JOHN WESLEY'S EXEGETICAL ORIENTATION:
EAST OR WEST?

by
Troy W. Martin

The question posed by the title of this paper presupposes three separate areas of study. In order to assess Wesley's exegetical orientation, both the Eastern and western exegetical traditions must be investigated as well as the exegetical method of John Wesley himself. Probing into the complex exegetical traditions of Eastern and western Christianity is no small task. Fortunately, however, several sound studies have exposed the essential characteristics of these traditions, and utilization of these studies simplifies the task of this paper. Given the meticulous attention which Wesley scholarship has visited upon other aspects of Wesleyan, including studies of Wesley's relationship to his horse, one would have expected that it certainly had produced a definitive work upon Wesley's exegetical method.1 Nevertheless, such is not the case.2 Although a few studies describe some of Wesley's exegetical principles and procedures, no one has yet organized these principles into a coherent system that details the questions and issues to which Wesley was responding and by which he integrated these principles.3 Drawing upon three separate areas of study, this paper accepts the dual task of describing Wesley's exegetical method and assessing the relationship of Wesley's exegesis to the interpretive traditions of Eastern and western Christianity.
 

The Western Milieu of Wesley's Exegesis

Several obvious facts dictate where one should begin assessing Wesley's exegetical orientation. John Wesley spent his entire life in the ethos of western Christianity. As a member of the Church of England and founder of Methodism, Wesley's Biblical canon is neither that of the Catholic West nor that of the Orthodox East. Rather, his canon is decidedly Protestant.4 These prominent facts direct us to the Protestant exegetical tradition of western Christianity as the place to begin to understand Wesley's exegetical method.5

Two separate dialogues spanning the previous two centuries dramatically influenced Protestant exegesis in the eighteenth century. The first dialogue, initiated by the Reformation itself, involved an interchange among the various confessions: Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican. This interconfessional dialogue focused on theological issues. The second dialogue, necessitated by the Enlightenment, frequently saw the various confessions united in their opposition to the increasingly popular perspective propagated by the proponents of Reason. This dialogue, not exclusively theological, pitted theological disciplines against philosophical ones and vice versa. Both of these dialogues established the issues and problems to which the western Biblical exegets sought to respond in the early modern period.

Martin Luther opened the first dialogue by his rejection of church authority in favor of Biblical authority. In his famous defense at the Diet of Worms in 1521, Luther articulated his position:

Since then your serene majesty and your lordships seek a simple answer, I will give it in this manner, neither horned nor toothed: Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise, here I stand, may God help me. Amen.6

Later, in the Smalcald Articles, published in 1538, Luther stated himself even more explicitly:

. . . Scripture alone is the true overlord and master of all writings and doctrines on earth. if not, what are the Scriptures good for? Let us reject then and be satisfied with the books of men and human teachers.7

Luther's principle of sola scriptura, the exclusive authority of the Bible, became the basis not only for his rejection of church authority but also (in conjunction with the principle of sola gratia) for Protestantism's response to Roman Catholicism as a whole.

Luther's principle of sola scriptura introduced the issue of doctrinal certainty into the dialogue between Roman Catholics and Protestants. His inquisitor at the Diet of Worms stated, "But if it were granted that whoever contradicts the councils and the common understanding of the church must be overcome by Scripture passages, we have nothing in Christianity that is certain or decided."8 Roman Catholics maintained that certainty resided in the hierarchical and conciliar decisions and authority of the Church. According to Luther, certainty in theological matters could only be attained by Spirit-guided reliance upon the Bible. In order to maintain his position regarding certainty, Luther introduced two additional issues into the debate, namely, the sufficiency and transparency of Scripture. For him, the Bible alone was sufficient to establish Christian faith and practice. In his opinion, the meaning of Scripture was transparent to the interpreter. As early as 1519, Luther had stated his basic position in regard to these three issues:

Furthermore, since we believe that the Holy Catholic Church has the same Spirit of faith that it received at its beginning, why should it not be permitted today to study the Holy Scripture, either alone or above all else, as the early church was permitted so to do? For early Christians had not read Augustine or Thomas. Or tell me, if you can, what judge can decide the question, whether the statements of the church fathers have contradicted themselves. As a matter of fact, a judgment must be pronounced by making Scripture the judge, something that is impossible if we do not accord primacy to Scripture in all questions that are referred to the church fathers. This means that [Scripture] itself by itself is the most unequivocal, the most accessible, the most comprehensible authority, itself its own interpreter, attesting, judging, and illuminating all things.... Here the Spirit clearly grants illumination and teaches that insight is given only by the Word of God.... You see that here also truth is imparted only ... if in the first instance you learn the words of God and use them as the point of departure in pronouncing judgment on all words.9

Luther contended that only Scripture could bring certainty in theological matters. He strengthened his contention by asserting that Scripture needs no other authority (sufficiency) and that its meaning was straightforward and self-evident (transparency).

Regarding the issue of transparency, Luther rejected the fourfold scriptural hermeneutic of ancient and medieval exegesis. He accepted only the literal sense unless it was nonsensical or contradictory to another clearer passage of Scripture. He states his exegetical principle as follows:

The Holy Spirit is the simplest writer and adviser in heaven and on earth. That is why his words could have no more than the one simplest meaning which we call the written one, or the literal meaning of the tongue. But [written] words and [spoken] language cease to have meaning when the things which have a simple meaning through interpretation by a simple word are given further meanings and thus become different things [through a different interpretation] so that one thing takes on the meaning of another.... The fact that a painted picture signifies a living man without any words or writing should not cause you to say that the little word "picture" has two meanings, a literal one, signifying the picture, and a spiritual one, signifying the living man. Likewise, even though the things described in Scripture mean something further, Scripture should not therefore have a twofold meaning. Instead, it should retain the one meaning to which the words refer.... It is much more certain and much safer to stay with the words and the simple meaning.... 10

Luther's preference for the literal sense became foundational for Protestant exegetes. 11

The essential outlines of the Roman Catholic-Protestant dialogue are clearly illustrated by the debate between Johannes Major and Jacob Martini on the Protestant side and Valerius Magnus on the Roman Catholic.l2 Almost a century after Luther's death, Magnus wrote a serious response to the Protestant position entitled, De acatholicorum credendi regula iudicium.13 Here, Magnus responded to the certainty claimed for the Protestant position by disproving sufficiency and transparency. He began by asserting that both Roman Catholics and Biblistae (Protestants) affirm that "no one can with certainty understand the true sense of Holy Scripture unless he is illuminated within and led by the Holy Spirit."14 He then identified the point of contention:

The question is therefore whether the Holy Spirit infallibly distinguishes true from false teaching in scripture through the pastors of the church assembled for a general council or through individual Christians who each call on the Holy Spirit for themselves and ask his counsel from the Holy Scriptures.

Magnus argued that the Protestant individual concept of illumination had not established the sufficiency or clarity of Scripture because contradictions exist in Protestant exegesis. In fact, said he, differences in Biblical interpretation had splintered Protestantism into several different confessional groups. Thinking that he had refuted the Protestant propositions of sufficiency and transparency, he stated, "Take from them (the Biblistae) the clarity and transparency of the sacred text, and the giant edifice of their doctrines collapses of its own accord.''16 He concluded, "We must either return to the church or cut ourselves off from Christ."17

Magnus' Protestant respondents maintained the sufficiency and transparency of Scripture. Martini stated, "Holy Scripture is clear and transparent enough; the reason many people do not see this clarity and transparent truth is that they approach the reading of scripture with false presuppositions.''18 For Martini, "False presuppositions" are removed by the Holy Spirit who clearly reveals the principle of justification by faith in the Scriptures. Major concurred: "So the blemish of obscurity is not in the divinely inspired scriptures but in the minds of men, who walk in the vanity of their senses, having an intellect obscured with darkness, alienated from the life of God by the ignorance that is in them....''19 Thus, the Protestant respondents to Magnus continued to propose the sufficiency and transparency of Scripture by relying upon the doctrines of Spirit, illumination and justification by faith. Because the latter doctrine can provide a more objective standard of interpretation, Protestant exegesis came to rely upon it increasingly as the dialogue between Roman Catholics and Protestants developed. Essentially, in place of the church, Protestant exegesis substituted a theological principle as the final authority for Scriptural interpretation. This particular view of salvation lent certainty and cohesion to the Protestant confessions and enabled them to maintain the sufficiency and transparency of Scripture.

The Catholic-Protestant dialogue spanned the two centuries before Wesley focused upon the issue of certainty in matters of faith. Roman Catholics continued to argue that certainty resided in the church while Protestants continued to counter by locating certainty in the Scripture. And, the dialogue continued to center upon the sufficiency and transparency of Scripture, the terms of argument first proposed by Luther. The issues and problems established by this dialogue are central in understanding Wesley's exegetical method; but before turning to Wesley, we must examine another dialogue, one which was occasioned by the Enlightenment.

While the majority of Roman Catholic thinkers sought certainty in the church and Protestants in the Bible, a smaller group, composed of persons from across the confessional spectrum and of some persons indifferent to confessional camps, sought certainty in human reason. Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo,among others, had applied mathematical reason to the observation of the movement of heavenly bodies and had arrived at a new picture of the physical universe, a picture that contradicted the older, supposedly Bible-based, understanding. At the same time, discoveries in the New World led to questions concerning the received understandings of Biblical geography and chronology. Reasonable persons could not maintain that Jerusalem was the center of the world, nor could they subscribe to traditional chronological schemes based upon particular readings of the Bible. Isaac de La Peyrere's book, Man Before Adam,20 illustrates developments in geography and chronology by the mid-seventeenth century. De La Peyrere argued that newly discovered facts necessitated belief in the existence of humans before Adam. Klaus Scholder summarizes the reaction to this book:

In fact a storm of indignation arose immediately after the book appeared. In 1656 it was publicly burnt in Paris by the hangman. Again, as early in the question of Copernicus, the three great confessions were at one here. Roman, Lutheran and Reformed theologians competed in their refutation of the "pre-Adamite fable."21

In spite of the Roman Catholic and Protestant response, these new thinkers did not consider themselves to be impious or godless. On the contrary, they strove to integrate the new information about the world into the Biblical perspective. Initially they achieved this integration by considering the results of their reasoning to be hypothetical, thus allowing the Biblical position its reality.22 As evidence mounted, however, these thinkers were less willing to articulate their results as hypothetical. They sought other means to reconcile the new "facts" with the Bible.

Kepler advocated the two most important methods: accommodation and limitation of scope. He describes his theory of accommodation as follows:

But the Holy Scriptures already speak with man of ordinary things (about which it is not their intention to teach them) in a human way so that they may be understood by men; they use what is indubitable among them in order to communicate higher and divine things.23

Using this theory, Kepler explained why Joshua 10 could describe the sun as standing still, an event absurd to the new astronomy but quite conceivable under the terms of the old. In addition to accommodation, Kepler argued that the scope of the Bible is limited, that the Bible is a theological document, not a scientific one, and should be interpreted as such. He explains: ". . . in theology the authorities have decisive importance, but in philosophy the decisive importance attaches to calculations."24 Arguing that the scope of the Bible is strictly limited to theological issues and arguing for accommodation allowed Kepler to integrate the two authorities, scripture and reason. Although Kepler's attempts at integration were not well received by the various confessions, his work did warn Biblical exegetes that they could no longer ignore the relationship of the Bible to reason and the new world view.

These exegetical issues raised in this Enlightenment dialogue as well as those raised in the Reformation dialogue dramatically influenced Protestant exegesis in the eighteenth century. And only as we retain awareness of this background can we understand John Wesley's method of Biblical interpretation.
 

John Wesley's Exegetical Method

Two centuries following Luther, Wesley could hardly dismiss the Enlightenment dialogue as Luther had done. The intervening centuries had progressively confirmed the "reasonable" world view advocated by Enlightenment astronomers, geographers, and chronologists. Wesley had to come to terms with this view of the world and could not simply rely upon the world view produced by traditional Biblical exegesis. Consequently, reason plays a more decisive role in Wesley's exegetical method than it did in the works of earlier Protestant exegetes.25

In his sermon, "The Case of Reason Impartially Considered," Wesley sets out to define the term reason and to establish its legitimate and illegitimate uses. He defines the term as follows:

. . . reason is much the same with understanding. It means a faculty of the human soul; that faculty which exerts itself in three ways; by simple apprehension, by judgment, and by discourse. 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. The faculty of the soul which includes these three operations I here mean by the term reason.26

Laurence Wood correctly asserts that Wesley defines reason "as an intellectual activity rather than a faculty of innate ideas." Reason is the mental activity that enables humans to comprehend reality. Wood explains how reason functions for Wesley: "It can be seen, then, that Wesley's idea of experience is objective in that reality (whether the world or God) is intelligible to the mind because God as Creator has so constituted man that he can know the truth of what is."28

This intellectual activity applies itself to the ideas supplied by the external and internal organs of sense perception. The external sense organs derive ideas of the physical world while the internal organs derive ideas of the spiritual world.29 Wesley explains this distinction in the following manner:

Now, faith (supposing the Scripture to be of God) is . . . "the demonstrative evidence of things unseen," the supernatural evidence of things invisible, not perceivable by eyes of flesh, or by any of our natural senses or faculties. Faith is that divine evidence whereby the spiritual man discerneth God, and the things of God. It is with regard to the spiritual world, what sense is with regard to the natural. It is the spiritual sensation of every soul that is born of God.30

He proceeds to describe faith as the eye, ear, palate, and feeling of the soul that perceives the spiritual world.

In contrast to physical sense perception, which naturally exists in all humans, internal sense perception or faith is only given by God to those who seek it.31 Wesley comments as follows:

So you cannot reason concerning spiritual things, if you have no spiritual sight; because all your ideas received by your outward senses are of a different kind; yea, far more different from those received by faith or internal sensation.... The ideas of faith differ toto genere from those of external sensation. So that it is not conceivable, that external sensation should supply the want of internal senses; or furnish your reason in this respect with matter to work upon.... This cannot be until the Almighty come in to your succor and give you that faith you have hitherto despised. Then . . . your enlightened reason shall explore even "the deep things of God;" God himself "revealing them to you by his Spirit."32

Thus, for Wesley, external sensation is a natural possession of all while internal sensation is a gift of God.

This concept of reason establishes the legitimate and illegitimate uses of reason. Apart from God's revelation, reason can give direction to common life and can teach whatever human skill or industry has invented in the way of the arts and sciences.33 God created the human mind with the faculty of reason in order that it might comprehend and understand the world He created. In regard to revelation, reason provides the faculty necessary to comprehending what God has revealed, but this comprehension rests squarely upon God's initiative. Wesley explains his position:

The foundation of true religion stands upon the oracles of God. It is built upon the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. Now, of what excellent use is reason, if we would either understand ourselves, or explain to others, those living oracles! And how is it possible without it to understand the essential truths contained therein? a beautiful summary of which we have in the Apostles' Creed. Is it not reason (assisted by the Holy Ghost) which enables us to understand what the Scriptures declare concerning the being and attributes of God?concerning his eternity and immensity; his power, wisdom, and holiness? . . . It is by this we understand (his Spirit opening and enlightening the eyes of our understanding) what that repentance is . . .; what is that faith whereby we are saved; what is the nature and the condition of justification; what are the immediate and what the subsequent fruits of it. By reason we learn what is that new birth, without which we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven; and what that holiness is without which no man shall see the Lord. By the due use of reason we come to know what are the tempers implied in inward holiness; and what it is to be outwardly holy, holy in all manner of conversation: In other words, what is the mind that was in Christ; and what it is to walk as Christ walked.34

Wesley's position is that God created Scripture as well as the world. Just as God created a person's mind with the faculty of reason in order to comprehend the created world, so also He gave humanity reason in order to comprehend His revelation in the Bible.35 Hence, for Wesley, the legitimate use of reason is to understand the ideas and perceptions provided by the outward and inward senses.

The illegitimate use of reason involves an attempt either to establish or to disprove the data of revelation.36 In responding to a "reasonable man," Wesley states, "It is true, your judgment does not fall in with ours. We believe the Scripture to be of God. This you do not believe."37 He continues his response:

And till you have these internal senses, till the eyes of your understanding are opened, you can have no apprehension of divine things, no idea of them at all. Nor, consequently, till then, can you either judge truly, or reason justly, concerning them; seeing your reason has no ground whereon to stand, no materials to work upon.38

For Wesley, reason cannot produce faith although faith is not inconsistent with reason.39 The essential truths of faith are revealed and cannot be established or disproven by intellectual activity. The attempt to establish or disprove the truths of faith by reason is an illegitimate use of reason.40

This concept of reason enables Wesley to establish a tenable position for his exegetical method in the Enlightenment dialogue. He has affirmed the legitimacy of the primary Enlightenment objective of understanding the physical world by reason alone. At the same time, he has rescued the Bible as the primary instrument of God's revelation.41 Postulating two separate worlds, a physical and a spiritual, both created according to reason, Wesley contends that God instilled reason into the human mind so that it might comprehend both worlds.42 Because the physical world is always present and accessible, all may apply their reason and come to an understanding of it. Because the spiritual world is only revealed by God to those who seek it, only those who have had their spiritual eyes opened can apply their reason and come to an understanding of it. Since the Bible is God's primary instrument of revelation to humanity, its scope is directed to this latter spiritual world, not the former physical world. Thus, the objectives and goals of Wesley's exegesis are to derive the essential truths of faith from the Bible. His exegetical method does not attempt to derive either astronomical, geographical, or chronological truths about the physical world.43 In accord with the Enlightenment, he leaves these truths to be ascertained by the application of reason to the natural world, not to the Bible.

The Enlightenment dialogue more than the Reformation dialogue inclines Wesley to understand and to exegete the Bible as an essentially soteriological book.44 Given Wesley's supposition that God created both the physical world and the Bible in conformity with reason, one would think that the Bible could be used to supply information about the physical world and vice versa. However, as Larry Shelton points out, such is not the case:

Wesley's understanding of Scripture is most clearly seen in this use of it. For him, it has a saving purpose. That is its reason for being. The primary purpose for Scripture is to function as a means of bearing the message of redemption. His famous "man of one book" statement clearly presents what he sees the Bible's purpose to be.... The intent of Scripture is to provide information for salvation and Christian living. With his fascination with science and natural philosophy . . . it might seem reasonable to expect him to use the Bible as a textbook to learn science if he felt that to be its purpose. Yet, he does not seem to believe Scripture to have that function.45

Aware of the problems engendered by the Enlightenment for the world view which had been produced by traditional Biblical exegesis, Wesley avoids them by confining his own Biblical studies to a soteriological perspective.46 Wesley describes these soteriological concerns as the essential truths of Scripture: "It is easily discerned, that these two little words, I mean faith and salvation, include the substance of all the Bible, the marrow, as it were, of the whole Scripture."47

The Enlightenment dialogue, therefore, induced Wesley to give primary consideration to reason in his exegetical method. His development of the nature and role of reason inclined him to view the Bible exclusively as a document of revelation which harmoniously reveals the mind and will of God in all matters pertaining to salvation. This emphasis upon the role of reason and this drastic limitation of the scope of exegesis in Wesley's exegetical method is best understood in the context of the Enlightenment dialogue.

However, not only the Enlightenment dialogue but also the Reformation dialogue affected Wesley's exegetical method. He entered this later dialogue staunchly on the side of the Protestants who claimed that the Bible was the sole authority in matters of faith and practice. This assessment of Wesley's position, so widely accepted by Wesley scholars, hardly needs demonstration. However, a few illustrative passages might be helpful.

In response to the question of what is the fundamental doctrine of Methodism, Wesley answers "that the Bible is the whole and sole rule both of Christian faith and practice."48 Wesley proclaims confidently:

The Holy Bible, or Book, is so called by way of eminency, as it is the best book that ever was written. The great things of God's law and gospel are here written, that they might be reduced to a greater certainty, might spread farther, remain longer, and be transmitted to distant places and ages, more pure and entire than possibly they could be by tradition.49

Wesley's rejection of tradition as a reliable means to certainty and his reliance upon the Bible is evident in the following:

Antiquity is a venerable word, but ill used, when made a cloak for error .... We dispute not by years, but by reasons drawn from Scripture. That which is now called an ancient opinion, if it be not a true opinion, was once but a new error. When you can tell us how many years are required to turn an error into truth, then we will give more heed to antiquity, when pressed by error, than we now think due it. If antiquity will not do, reason shall be pressed to serve error's turn at a dead lift.... But because men are bound to submit human authority and reason to divine revelation, both must give way and strike sail to the written word.50

Thus, Franz Hildebrandt correctly concludes, "Sola Scriptura holds good for him no less than for the Reformers."51 For Wesley, the Scripture is the final authority in matters of faith and practice.52 It is the Scripture that critiques the church and tradition, not vice versa.53

Larry Shelton argues that for Wesley this certainty did not inhere in the autographs or in the text itself but in the spiritual content of the Scripture.54 Shelton has observed an important distinction between essentials and nonessentials in Wesley's exegetical method. The Bible only provides absolute certainty in the essentials, not the nonessentials. By essentials, Wesley understands all things necessary to salvation. His treatment of the Synoptic genealogies is instructive. He responds to the discrepancies between Matthew and Luke as follows:

If there were any difficulties in this genealogy, or that given by St. Luke, which could not easily be removed, they would rather affect the Jewish Tables, than the credit of the Evangelists: for they act only as historians, setting down these genealogies, as they stood in those public and hallowed records. Therefore they were to take them as they found them. Nor was it needful they should correct the mistakes, if there were any. For these accounts sufficiently answer the end for which they are recited. They unquestionably prove the grand point in view, that Jesus was of the family from which the promised Seed was to come. And they had more weight with the Jews for this purpose, than if alterations had been made by inspiration itself. For such alterations would have occasioned endless disputes between them and the disciples of our Lord.55

Wesley reluctantly admits possible uncertainty in these genealogical lists but confidently affirms absolute certainty with regard to the soteriological truth expressed by these texts.

Wesley's position in regard to essentials and nonessentials is also exposed by his approval of John A. Bengel's textual studies, which brought a degree of uncertainty to the Biblical text. Wesley can approve of Bengel's textual criticism and even participate in the enterprise himself because of Bengel's caveat that the uncertainty does not extend to the essentials of the faith. Bengel states, "By far the greatest part of the Sacred Text (Thank God) labors under no important variety of reading. This part contains the whole scheme of salvation, fully established."56 With the "whole scheme of salvation" fully intact, Wesley was not troubled by the uncertainty in the nonessentials occasioned by Bengel's approach.

Wesley's distinction between essentials and nonessentials explains an oft quoted statement of his: "Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible there may as well be a thousand. If there is one falsehood in that book it did not come from the God of Truth."57 He was not primarily referring to nonessentials in this statement but to the essentials of the faith. If one falsehood existed in the essentials, then the certainty of the Scriptures was lost. By the way he phrases this statement, Wesley indicates that he does not think there are any incorrect statements in the Bible regarding the essentials of the faith. In the essentials of the faith, therefore, the Bible is able to provide certainty.

Entering the Reformation dialogue on the side of Protestants, who argue for certainty based solely upon Scripture, Wesley was also obliged to argue for the sufficiency and transparency of Scripture. He says in regard to sufficiency:

The Scripture, therefore, being delivered by men divinely inspired, is a rule sufficient of itself: So it neither needs, nor is capable of, any farther addition. Yet the Papists add tradition to Scripture, and require it to be received with equal veneration. By traditions, they mean, "such points of faith and practice as have been delivered down in the Church from hand to hand without writing." And for many of these, they have no more Scripture to show, than the Pharisees had for their traditions.58

As this statement clearly indicates, Wesley firmly believed in the sufficiency of Scripture.59

For Wesley, Scripture is sufficient only in its entirety.60 His position is reflected in a work he extracted in his Christian Library:

And though it is true that some important doctrines, as that of justification by faith, are methodically disposed, and thoroughly cleared and settled in one and the same context; yet it is as true, that many other points of faith and duty are not so digested, but are delivered here a little, and there a little. You must not think to find all that belongs to one head or point of faith or duty, laid together in a system, or commonplace in Scripture; but scattered abroad in several places, some in the Old Testament, and some in the New, at a great distance from one another. Now in our searches and inquiries after the full and satisfying knowledge of the will of God in such points, it is necessary that the whole Word of God be thoroughly searched, and all those parcels brought together to an interview. As for example, If a man would see the entire discovery that was made of Christ, to the Father, under the Old Testament, he shall not find it laid together in any one Prophet; but shall find that one speaks to one part of it, and another to another.61

Wayne McCown interprets Wesley's position: "Because of his understanding of revelation, Wesley approached the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) as a whole, the various texts being a part of a 'consonant theological construct.'"62 Wesley advocates that Scripture when taken as a whole is the sufficient authority to establish Christian faith and practice.63

For Wesley, the sufficiency of Scripture means that Scripture needs no other authority to establish doctrine or duty, but other authorities, such as reason, tradition, or experience, can be used to ascertain and confirm the Scriptural position. Thus, he states, experience is not sufficient to prove a doctrine unsupported by Scripture; ". . . Experience is sufficient to confirm a doctrine which is grounded on Scripture."64 Wesley admits that reason may also be necessary to ascertain and confirm the Scriptural position.65 An extract in his Christian Library parallels his position:

But of all knowledge none is like that divine and supernatural knowledge of saving truths revealed by Christ in the Scriptures.... These truths lie enfolded either in the plain words, or evident and necessary consequences from the words of the Holy Scriptures; Scripture consequences are of great use for the refutation of errors; it was by Scripture consequence that Christ successfully proved the resurrection against the Sadducees (Matt. xii.).66

These reasonable inferences enable the Scripture to be a sufficient medium to establish doctrine. Just as experience and reason should not be ignored, neither should tradition.67 In his recent book, The Wesleyan Quadrilateral, Donald A. D.

Thorsen argues that Wesley always affirms the primacy of Scripture, viewing the other three authorities as necessary and complementary to its interpretation and application.68 Since God is rational and created all things according to reason, Wesley does not hold these authorities to be mutually exclusive or contradictory.69 However, only Scripture is sufficient to establish a tenet of doctrine or duty.70 The other authorities serve only to confirm or illuminate the Scriptural position.71

As with earlier Protestant exegetes, Wesley's doctrine of sufficiency ultimately rests upon the issue of the transparency of Scripture. Is the meaning of Scripture transparent, or does Scripture require an interpretive authority, such as the Church or tradition? Wesley vigorously responds to this question in favor of transparency.

The activity of the Holy Spirit is essential to Wesley's case for transparency.72 For him, the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary for the interpretation of Scripture. He expounds this truth in the following extract:

Unto the attainment of Divine Knowledge out of the Scriptures, some things are naturally, yet less principally requisite; and something absolutely and principally necessary. The natural qualifications desirable in the mind, are clearness of apprehension, solidity of judgment, and fidelity of retention. These are desirable requisites to make the understanding susceptible of knowledge; but the irradiation of the mind by the Spirit of God is principally necessary.73

This extract observes that persons strong in the first three qualifications have fallen into error without the Spirit, but persons weak in those qualifications have been kept from error by the Spirit. In Wesley's opinion, "Scripture can only be understood thro' the same Spirit whereby it was given."74 Turner comments, The Spirit-inspired writer and the Spirit-guided student met in the pages of the Book. . . . The student, renewed by the Spirit of God, was regarded as being in rapport with the author of the Bible and hence able to understand its message better."75 In Wesley's view, the Spirit of God renders the meaning of the Bible transparent to the reader.76

Wesley believed that the activity of the Holy Spirit, who renders the Scriptures transparent, could be hindered if the interpreter did not apply the revealed truths to life.77 Wesley's note on John 7:17 reads, "This is a universal rule, with regard to all persons and doctrines. He that is thoroughly willing to do it, shall certainly know what the will of God is."78 Turner comments in this regard:

With Wesley obedience was the condition of spiritual knowledge. The condition for spiritual insight was more moral than intellectual . . . . The early Methodists acted upon John 7:17"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine ...." He was one with Bengel and the Pietists in stressing the importance of the spiritual approach to the Scriptures.79

McCown also comments upon this issue, "Application for Wesley was an essential aspect of the very process of reading the Bible. He regarded it, in one sense, as a facet of the preparation necessary to hear the Word of God with understanding."80 Wesley's concern for application in the interpretive process is consistent with his emphasis upon the Holy Spirit as the agent of transparency. He believed that the Holy Spirit's activity would be "quenched" by disobedience.81

Wesley's opinion that the Bible is authored by the Holy Spirit, who makes it transparent, causes him to view the Bible as a single, harmonious composition.82 He conceives of the Scripture as a unified whole with each of the Biblical passages belonging to a "consonant theological construct."83 On the basis of this theological construct, Wesley adopts the principle of the analogy of faith. He retains this statement in one of his extracts, "The analogy or proportion of faith is what is taught plainly and uniformly in the whole Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as the rule of our faith and obedience."84 Wesley's analogy of faith principle is a development of the Protestant principle which calls for the interpretation of Scripture by Scripture.85 McCown comments, "By 'analogy of faith,' Wesley means the interpretation of Scripture by Scripture, with special reference to its doctrinal teachings."86 Thus, Wesley's view of the Bible enables him, like other Protestants, to argue for transparency using the principle that Scripture is its own interpreter.87

For Wesley, this analogy of faith is the clue to guide the interpreter through the whole of Scripture. He asks, "Have I a full and clear view of the analogy of faith, which is the clue to guide me through the whole?"88 He advises Biblical interpreters, "In order to know his will, you should have a constant eye to the analogy of faith: the connection and harmony there is between those grand, fundamental doctrines, Original Sin, Justification by Faith, the New Birth, Inward and Outward Holiness."89 For Wesley, the Scripture is transparent to the interpreter who has an eye to the analogy of faith because the Holy Spirit has composed Scripture according to the analogy of faith.

This principle of the analogy of faith raises an important issue in Wesley's exegetical method. Is his exegesis determined by his theology or is his theology determined by his exegesis? Obviously, theology and exegesis are in dialectical tension, but which one takes precedence over the other? Tumer discusses this issue and answers that "his exegesis determined his theology rather than vice versa."90 However, Tumer's discussion is in conflict with his answer. He states in his discussion:

The treatise on Original Sin affords an excellent opportunity to see Wesley at work as an interpreter of Scripture. He follows a strict historical-literal sense less in degree than the Presbyterian clergyman whose ideas he is combating. There is in Wesley a greater tendency to look at the question theologically than exegetically. In other words, Wesley tended to interpret a disputed passage by the Scripture as a whole without strictly limiting himself to a literal-historical interpretation. He was as apt to explain an Old Testament passage by an appeal to Paul as to consider it in the light of its own context.... While he often slighted the immediate context, he was careful to interpret a particular verse by the general tenor of Scripture as a whole.91

As Tumer correctly notes in his discussion, Wesley's exegesis is determined more by his theology than vice versa. This feature of his exegesis is demonstrated by the determining role that the analogy of faith plays in Wesley's exegetical method.92

Although he vigorously favors transparency, Wesley recognizes limitations in the transparency of Scripture. He agrees with the following statement, "We acknowledge there are in the Scriptures some things hard to be understood, (2 Pet. iii.16,) the sublime and mysterious nature of the matter rendering it so. . . ."93 He even admits that he does not understand everything in Scripture. He explains his hesitancy in writing his Explanatory Notes Upon the Old Testament:

Over and above the deep conviction I had, of my insufficiency for such a work, of my want of learning, of understanding, of spiritual experience, for an undertaking more difficult by many degrees, than even writing of the New Testament, I objected, that there were many passages in the Old, which I did not understand myself, and consequently could not explain to others, either to their satisfaction, or my own.94

In recognizing limitations in the transparency of Scripture, Wesley faces a serious problem in his exegetical method. Without transparency, he can maintain neither sufficiency nor certainty.

As in other aspects of his exegetical method, Wesley resolves this problem by limiting transparency to the essentials of the faith. He extracts a comment on the work of the Spirit in the heart of a believer:

A sanctified heart is a sovereign defensative against erroneous doctrines; it furnishes the soul with spiritual eyes, judicious ears, and a distinguishing taste, by which it may discern both good and evil, truth and error; yea, it puts the soul at once under the conduct of the Spirit, and protection of the promise; (John xvi. 13;) and though this doth not secure a man from all lesser mistakes, yet it effectually secures him from those greater ones, which are inconsistent with salvation.95

Thus, the transparency effected by the Spirit relates only to the essentials of the faith, not the nonessentials, and Wesley concurs with the statement, "But, not withstanding all this [obscure Scriptures], the great and necessary things are so plainly revealed in the Scriptures that even babes in Christ do apprehend and understand them. (Matt. xi. 25; 1 Cor. I. 27, 28, 29)." 96 By limiting transparency to the essentials of the faith, Wesley can recognize obscurity and difficulty in certain passages of Scripture.

Although he recognizes that some passages of Scripture seem obscure, Wesley points out that the obscurity of Scripture does not inhere in the Scripture itself but in the minds of persons corrupted by the Fall. One of his extracts responds to the Roman Catholic argument which capitalizes upon the obscurity of Scripture:

The Romish party snatch at this occasion, and make it the proper cause, when indeed it is but a picked occasion of the errors and mistakes among men. They tell us, the Scriptures are so difficult, obscure, and perplexed, that if private men will trust to them, as their only guide, they will inevitably run into errors, and their only relief is to give up their souls to the conduct of their church; whereas indeed the true cause of error is not so much in the obscurity of the Word, as in the corruption of the mind.97

This perception that obscurity is caused by the mind of persons rather than the Scriptures themselves lends coherence to several exegetical principles that Wesley develops to militate against this defect in the mind.98

First, since Scripture is its own best interpreter, Wesley proposes the analogy of faith as the best protection against erroneous interpretations of obscure passages.99 He accepts the following position:

Let all obscure and difficult texts of Scripture be constantly examined and expounded according to the analogy or proportion of faith, which is St. Paul's own rule. "Let him that prophesieth, [that is, expoundeth the Scripture in the Church,] do it according to the proportion of faith." (Rom. xii.6).... Whilst we carefully and sincerely attend hereunto, we are secured from sinful corrupting the Word of God. Admit of no sense which interfereth with this proportion of faith. If men have no regard to this, but take liberty to rend off a single text from the body of truth to which it belong, and put a peculiar interpretation upon it which is discordant to other Scriptures, what work will they quickly make! 100

Thus, Wesley thinks that if an interpreter adheres to the analogy of faith in his interpretation, he will avoid errors arising from a corrupt mind.

Second, he calls for an impartial reading of Scripture void of presuppositions. Presuppositions can be the cause of mental errors, as explained in the following extract:

Hence it comes to pass, that the great patrons and factors for error, do above all things labor to gain countenance from the written word; and to this end, they manifestly wrest the Scriptures to make them subservient to their opinions; not impartially studying the Scripture first, and forming their opinions according to them; but they bring their erroneous opinions to the Scriptures, and then, with all imaginable art and sophistry, wiredraw and force the Scriptures to countenance and legitimate their opinions.101

In order to counteract this mental defect, Wesley calls for "sedate, impartial, and diligent inquiries after the will of God revealed in His word.''102

Third, Wesley calls for preference to be given to the literal or plain sense of Scripture as a remedy to errors occasioned by a person's fallen mind.103 Shelton explains this literal sense:

Wesley's literal interpretation is not "literalism," but the same kind of literal approach championed by Theodore and the School of Antioch. It deplores allegorism, while maintaining the validity of the spiritual or devotional sense of the Word. It is the same method followed by Luther and the reformers who refuse to base doctrine on the allegorical sense, and emphasizes that the plain rules of grammar and syntax give the meaning of any statement without recourse to any esoteric spiritualizations.104

Wesley means by the literal sense to take the words and phrases in their common and obvious meaning and thereby not to place an unnatural interpretation upon scripture. 105

James Clemons correctly observes that this literal sense serves to protect corrupted minds from fanciful interpretations:

He [Wesley] emphasized the literal, with all its rigorous academic demands, in part because the allegorical interpretation seemed to come from the same source as the extreme but rampant antirational, anti-intellectual "enthusiasm" or "inspirationalism" that plagued his days as it had Luther's. The literal method of interpretation, as he understood it, was the best way to avoid any wild eisegesis and any unwarranted doctrinal interpretation. .106

In Wesley's opinion, the exegetical principle of literal interpretations guards against errors occasioned by a person's faulty intellect.107

Fourth, Wesley proposes that understanding the context of a passage will help a person's mind to perceive the correct meaning of the passage. He suggests how to treat an obscure passage of Scripture:

Any passage is easily perverted, by being recited singly, without any of the preceding or following verses. By this means it may often seem to have one sense, when it will be plain, by observing what goes before and what follows after, that it really has the direct contrary. . 108

Thus, context is an important deterrent to incorrect interpretations occasioned by a person's corrupt mind.

Fifth and finally, Wesley holds that learned expositors should be consulted when obscure passages are encountered.109 An extract in his Christian Library advises his readers, "Have a due regard to that sense given of obscure places of Scripture, which hath . . . the current sense of learned expositors.''110 Wesley himself followed this advice relying heavily upon Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, and John A. Bengel. Bengel describes the role of the expositor:

Every book, when first published by a prophet or an apostle, bore in itself its own interpretation, as it referred to the existing state of things.... The purposes which can be attained by commentaries are chiefly the following: to preserve, restore, or defend the purity of the text; to exhibit the exact force of the language employed by any sacred writer; to explain the circumstances to which any passage refers; to remove errors or abuses which have arisen in later times. The first hearers needed none of these. Now however, it is the office of commentaries to effect and supply them in some measure, so that the hearer of today, with their aid, may be like the hearer in those times who had no such assistance.111

Wesley apparently agrees with Bengel that an expositor can enlighten the mind of the interpreter so that obscure passages can be understood.

Wesley admits that some Scriptures are obscure, but he refuses to locate this obscurity in Scripture itself. Instead, he locates this obscurity in the corrupt mind of fallen humanity. He develops these five principles in order to enable the fallen mind to comprehend correctly the meaning of Scripture. By developing these five principles to lessen or militate against this obscurity, Wesley is able to maintain the doctrine of the transparency of Scripture. By maintaining the transparency of Scripture, Wesley remains on the Protestant side of the Reformation dialogue.

As this discussion of Wesley's exegetical method has demonstrated, the Enlightenment and Reformation dialogues of western Christianity provide the issues and problems that determine the development of Wesley's exegetical method. These dialogues also suggest the resolutions of these issues and the solutions of these problems that Wesley adopts and advocates. This discussion leads to the conclusion that the western exegetical tradition provides the background and context for understanding the issues posed and the resolutions offered in Wesley's exegetical method. Wesley is a Protestant exegete in the western exegetical tradition of Christianity.112
 

The Eastern Influences upon Wesley's Exegesis

Having concluded that Wesley's exegetical method is essentially that of the western tradition, what role, if any, does the eastern exegetical tradition play in Wesley's exegesis?113 The eastern tradition is not determinative in suggesting or posing or creating the issues or problems that Wesley addresses. However, it does indirectly exert some influence upon the solutions advanced by Wesley. It also directly influences some of Wesley's exegetical conclusions. Both the indirect and direct influences of the eastern tradition upon Wesley must now be examined. 114

To a large degree, the eastern exegetical tradition influences Wesley indirectly through the Reformation's appropriation of eastern exegetical ideas and perspectives. As Larry Shelton correctly recognizes, Wesley's preference for the literal sense follows Luther and the reformers, who themselves followed Theodore and the School of Antioch.115 J. Barton Payne identifies several exegetical perspectives in Irenaeus that are present in the reformers.116 Among these perspectives are the plan of salvation as the theme of the Bible, the harmony of Scripture, the analogy of Scripture, and transparency.117 Payne states in regard to the latter:

His doctrine of perspicuity (transparency) of Scripture is that of the Reformers, namely, that insofar as essentials of faith are concerned, "the entire Scripture . . . can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them.118

In regard to the analogy of Scripture which Irenaeus sometimes refers to as the analogy of faith, Payne observes, "In respect to the analogy of Scripture, Irenaeus' view was that of the Westminster divines.''119 As Shelton and Payne correctly realize, many eastern exegetical ideas and perspectives are adopted by Protestants. These perspectives become part of Wesley's exegetical method in as much as his method reflects the Protestant position. Thus, they come to Wesley indirectly transmitted by the Protestant Reformation.

In order to assess the influence and role of Eastern exegetical ideas and perspectives on Wesley, then, we would have to work with these indirect influences. This, in turn, requires that the eastern orientation of the Protestant tradition to eastern thought as a whole be assessed.120 The continuing effort to make this assessment renders a final conclusion impossible at this time. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this paper, it is sufficient to note that Wesley was oriented to the eastern tradition in the same way as the Protestant tradition which he represents.

Still, in addition to these indirect influences, Wesley's exegetical conclusions are sometimes directly influenced by the eastern tradition. Since Wesley's exegetical principle of the analogy of faith determines his exegetical results, the influence of eastern thought upon his theology directly affects his exegetical conclusions. Because Wesleyan scholars are still investigating the eastern influences upon Wesley's theology, a definitive assessment of the direct eastern influences upon Wesley's exegesis is still forthcoming.12l Nevertheless, some direct influences may be observed by comparing the results of his exegesis with recognized theological differences between East and West. As an example, recognizing the limitations of the present study, we present an analysis of Wesley's exegesis relating to the doctrines of original guilt and prevenient grace.

Broadly speaking, eastern and western Christianity differ in their assessments of original guilt. The western tradition following Augustine has generally declared that all inherit the guilt of the original sin of Adam and Eve. Guilt is a fundamental characteristic or condition of humankind, in its natural state. George Cronk articulates the contrasting eastern position:

We are born into a world conditioned by Adam's sin and by the accumulated sins of others; we are involved in and influenced by that world; and our lives are often shaped by the ongoing consequences of human sinfulness. But we are guilty of, and therefore morally and spiritually responsible for our own actual sins, and not the sins of others. The human tendency to sin is "original" (or "congenital") in that it is a natural consequence of being born into a fallen world. In this restricted sense, we may be "born sinful," but we are not "born guilty." The Orthodox Church has always repudiated the doctrine of "original guilt"that is, the view that all men share not only the consequences of but also the guilt for the sin of Adam and Eve.122

Cronk's statement concisely articulates the Eastern tradition in general in contrast to the western tradition. The western tradition generally adheres to the doctrine of original guilt while the Eastern tradition generally does not.

Wesley's theological position in regard to the doctrine of original guilt is essentially that of the western tradition, but Albert Outler states that Wesley derived his "most distinctive ideas about prevenient grace and human freedom" from Eastern spirituality.123 McCormick explains Wesley's position:

As Wesley links prevenient grace to original sin he departs from Chrysostom's anthropological optimism. Furthermore, although he continually adopts the Latin accent on total depravity, he does not do so at the expense of the Eastern notion of theosis. Wesley's doctrine of original sin linked to prevenient grace, however, serves only to accentuate the necessity of grace in his anthropology, thereby nuancing the meaning and function of original sin. Original sin now functions to accent the necessity of prior grace. This resultant "third alternative" avoided an ontic degradation of humanity without disavowing an optimistic view of grace. Now that grace is antecedent to human choice, the divine-human capacity remains even after the Fall. 124

Randy Maddox agrees with McCormick's understanding of Wesley's position, stating:

Wesley adopted the western proclivity to term the guilty, powerless condition of fallen humanity our "natural" state. And yet, he was quick to add that no one actually exists in a state of "mere nature," unless they have quenched the Spirit. At issue here is Wesley's affirmation of a gift of prevenient grace to all fallen humanity. This grace removes the guilt inherited from Adam and re-empowers the human capacity to respond freely to God's offer of forgiving and transforming grace. Importantly, Wesley's actual sources for this idea lay more in early Greek theology (especially Macarius) than in Arminius. This distinctive wedding of the doctrines of original sin and prevenient grace allowed Wesley to emphasize the former as strongly as anyone in the West, yet hold an overall estimation of the human condition much like that of Eastern Orthodoxy.125

As Maddox observes, Wesley accepts the western doctrine that humanity inherits guilt from Adam's sin.126 However, similar to the Eastern tradition, his doctrine of prevenient grace prevents him from concluding that as a result of this guilt a person is in a state of powerlessness and consequently is unable to do any thing in regard to salvation.127 Thus, Wesley's theological position is a modification of the western understanding of original guilt as a result of Eastern influences.

McCormick notes that Knox refers to this synthesis as the "principle of Methodism" and that Outler coins the phrase "third alternative." He explains as follows:

Knox viewed this "principle of Methodism" as a synthesis of Augustine's efficient grace and Chrysostom's perfection or holiness. Albert Outler's label "evangelical catholicism" has repeatedly made use of Knox's synthesis. Outler frequently speaks of this synthesis as a "third alternative" which is perhaps one of the best paradigms in understanding the place of Wesley in the Christian Tradition.128

Regardless of the terminology, all these scholars recognize that Eastern influences are present in Wesley's theological position regarding original sin.

Wesley's exegetical conclusions reflect his theological position. Describing his use of Matthew Henry in the composition of his Notes upon the Old Testament, Wesley states, "But what he wrote in favor of Particular Redemption is totally left out. And of this I here give express notice to the reader once for all.''129 Wesley's exegesis reflects his theological presupposition that prevenient grace mitigates the depravity occasioned by original guilt so that total depravity does not necessitate the doctrine of "Particular Redemption." In a similar manner, Wesley writes to Richard Tompson:

Some days since, I received your favor of the 22nd instant, which came exceedingly seasonably; for I was just revising my Notes on the 5th chapter to the Romans; one of which I found, upon a closer inspection, seemed to assert such an imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity as might make way for the "horrible decree." I therefore struck it out immediately; as I would willingly do whatsoever should appear to be any way inconsistent with that grand principle, "The Lord is loving to every man; and His mercy is over all His works. 130

This response to Mr. Tompson as well as Wesley's use of Matthew Henry indicates that Wesley's theological position regarding prevenient grace influences his interpretation of those scriptural passages where original guilt and depravity could imply the need for individual predestination. McCormick observes this influence upon Wesley's exegesis of Romans 2:14-16, stating:

Wesley's exegesis of Romans 2:1416 speaks of the capacity of humanity to do the things of the law without having the law. This is because of the conscience, properly called "preventing grace." And yet, it is "natural" to all of creation because everyone seems to have some previous knowledge of good and evil without the written law. It is "natural" because it is universal.131

Thus, the doctrine of prevenient grace militates against the doctrine of total depravity inherent in the western understanding of the fall. If, as McCormick, Maddox, and others propose, Wesley derived his doctrine of prevenient grace from the Eastern tradition, then this tradition is exerting a direct influence upon Wesley's exegetical conclusions.132

Although examples of the direct influence of the Eastern tradition upon Wesley's exegetical conclusions may be multiplied, this example is sufficient to indicate that Wesley interprets Scripture according to his understanding of Christian theology or the analogy of faith. His exegetical conclusions are influenced by the Eastern tradition to the same degree that his theology is influenced by the Eastern tradition. 133
 

Conclusion

John Wesley's exegesis is essentially oriented toward the western exegetical tradition. This tradition determines the issues and problems within which he develops his exegetical method. It also suggests the possible solutions to these issues that are available to him. However, this basic western orientation does not exclude influences from the Eastern exegetical tradition. Eastern influences are mediated indirectly to Wesley through the Reformation and directly from Wesley's reading of Eastern authors. The extent of the Eastern influence upon Wesley's exegesis cannot be assessed until the extent of the Eastern influence upon the Reformation and Wesley's theology has been determined. As these studies progress, Eastern influences upon Wesley's exegesis should become more apparent. Nevertheless, as the preceding discussion demonstrates, Wesley's essential exegetical orientation is toward the western exegetical tradition.
 

Notes

1Thomas Ferrier Hulme, John Wesley and His Horse (London: Epworth Press, 1933).

2George A. Tumer, "John Wesley as an Interpreter of Scripture," in Inspiration and Interpretation, ed. John F. Walvoord (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 156, laments, "Little, however, has been written on the specific subject of Wesley as an interpreter of the Bible."

3In addition to Turner, the following studies are pertinent: William M. Amett, "John Wesley: Man of One Book" (Ph.D. dissertation, Drew University, 1954); James T. Clemons, "John Wesley: Biblical Literalist," Religion in Life 46 (1977), 332342; Thorvald Kallstad, John Wesley and the Bible: A Psychological Study (Stockholm: Bjamum, 1974); R. Larry Shelton, "John Wesley's Approach to Scripture in Historical Perspective," Wesleyan Theological Journal 16.1 (1981), 2350; Wayne McCown, "Toward a Wesleyan Hermeneutic," in Interpreting God's Word for Today, ed. idem and James Earl Massey, Wesleyan Theological Perspectives 2 (Anderson, Indiana: Warner Press, 1982), Outler, "Preface," in The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, ed. Frank Baker (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1984), 1:66100.

4Wesley does not accept the Deuterocanonical books of these traditions.

5Turner, "Wesley as Interpreter," 158, states, "In his attitude toward the Scripture, as in so many other respects, Wesley was in the 'middle of the road,' within the broad stream of Protestantism "

6Martin Luther, "Luther at the Diet of Worms," trans. Roger A. Homsby, in Luther's Works, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1958), 32: 112113.

7Martin Luther, "An Argument in Defense of All the Articles of Dr. Martin Luther Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull," trans. C. M. Jacobs, in The Works of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman, 1930), 3: 16.

8Luther, "Diet of Worms," Luther' s Works, 32: 113.

9Martin Luther, "Assertio omnium articulorum M. Lutheri per Bullam Leonis X. novissimam damnatorum," in D. Martin Luther's Works (Weimar: Herman Bohlaus, 1897), 7:97. Translation in Werner G. Kummel. The New Testament: The history of the Investigations of its Problems, trans. S. Maclean Gilmour and Howard Clark Kee (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), 2122.

10Martin Luther, "Answer to the Hyperchristian, Hyperspiritual Book by Goat Emser in Leipzig," trans. Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch, in Luther's Works, 39: 178.

11Luther, ibid., 181, defines "literal meaning" as follows, "Thus 'literal meaning' is not a good term, because Paul interprets the letter quite differently than they do. Those who call it 'grammatical historical meaning' do better. It would be appropriate to call it the 'meaning of the tongue or of language' as St. Paul does in 1 Corinthians 14 [:219], because, according to the sound of the tongue or speech, it is understood in this way by everyone."

l2The following discussion of the Reformation and Enlightenment dialogues is a summary of the excellent treatment by Klaus Scholder, The Birth of Modern Critical Theology, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990). Bowden provides English translations of the primary source material.

13Valerianus Magnus, De acatholicorum credendi regula iudicium (Prague: n.p., 1628; reprint in part 2 of Valeriani Magni ludicium de acatholicorum et acatholicorumregula credi, Vienna: Cosmerovius, 1641; English edition; A Censure about the Rule of Belief Practised by the Protestants (Doway: 11. Kellam, 1634). Magnus is also referred to as Valerio and Valeriano Magni.

14Magnus, op. cit., page numbers are to 1641 edition). Scholder, op. cit., 15.

15Magnus, ibid., p. 8; Scholder, p. 15.

16Magnus, ibid., p. 145; Scholder, ibid., p. 20.

17Magnus, ibid., p. 42; Scholder, ibid., p. 18.

18Jacob Martini, Vindiciae ecclesiae Lutheranae dei gratia absurdia superstitionis pontificiae sententiam eius de regula credendi (Wittenberg: J. Helwigius, 1631). Scholder, ibid., p. 20.

19Johannes Major, ludicium de acatholicorum credendi regula castigatum et confutatum (Jena: n.p., 1631), Scholder, ibid., p. 148n38.

20Isaac de La Peyrere, Praeadamitae. Sive exercitatio super versibus duodecimo, decimotertio, & decimoquarto, capitis quinti epistolae d. Pauli ad Romanos. Quibus indueuntur primi homines ante Adamum conditi (n.p., 1655); English edition, Man Before Adam, or, A Discourse upon the Twelfth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Verses of the Fifth Chapter of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans. By which are prov'd, that the first men were created before Adam (London: n.p., 1656).

21Scholder, ibid., pp. 8687.

22An example of this method of relating the Bible and scientific fact is Andreas Osiander's preface to Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium caelestium (Nuremberg: J. Petreius, 1543). In this preface he states that the true cause of the movement of the heavenly bodies is in principle unknowable. Hence, he concludes that any explanation, including that of Copemicus, is only hypothetical. For a detailed discussion, see Scholder, ibid., pp. 4953.

23J. Kepler, "Astronomia nova" in Opera omnia, ed. C. Frisch (Frankfurt: Heyder, 1854), 3:153. Scholder, ibid., pp. 5556.

24Scholder, ibid., p. 57.

25Franz Hildebrandt, From Luther to Wesley (London: Lutterworth Press, 1951), 30, observes, "It is evident that, as a son of the eighteenth century, he 'reasons' in a style very different from Luther's, addressing his generation in 'an earnest appeal to men of reason and religion....' "

26John Wesley, "The Case of Reason Impartially Considered," in The Works of John Wesley, 14 vols. (London: Wesleyan Conference Office, 1872; reprint, Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1978), 6:353 (page numbers are to reprint edition). This is the Jackson edition. Hereinafter this work is abbreviated as "Reason Considered."

27Laurence Willard Wood, "Wesley's Epistemology," Wesleyan Theological Journal 10 (1975), 51.

28Wood, ibid., 56.

29John Wesley, "The Spirit of Bondage and Adoption," in Works, 5:108, interprets Romans 8:15 as distinguishing between the natural, legal, and evangelical man as follows, "To sum up all: the natural man neither fears nor loves God; one under the law, fears, one under grace, loves Him. The first has no light in the things of God, but walks in utter darkness; the second sees the painful light of hell; the third, the joyous light of heaven "

30John Wesley, "An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion," in Works, 8:4. Hereinafter abbreviated as "Appeal."

31Hildebrandt states, ibid., p.27, "Yet the Word is not accessible to the unregenerate mind.... There is a veil which must be taken from Israel (2 Cor. 3:15f.), the seal which must be broken (Rev. 5:2ff.), the key which must be found (Rev. 3:7)."

32Wesley, "Appeal," in Works, 8:1314.

33Wesley, "Reason Considered," in Works, 6:353-354, says, ". . . let us now impartially consider, First, What is it that reason can do? And who can deny that it can do much, very much, in the affairs of common life? . . . To ascend higher still: It is certain reason can assist us in going through the whole circle of arts and sciences; of grammar, rhetoric, logic, natural and moral philosophy, mathematics, algebra, metaphysics. It can teach whatever the skill or industry of man has invented for some thousand years."

34Wesley, "Reason Considered," in Works, 6:354355.

35Reason applied to outward sense data does not depend upon God's revelation because the physical world is always present and accessible. However, reason applied to the internal sense data does depend upon God's revelation because this data is not always accessible. Wesley admits that the Bible as an entity of the physical world is accessible to all men and some information may be derived from it. However, faith cannot be derived from it by the natural man apart from the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Turner, "Wesley as Interpreter," 175, states, "Wesley assumed that, since God is rational, interpretation of Scripture, if true, should be reasonable; it must cohere with other phases of revelation."

36John Wesley, "Extract of a Discourse of the Causes and Cures of Mental Errors," in A Christian Library, ed. idem (London: J. Kershaw, 1825), 27:324, apparently agrees with the statements, "To take down the arrogance, and prevent the mischief of carnal reasonings, let us be convinced, That it is the will of God, that reason in all believers should resign to faith, and all ratiocination submit to revelation. Reason is no better than an usurper, when it presumes to arbitrate matters belonging to faith and revelation. Reason's proper place is to sit at the feet of faith, and instead of searching the secret grounds and reasons, to adore and admire the great and unsearchable mysteries of the Gospel. None of God's works are unreasonable, but many of them are above reason.... It is not reason, but faith that must save us." The Christian Library, of course, presents Wesley-edited extracts from various authors. For the purposes of this paper, I am assuming that Wesley himself concurs with the given quotation or citation.

37Wesley, "Appeal," in Works, 8:6.

38Wesley, "Appeal," in Works, 8:13.

39Wesley, "Reason Considered," in Works, 6:355.

40Wesley, "Mental Errors," in Christian Library, 27:323, extracts the following, "Reason is our guide by the institution and law of nature, in civil and natural affairs: It is the standard at which we weigh them: It is an home-born judge and king in the soul. Faith comes in as a stranger to nature, and so it is dealt with as an intruder into reason's province, just as the Sodomites dealt with Lot. It refuseth to be an underling to faith. Out of this arrogancy of carnal reason, as from Pandora's box, swarms of errors are flown abroad into the world."

41It is instructive to compare Wesley's solution of the problem of relating revelation and reason to the solution proposed by the Cartesian Center Party. See Scholder, ibid., p. 124.

42Wesley did not hold that reason was an infallible guide to truth, however. He ascribes the defects in the human faculty of reason to the Fall. In "Mental Errors," in Christian Library, 285-286, his position is exposed, "The understanding of man was at first perspicacious and clear, all truths lay obvious in their comely and ravishing beauty before it: 'God made man upright.' . . . No sooner was man created, but by the exercise of knowledge he soon discovered God's image in him; and by his ambition after more, lost what he had. So that now there is an haziness or cloud spread over truth by ignorance and error." Because reason is marred in man, conclusions reached exclusively by reason must be held as hypothetical while conclusions based upon revelation are not. Page 295 continues, "The former, namely, matters of mere opinion, we are so to hold, as upon clear light to be ready to part with them. The other, namely, matters of faith, we are to hold with resolutions to live and die by them."

43Wayne McCown, "Toward a Wesleyan Hermeneutic," in Interpreting God's Word for Today, ed. idem, Wesleyan Theological Perspectives 2 (Anderson, Indiana: Warner Press, 1982), 6, says "Wesley was not content with merely describing literary and historical data. In fact, he evidences a decided disinterest in such details as matters of importance in and of themselves. He always pressed on to explicate the truth contained in any and every text."

44George Lyons, "Hermeneutical Bases for Theology: Higher Criticism and the Wesleyan Interpreter," Wesleyan Theological Journal 18 (1983), 67, states, "I would suggest still another characterization Wesley's hermeneutic is soteriocentric. He studied the Bible with one overriding question in mind: What is the way to heaven." This soteriological focus was bequeathed to Wesley by the early reformers, but they did not limit the Bible to strictly soteriological concerns as Wesley did.

45Shelton, ibid., pp. 3839.

46Wesley utilized the method of limitation of scope so radically that he hardly feels compelled to resort to the accommodation theory that was so important to Kepler. For instance, Joshua 10 is ignored in Wesley's writings. When he is forced to contend with this chapter in his Explanatory Notes Upon the Old Testament, he does not discuss the contradictory world view implied there, but he focuses upon the issue of God's aid to his people in time of need. See John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Old Testament (Bristol: William Fine, 1765), I :739740. Hereinafter this work will be abbreviated as Old Testament Notes.

47John Wesley, "The Scripture Way of Salvation," in Works, 6:44. Wesley, "Reason Considered," in Works, 6:354, says, "The foundation of true religion stands upon the oracles of God..And how is it possible ..to ascertain the essential truths contained therein? a beautiful summary of which we have in that which is called the Apostles' Creed." He then proceeds to summarize the elements of saving faith.

48John Wesley, "Thoughts upon Methodism," in Works, 13:258. See also his sermon, "The Witness of Our Own Spirit," in Works, 5:136, where he says, "But what is the rule whereby men are to judge of right and wrong? . . . But the Christian rule of right and wrong is the word of God, the writings of the Old and the New Testament; all that the Prophets and 'holy men of old' wrote 'as they were moved by the Holy Ghost;' all that Scripture which was given by inspiration of God, and which is indeed profitable for doctrine, or teaching the whole will of God; for reproof of what is contrary thereto; for correction of error; and for instruction, or training us up, in righteousness (2 Tim. iii.l6)."

49John Wesley, Old Testament Notes, 1: 1.

50John Wesley, "Extract of Mental Errors," in Christian Library, 27:293.

51Hildebrandt, ibid., p. 30.

52Hildebrandt, ibid., p. 28, states, "Sermons, letters, journals show on every page the man who speaks in Biblical terms, argues in Biblical ways and thinks in Biblical categories; at no point is he nearer to Luther and further remote from contemporary English theology." Cited with approval by Shelton, 37, and by Colin Williams, John Wesley's Theology.Today (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1960), 37. See also William Arnett, "John Wesley and the Bible," Wesleyan Theological Journal 3.1 (1968), 58, for a similar assessment.

53John Wesley, "Popery Calmly Considered," in Works, 10:142, states, "In all cases, the church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church."

54Shelton, ibid., pp. 3840.

55John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1986), l:note on Matthew 1:1.

56John Albert Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, trans. Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent (Philadelphia: Perkinpine and Higgins, 1862), 1 :xvi.

57John Wesley, "Journal" in Works, 4:82. Wesley is responding to Mr. Jenyn's tract, "Internal Evidence of the Christian Religion." Jenyn had stated, ". . . all Scripture is not given by inspiration of God; but the writers were some times left to themselves, and consequently made some mistakes." For a discussion of this quotation see Turner, "Wesley As Interpreter," 162.

58Wesley, "Popery," 10:141.

59John Wesley, The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., ed. John Telford (London: Epworth Press, 1931), 4:247, writes to Margaret Lewen, "You want to know God, in order to enjoy Him in time and in eternity. All that you want to know of Him is contained in one book, the Bible."

60Outler, "Preface," ibid., 58, observes, "And it was from this basic doctrine of Biblical inspiration that his main principles of interpretation were derived.... The first was that believers should accustom themselves to the Biblical language and thus to the 'general sense' of Scripture as a whole. This general sense is omnipresent throughout the canon even if not equally so in every text; there is a 'message' in every part of Holy Writ, and it is always the same, in essence."

61Wesley, "Extract of Mental Errors, " in Christian Library, 27: 307308.

62McCown, 5. John N. Oswalt, "Wesley's Use of the Old Testament in His Doctrinal Teachings," Wesleyan Theological Journal 12 (1977), 41, states, "Any one sermon or a subject would cover the whole range of the relevant Biblical teaching."

63Turner, "Wesley as Interpreter," 170, says, "There is in Wesley a greater tendency to look at the question theologically than exegetically. In other words, Wesley tended to interpret a disputed passage by the Scripture as a whole without strictly limiting himself to a literal-historical interpretation. He was as apt to explain an Old Testament passage by an appeal to Paul, as to consider it in the light of its own context."

64John Wesley, "The Witness of the Spirit," in Works, 5:132133. Turner, Wesley as Interpreter," 176, says, "To Wesley experience provided another criterion that served to assure him whether or not a given interpretation was in accord with the Spirit of truth."

65Frank Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970), 8, suggests that Wesley's parents, as good Anglicans, taught him that reason was necessary to supplement the Bible in ascertaining God's will.

66Wesley, "Extract of Mental Errors," in Christian Library, 27:286. On pages 308-310, this extract uses Scriptural inferences to establish the Christian Sabbath and the first day of the week as well as infant baptism.

67Baker, ibid., p. 11, states, "One major problem remained. Granted that the law of God must be obeyed, how was it to be discovered? . . . The answer usually given by Anglican theologians was: 'The Bible, interpreted by reason and the ancient church.' Wesley seems to have reached this conclusion by a process similar to osmosis, absorbing the Anglican spirit into his bloodstream without specific teaching or reading." Baker op. cit., 138139, proposes that Wesley added experience to this classical Anglican approach the influence of the German pietists.

68Donald A. D. Thorsen, The Wesleyan Quadrilateral (Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury Press, 1990). Tumer, "Wesley as Interpreter," 174175, explains the rationale behind Wesley's integration of these different authorities, saying, "Wesley believed that the path to spiritual truth was threefold: Scripture, reason, and experience. Sometimes he varied the trilogy to "Scripture, Reason, and Christian Antiquity." Always the Bible was first but he recognized that reason was needed in its interpretation, and also that one's individual interpretation needed to be checked with that of other earnest Christians. By "experience" he meant primarily the operation of God with the soul, both individual and corporately. By "Christian Antiquity" he meant the same Christian consciousness as expressed by earlier generations of Christians, the difference was temporal.... Wesley assumed that, since God is rational, interpretation of scripture, if true, should be reasonable; it must cohere with other phases of revelation." Also see Outler, "Preface," ibid., 6061.

69In a paper presented to the Conference of 1755, Wesley says, "But is the Bible the only rule of Christian worship? Yes, the only supreme rule. But there may be a thousand rules subordinate to this, without any violation of it at all." See Baker, ibid., 330. At one point, Wesley argues that contradiction would overthrow the whole Christian revelation. See John Wesley, "Free Grace," in Works, 7:381.

70Baker, ibid., p. 33, cites a passage from Wesley's Journal in which he confesses that he erred in "making antiquity a coordinate rather than a subordinate rule with Scripture."

71Baker, ibid., p. 13, identifies the origin of Wesley's position in regard to these various authorities as the Church of England which sought a mediating position between Catholics and Protestants. He states, "In this was reflected the compromising spirit of English Protestantism, which . . . provided a series of checks and balances designed to preserve what was seen to be good both in Roman Catholicism and in the continental Reformation, and at the same time to guard against what was feared: to maintain alike the primacy of Scripture and a sense of continuity with the rites and government of the apostolic church...."

72Shelton, ibid., p. 42, says, "Finally, his emphasis that Scripture must be interpreted in the context of prayer is noteworthy. This awareness of the illumination of the Word through the Spirit is basic to Wesley's hermeneutic, as it was for the Fathers and Reformers."

73Wesley, "Extract of Mental Errors," in Christian Library, 27:287.

74Wesley, Old Testament Notes, 1:ix. Hildebrandt, ibid., 27, comments, "No other guide will open the Word but He Himself who gave it (Psalm 68:11) and who remains His own interpreter." On pages 2729, Hildebrandt cites several Wesley hymns that affirm this role of the Holy Spirit in interpretation.

75Turner, "Wesley as Interpreter," 174. Wesley, New Testament Notes, 2: note on 2 Timothy 3:16, says, "The Spirit of God not only once inspired those who wrote it, but continually inspires, supernaturally assists, those that read it with earnest prayer."

76Hildebrandt, ibid., p. 28, observes, "Likewise the Lutheran Fathers declared scriptura sacra sui ipsius interpres and insisted upon the inseparable connection between the living Spirit and the written Word."

77 Lyons, ibid., p. 71, points to the phrase "spiritual meaning" in Wesley and says, "By 'spiritual meaning' Wesley does not suggest that he adheres to a twofold meaning of Scripture, an abbreviation of the medieval fourfold meaning. He refers rather to the practical edifying corollaries to be deduced from Scripture an insistence upon the necessity of moving beyond what it once meant to what it now means." Clemons, ibid., p. 342, note 9, says, "The literal meaning could be grasped with painstaking effort, involving all of the methods and tools available, but the spiritual came through the work of the Spirit, once the literal meaning had been established." See the literature cited by Lyons, ibid., p. 77, note 70. Carl Michalson, "The Hermeneutics of Holiness in Wesley," in Interpreting God's Word for Today, ed. Wayne McCown and James Earl Massey, Wesleyan Theological Perspectives 2 (Anderson, Indiana: Warner Press, 1982), 32-33, discusses the view of application among the Pietists that interpretation is not complete until the truth is applied. He interprets Wesley as being in basic agreement.

78Wesley, New Testament Notes, l:note on John 7:17.

79Turner, "Wesley as Interpreter," 174.

80McCown, ibid., p. 7.

81Wesley, Old Testament Notes, 1:ix, advises after giving instruction upon how to interpret the Bible: "And whatever light you thus receive, should be used to the uttermost, and that immediately. Let there be no delay. Whatever you resolve, begin to execute the first moment you can. So shall you find this word to be indeed the power of God unto present and eternal salvation."

82Wesley, "Extract of Mental Errors," in Christian Library, 27:312, agrees with the statement, "The sweet consent and beautiful harmony of all the parts of the written word, is a great argument of its divinity; and this you will clearly discern when by a due search you shall find that things that lie at the remotest distance, to conspire and consist in one, and one part casting light. as well as adding strength to another." See also Outler, "Preface," 58.

83McCown, ibid., p. 5.

84Wesley, "Extract of Mental Errors," in Christian Library, 27:302.

85Outler, "Preface," ibid., p. 58, says that this principle also comes from the Greek fathers. He says, "This leads to a second rule, adapted from the ancient Fathers. and from the Reformers as well: that the Scriptures are to be read as a whole, with the expectation that the clearer texts may be relied upon to illuminate the obscurer ones."

86McCown, ibid., p. 6

87Lyons, ibid., p. 71, says, "Wesley accepts the Reformation hermeneutical rule known as 'the analogy of faith,' by which Scripture is understood as its own interpreter."

88John Wesley, "An Address to the Clergy," in Works, 10:490.

89Wesley, Old Testament Notes, 1 :ix.

90Turner, "Wesley as Interpreter," 172.

91Turner, "Wesley as Interpreter," 169170.

92Clemons, ibid., p. 342, note 10, concurs saying, "The phrase 'analogy of faith' appears several times in Wesley's writings. one indication of what he meant appears in his Preface to Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament: 'Have a constant eye to the analogy of faith, the connection and harmony there is between those grand fundamental doctrines, original sin, justification by faith, the new birth, inward and outward holiness.' While all of these doctrines were for Wesley based on Scripture, they had been shaped by the traditions of the church. It seems then that no valid interpretation would depart from those 'grand doctrines.' " See Wesley, Old Testament Notes, 1:ix.

93Wesley, "Extract of Mental Errors," in Christian Library, 27:301.

94Wesley, Old Testament Notes, 1:iii.

95Wesley, "Extract of Mental Errors," in Christian Library, 27:331.

96Wesley, "Extract of Mental Errors," in Christian Library, 27:294. Wesley, Letters, 2:325, writes to Dr. Conyers Middleton, "The Scriptures are a complete rule of faith and practice; and they are clear in all necessary points. "

97Wesley, "Extract of Mental Errors," in Christian Library, 27:301.

98See Outler, "Preface," ibid., pp. 5859, for a discussion of Wesley's five interpretive principles.

99John Wesley, "Preface to Sermons on Several Occasions," in Works, 5:3, states in regard to the interpretation of obscure passages, "I then search after and consider parallel passages of Scripture, 'comparing spiritual things with spiritual. ' "

100Wesley, "Extract of Mental Errors," in Christian Library, 27:302303.

101Wesley, "Extract of Mental Errors," in Christian Library, 27:293.

102 Wesley, "Extract of Mental Errors," in Christian Library, 27:310.

103Wesley, Old Testament Notes, 1:ix, states that his design is "to give the direct, literal meaning, of every verse, of every sentence, and as far as I am able, of every word in the oracles of God. I design only . . . to point every man to keep his eye fixt upon the naked Bible, that he may read and hear it with understanding." Wesley, "Letter to Samuel Furley, May 10, 1755," in Letters, 3:129, advises, "The general rule of interpreting Scripture is this: the literal sense of every text is to be taken, if it be not contrary to some other texts; but in that case the obscure text is to be interpreted by those which speak more plainly."

104Shelton, ibid., p. 42.

105John Wesley, "On Corrupting the Word of God," in Works, 7:473, says, ". . . we have spoken the Word of God . . . if we have put no unnatural interpretation upon it, but taken the known phrases in their common obvious sense." How ever, Wesley demonstrates great latitude in his understanding of the literal interpretation. Michalson, ibid., 4142, points out, "In the sermon The Signs of the Times, the customary messianic signs are listed: the deaf hear, the lame walk, and lepers are cleansed.... The deaf who hear are those who were deaf to the out ward and inward call of God. The lame who walk are now running the race that is set before them. The lepers who are healed are those inflicted with 'the deadly leprosy, of sin.' " Clemons, ibid., 335, correctly observes, "The term literal, then, is far too complex to be limited to a simplistic understanding...." See also Baker, ibid., 20.

106 Clemons, ibid., p. 335.

107See Outler, "Preface," ibid., p. 58.

I08Wesley, "Corrupting the Word," in Works, 7:470. Wesley, "Extract of Mental Errors," in Christian Library, 27:303, contains the following advice, "Whenever you meet with an obscure place of Scripture, let the context of that Scripture be thoroughly searched; for it is usual with God to set up light there to guide us through the obscurity of a particular text."

109Wesley, "Preface to Sermons," in Works, 5:3, says, "If any doubt still remains. I consult those who are experienced in the things of God.

110Wesley, "Extract of Mental Errors," in Christian Library, 27:304.

111Bengel, ibid., p. xiii.

112Turner, "Wesley as Interpreter," 158, says, "Wesley therefore differed little in his view of the Bible from other Protestant groups."

113The recent attempt to relate John Wesley to Eastern orthodoxy labors under some serious methodological problems. This attempt arises from Albert Outler's suggestions in his book John Wesley in "A Library of Protestant Thought" (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), viii.ix, 9, note 26, 31; in his article, "John Wesley's Interests in the Early Fathers of the Church," Bulletin of the United Church of Canada Committee on Archives and History 29 (1980 82), 517; and in his "Preface'' to Wesley's sermons, ed. cit., 7476. Outler's suggestions may be correct, but careful methods must be developed in order to establish this relationship. The comparison is complicated because Wesley is not being compared to Eighteenth Century Orthodoxy, but to the Greek fathers of the first four or five centuries. The reference to these fathers as Eastern Orthodox is anachronistic as well as misleading since they are also recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. A careful study of the method used to relate Wesley to the eastern traditions should be made, but the task is too involved for this present paper. Although recognizing methodological problems, this paper tentatively accepts the results of the recent comparisons of Wesley with the Eastern tradition.

114K. Steve McCormick, "Faith Filled with the Energy of Love: A Forgotten Strand of Theosis in Chrysostom, Recovered by Wesley," (Unpublished paper presented to the Wesleyan Studies Group at the American Academy of Religion Meeting; Anaheim, California, November 18, 1989), 78, note 21, discusses the problems in distinguishing between indirect and direct Eastern influences upon Wesley. He states, "The real problem in ascertaining the influence of a particular early church father or any other source for that matter, in Wesley, lies in the fact that patristics and the early church fathers were such a vital part of Anglican reading that it is difficult to determine whether Wesley was directly recalling or quoting from these men, or merely remembering a line or two that was itself an echo of the early church fathers. By revealing a few of these "direct" and "indirect" sources in Wesley's Anglican heritage one can pinpoint the actual places of exposure. The problem therefore, must be explored contextually; i.e., with reference to the patristic revival in the seventeenth century, the place of patristics in Anglican theology along with its theological method.... It must be explored contextually because of the obvious questions; i.e., How much of Wesley's exposure to Chrysostom is simply due to his Anglican heritage, and how much is due to direct reading and use by Wesley? In other words, is Wesley's use of Chrysostom simply his own heritage speaking or is his use of Chrysostom his own explicit borrowing from Chrysostom?, or a little of both? This investigation must also be explored textually.... This textual examination, will lift out primarily by means of inferences drawn from the varied quotations or allusions to Chrysostom in Wesley...." Even after recognizing the problem in distinguishing between direct and indirect influences, McCormick still maintains the distinction in his contextual (indirect influences) and textual (direct influences) approach. The same distinction is maintained in the following discussion.

115Shelton, ibid., p. 42. Shelton's statement is quoted in footnote 66 above.

116Does Irenaeus belong to the Eastern or western tradition? He was born in the East and reared in Smyma in Asia Minor, but he served as a missionary in southern France. He became Bishop of Lyons in A.D. 177 and served until his death in the early nineties. Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant all recognize him as a church father. Thus, he belongs to all the traditions. The reason he is cited as a representative of the eastern tradition by some scholars is that he wrote in Greek, not Latin.

117J. Barton Payne, "The Biblical Interpretation of Irenaeus," in Inspiration and Interpretation, ed. John F. Walvoord (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 29 46.

118Payne, ibid., p. 46

119Payne, ibid., p. 33.

120An investigation that compares and contrasts the extent of Eastern influences upon Anglicanism as distinct from the Continental Reformation would be particularly useful in assessing the direct and indirect Eastern influences upon Wesley.

121See Outler, "Preface," ibid., pp. 7476, for a discussion of several Eastern influences upon Wesley's theology.

122George Cronk, The Message of the Bible: An Orthodox Christian Perspective (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Press, 1982), 45.

123Wesley, Old Testament Notes, 1:26, comments upon Genesis 5:3 and notes that Adam's son was "sinful and defiled, frail and mortal, and miserable like himself; not only a man like himself, consisting of body and soul; but a sinner like himself, guilty, and obnoxious, degenerate and corrupt."

124McCormick, ibid., pp. 4042. Also see Outler, "Preface," ibid., p. 74.

125Randy Maddox, "John Wesley and Eastern Orthodoxy: Influences, Convergences, and Differences," Asbury Theological Journal 45.2 (1990), 35.

126In response to Dr. Taylor, who held that Adam's guilt did not pass to his posterity, Wesley, The Doctrine of Original Sin (London: J. Kershaw, 1825), 65, states, "Now since we suffer the same penal evil, which God threatened to, and inflicted on, Adam for his sin; and since it is allowed, we suffer this for Adam's sin, and that by the sentence of God, appointing all men to die, because Adam sinned; is not the consequence evident? Therefore we are all some way guilty of Adam's sin." Later, on pages 91-92, Wesley quotes Taylor as saying, "But we cannot gather from Rom. v. or 1 Cor. xv. 'That all mankind sinned in Adam, if we understand sin as distinguished from suffering.'" Wesley then responds to this statement, "It has been largely proved, that we can; and that sinning must necessarily be understood there, as distinguished from suffering." Wesley, New Testament Notes, note on Romans 5:12, clearly articulates his position, "In that [εφ ψ]So the word is used also, 2 Cor. v.4. All sinned in Adam. These words assign the reason why death came upon all men; infants themselves not excepted, in that all sinned."

l27McCormick, ibid., p. 36, states, "Conscience in Chrysostom seems to function in the same way as prevenient grace functions in Wesley."

128McCormick,  ibid., pp. 23

129Wesley, Old Testament Notes, 1:v.

130Wesley, Letters, 3:134.

131McCormick, ibid., p. 38. See Robert D. Smith, "John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards: Theologians, Theology, and Theological Method," (Unpublished paper presented to the American Academy of Religion Meeting; Anaheim, California, November 18, 1989), 89. Comparing Wesley to Jonathan Edwards, Smith comments, "In 'Original Sin' he [Wesley] affirmed that persons by nature were void of original righteousness. He explained this to mean the loss of both the knowledge and love of God. Both Edwards and Wesley believed that the loss of God's presence meant that in their own nature persons could not please God. Indeed they inclined toward evil. Only the grace of God enabled one to respond favorably to God. Wesley asserted grace came to all persons, while Edwards indicated only to the elect."

132Maddox, ibid., p. 46, note 58, cites several studies that support his contention that Wesley's notion of prevenient grace originates from the eastern tradition.

133See Maddox, ibid., passim, for a discussion of several areas in which Wesley's theology is influenced by Eastern tradition.

Edited by Michael Mattei 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, provided the notice below the horizontal line is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.