; Letters, V, 363; Works, XIV, 353-354.

69 Ibid, III, 13; Letters, V, 368; Works, XIV, 359.

70 Letter, To 'John Smith' (June, 1746), § 7; Letters, II, 71.

71 Ibid, Letter, (Dec., 1745); p. 64.

72 Ibid, § 15; p. 64-65.

73 Letter, (June, 1746), § 2; Ibid, p. 69.

74 Letter, "To 'John Srnith' " (June 25, 1746), par. 9; Letters, II, 75.

75 Ibid., Letter (March, 1748), § 6; p. 135.

76 Ibid, Letter (Sept. 1745), § 12; p. 46.

77 Sermon: "The Witness of the Spirit; Discourse I" (1746), part I, 8; Works, V, 115.

78 Sermon: "The Witness of the Spirit; Discourse II" (1767), § III,5; Works, V, 127.

79 "The Witness of the Spirit, Discourse I," § I, 9; Works, V, 116.

80 § III, 7; Works, V, 128.

81 Sermon: "Scriptural Christianity" ("At St. Mary's, Oxford," Aug. 24, 1744), § I, 2; Works, V, 39.

82 Sermon: "The Witness of the Spirit: Discourse I" (1746), § I, 5, 6; Works, V, 114-116.

83 Sermon: "The Witness of Our Own Spirit" (1746), par. 4; Works, V, 135.

84 Ibid, § 8; Works, v, 137-138.

85 Sermon: "The Law Established Through Faith: Discourse II" (1749), § II, 6; Works, V, 464. On the restoration of conscience, see Sermon: "The Original, Nature, Property, and Use of the Law" (1749), § I, 4-5; Works, I, 436.

86 Sermon: "Witness of the Spirit, Discourse I" (1746), I, 4; Works V, 114.

87 Discourse II, (1767), part IV, 8; Works, V, 131.

88 Sermon: "The Witness of the Spirit, Discourse I" (1746), § II, 12; works, V, 122.

89 Letter to Middleton (Jan. 4, 1748-49), VI, III, 1; Works, X, 75.

90 Letter to Rutherford (March 28, 1768), III, 1; Works, XIV, 353-354; Letters, V, 363.

91 Sermons; "Preface," § 5; Works, V, 3.

92 Letter to Rutherford; Works, XIV, 354; Letters, V, 364.

93 Letter to Rutherford, § II, 7; Works, XIV, 352.

94 Ibid, § II, 10; p. 353.

95 "Sermons on Several Occasions," First Series, "Preface," (1747) § 5; Works, V, 3.

96 Letter to Rutherford, § II, 6; Letters, V, 361; Works, XIV, 351-352.

97 "A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion," Part III (Dec. 18, 1745), § III, 9; Works, VIII, 220.

98 Letter, "To Thomas Maxfield" § 1; Works, III, 119-120; Letters, IV, 192-193.

99 § 3; Works, V, 248.

100 "Minutes of Some Late Conversations: Conversation II," (Aug. 2, 1745), Q. 4; Works, VIII, 285.

101 Notes on the New Testament.

102 Sermon: "Christian Perfection" (1740), § 14; Works, VI, 11; and "Plain Account of Christian Perfection: (1766), § 12, (2); Works, XI, 375.

103 Sermon: "The Original, Nature, Property, and Use of the Law" (1749), II, 2; Works, V, 437.

104 Ibid, I, 5-11; 3; Works, 437-438.

105 Sermon: ". . . Sermon on the Mount: Discourse XXV" (1740, Smith), I, 4; Works, V, 312.

106 Sermon: "Free Grace" (1740), 26; Works, VII, 383.

107 John Wesley, "Preface," 4, The Sunday Services of the Methodist Churches with Other Occasional Services (London, 1786), p. 2.

108 Letter, "To Mary Bishop" (Feb. 7, 1778); Letters, VI, 298.

109 "Extract of a Letter to the Rev. Mr. Law" (Jan. 6, 1756), § 7; Works, IX, 508.

110 (1747), II, 4; Works, V, 350.

111 Ibid.

112 Discourse VII, 3; Works, V, 345.

113 Works, V. 342-343.

114 Discourse VIII (1747), 2, 4; Works, V, 362, 363.

115 Sermon on the Mount: Discourse VIII (1747), 27-28; Works, V, 376-377.

116 Sermon: "The Law Established Through Faith," II,6; Works, V, 464.

117 Sermon: "Upon Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount, Discourse I," § I, 11; Works, V, 256.

118 Ibid., II, 4; 259.

119 ". . . Sermon on the Mount, Discourse II" (1739), II,5; Works, V, 269.

120 "Reason, Scripture or Authority" "A Farther Appeal . . . Part I," § V, 32; The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, Vol. XI: The Appeals to Men of Reason and Religion and Certain Related Open Letters. Ed. Gerald R. Cragg (Oxford: The Oxford University Press, 1975), p. 176. Hereinafter referred to as Works—Oxford, XI; Works, VIII.

121 "A Farther Appeal . . . Part III" (1745), § III, 28; Works—Oxford, XI, p. 310; Works, VIII.

122 "An Earnest Appeal," § 32; Oxford, XI, 32; Works, VIII.

123 Letter to Rutherford (March 28, 1768), § III, 4; Letters, V, 364.

124 Letter, "To Thomas Maxfield" (Nov. 2, 1762), § 2; Works, III, 120; Letters, IV, 193.

125 "An Earnest Appeal" (1743), par. 30; Works—Oxford, XI, 56; Works, VIII, 12-13.

126 Ibid

127 "Journal," (June 15, 1741); Works, I, 315.

128 "An Earnest Appeal" (1743), § 32, Works—Oxford, XI, 56; Works, VIII, 12.

129 Ibid, § 30; Works—Oxford, XI, 56; Works, VIII, 12.

130 Sermon: "The Case of Reason Impartially Considered" (1781), § I, 2; Works, VI, 353.

131 Ibid

132 "An Earnest Appeal" (1743), § 32; Works— Oxford, XI, 56; Works, VIII, 13.

133 Sermon, "The Case of Reason Impartially Considered" (1781), § II, 1; Works, VI, 355-359.

134 Ibid, § 9; p. 359.

135 "An Earnest Appeal" (1743), § 32; Works—Oxford, XI, 56; Works, VIII, 13.

136 Ibid, § 12, 13; Works—Oxford, XI, 49; Works, VIII, 6.

137 Ibid, § 2; Works—Oxford, XI, 45; Works, VIII, 2.

138 Ibid, § 19; Works—Oxford, 51; Works, VIII, 8.

139 Ibid. § 15; Works—Oxford, XI. 49-50; Works, VIII, 7.

140 Ibid, Sect 15; Works—Oxford, XI, 49-50; Works, VIII, 7.

141 Ibid., Sects. 20-21; Works—Oxford, XI, 51-52; Works, VIII, 8-9.

142 Ibid, § 21; Works—Oxford, 52; Works, VIII, 9.

143 Ibid, § 28; Works—Oxford, XI, 55; Works, VIII, 12.

144 Ibid, § 24; Works—Oxford, XI, 53; Works, VIII, 10.

145 Ibid, § 39; Works—Oxford, XI, p. 59; Works, VIII, 15.

146 Ibid, § 40; Works—Oxford, XI, 59; Works, VIII, 15-16.

147 Ibid, § 46, 48; Works—Oxford, XI, 62, 63; Works, VIII, 18, 19.

148 "A Farther Appeal . . ., Part II," § III,6; Works—Oxford, XI, 256; Works, VIII, 186.

149 Ibid, § III,7, footnote; Works—Oxford, XI, 257; Works, VIII,187. The insert is the variation from the Jackson edition.

150 "A Farther Appeal . . ., Part III," § I, 9-10; Works—Oxford, XI, 277; Works, VIII, 206.

151 Sermon, "On Patience" (1748 AM; 1761 Smith), § 10; Works, VI, 488.

152 Sermon, "On Zeal" (1781 AM; 1761 Smith), § 10; Works, VI, 488.

153 Ibid, § III, 7; p. 64.

154 "The Instructor," Book I, ch. VI; Ante Nicene Fathers (New York: The Christian Literature Co., 1885), Vol. II, p. 216.

155 Sermon: "The Law Established Through Faith, II," (1749) 2; Works, V, 462.

156 Ibid, § II, 3, 4; Works, V, 463.

157 Ibid

158 Ibid, II, 3.

159 Ibid, II, 5.

160 Ibid, p. 464.

161 Ibid, III, 3; Works, V, 465.

162 Ibid, II, 3-4; Works, V, 463.

163 "Sermon on the Mount: Discourse VIII," (1747), 2; Works, V, 362; and "The Law Established Through Faith, II" III, 2; Works, V, 464.

164 "Sermon on the Mount: Discourse VIII," (1747), 4; Works, V, 363.

165 "The Law Established Through Faith, II" III, 2; Works, V, 465.

166 Ibid II, 5; Works, V, 463.

167 Ibid, III, 2; Works, V, 465.

168 Ibid III, 3; Works, V, 365.

169 Ibid, II, 6; Works, V, 464.

170 Ibid, III, 3; Works, V, 465.

171 "Farther Thoughts on Christian Perfection" (1761): "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection," § 25, Q. 33; Works, XI, 430.

172 Explanatory Notes on the New Testament (1755), I John 4:8.

173 "The Original, Nature, Property, and Use of the Law" (1749), II,1, 2; Works, V, 437-438.

174 Ibid, II, 2; V, 438.

175 Ibid, II, 3; Works, V, 438.

176 Ibid, II, 4; V, 438.

177 Ibid, IV, 9; Works, V, 446.

178 Ibid, § IV, 10; p. 446.

179 Ibid, II, 4; Works, V, 438.

180 Ibid, IV, 9; Works, V, 446.

181 Ibid, IV, 10; Works, V, 446.

182 Ibid., II, 3; V, 438.

183 "The law Established Through Faith, II," II, 3; Works, V, 463.

184 "The Original, Nature, Property, and Use of the Law" I, 4; Works, V, 436.

185 Wesley, Notes.

186 "The Law Established Through Faith, II" II, 1; Works, V, 462.

187 "The Original, Nature, Property and Use of the Law," II, 3; Works, V, 438.

188 1; Works, V, 435.

189 Ed. by Christopher Tolkien; Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1977.

190 Sermon: "The Law Established Through Faith, II" (1749), II, 1; Works, V, 462.

191 Journal, October 23, 1739; Works, I, p. 234.

192 "The General Spread of the Gospel" (1738, AM), §20; Works, VI, 284.

193 Sermon: "A Caution Against Bigotry" (1749), Sec. II (1); Works, V, 484.

194 Sermon: "Catholic Spirit" (1749), Sec. 4; Works, V, 493.

195 "A Plain Account of the People Called Methodists" (1748), Sec. V; Works, VIII, 257.

196 "Letter to a Roman Catholic" (July 18, 1749), Sec. 15; Works, X, 85.

197 See endnote 4.

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.