by
David Bundy

Christian virtue, that structure of desirable behavioral patterns developed to be congruent with the professed religious values, was important to both John Wesley and to the Alexandrian theologians.1 For both, it was a central concern in the Christian life; virtue is not contributory to, but is reflective of human divinisation (the process of becoming like God in total experience) or sanctification (the process of becoming conformed to God in this life). The possible relationship between Wesley and the Alexandrian theologians was suggested by Wesley himself. In an oft cited letter to the editor of Lloyd's Evening Post, preserved in Wesley's journal, it is suggested that John Wesley used a text of Clement of Alexandria as the model for his tract, The Character of a Methodist.2 Both Clement of Alexandria and Origen are cited (at least five and twenty-five times respectively) by Wesley.3 Other writers used by Wesley, including Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and Macarius, were heavily influenced by Clement and especially by Origen. Indeed, the Cappadocian theologians, Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil the Great, whom Wesley read, and Gregory of Nyssa, who was perhaps not read or at least not cited, self-consciously adapted the spirituality of Origen to their fourth-century context.4 Another writer, of uncertain provenance, used by Wesley, Macarius, has been read, inappropriately, in light of Gregory of Nyssa by Werner Jaeger.5 However, Macarius, whom Gregory of Nyssa (probably) used6 can also be read in the light of Origen and Clement who represent a tradition in the understanding of the relationship between gnosis and praksis which had been evolving at Alexandria since the days of Philo.7

The numerous citations in Wesley's works and the avowals of the importance of early Christian writers, especially the precise reference to Clement of Alexandria, have led Wesley scholars to affirm Alexandrian influence on Wesley. Harald Lindstrom observed, as early as 1946, that Clement's seventh Stromata, "On Perfection," was important for understanding Wesley.8 Outler stated, in 1964: "The 'Christian Gnostic' of Clement of Alexandria became Wesley's model of the ideal Christian."9 McIntosh argued that there are similarities between Wesley's and Clement's concepts of "perfect love."10 Outler, discussing Wesley's interest in early Christian writers, affirmed, "Clement of Alexandria was a favorite; Origen is cited seven times with sensitivity."11

Despite these things, methodological problems posed by the comparison of the complex, eclectic Wesley and the perhaps more complex Alexandrian tradition dissuaded scholars until the mid 1980's. In 1985, A. C. Meyer defended what may go down in history as one of the worst of doctoral dissertations. His efforts to examine "John Wesley and the Church Fathers" devolved into long citations from patristic handbooks and unreflective assembling of quotations from John Wesley.12 Fortunately for Wesleyan and patristic studies, the dissertation of Ted Campbell had become available the year before. Campbell's dissertation noted the methodological problems of a direct comparison of patristic writers and Wesley and carefully developed a precise analysis of Wesley's use of "Christian antiquity." It provides an essential first stop in the analysis of Wesley's use of early Christian sources, and, in spite of the observation that he did not "focus on the Greek fathers," his is the most reliable analysis of Wesley's use of the eastern writers available. Campbell provides the basis from which all future work on Wesley's appropriation of models from the early church must begin.13

This essay will build on the earlier suggestions and works. The method is, first, to discuss briefly methodological issues; second, to explore Wesley's dependence on Clement and Origen as claimed by him; third, to explore convergences and divergences between Wesley and the Alexandrian tradition with respect to virtue; and fourth, to suggest the implications of that analysis for reading Wesley.

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

Wesley was not the sole Anglican theologian to use the early Christian writers as authorities, models and sources for theological, ecclesiological and ethical reflection. He was the beneficiary of a revival in patristic scholarship in 17th and 18thcentury England which had provided editions and translations of many important patristic texts.14 Nor was England the only source of editions. On the European continent, humanists, reformers and counter-reformers had produced texts, translations and analyses of early documents. It was not merely an academic issue. Each group was attempting to rediscover and claim early Christian writers as support for its understanding of Christianity. Because of the primitivist impulse of many Reformation ideals, the preoccupation was with the writers antecedent to the Council of Nicea (325 C.E.) although later writers, especially through the fourth century, received significant attention.15

In England, enthusiasm for the patristic writers was particularly keen among the Anglican Caroline divines. Richard Hooker (1554-1600) is, in many senses the founder of Anglican theology. In his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (1594-1597), Hooker proposed a quadrilateral of authority in ecclesiastical decision-making which included Scripture, reason, the tradition of the church and the perspective of the contemporary church, arguing that the consensus of the tradition be sought rather than to confer authority on any given writer.16 Favorites of Wesley and his period, such as Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626) and Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667), emphasized, even more than Hooker, these sources.17 Following this lead, Caroline writers edited and translated significant quantities of early Christian texts. They also proposed parameters for the use of early materials in settling disputes about Christian theology, spirituality and polity. William Wake (1657-1737) and William Cave (1637-1713) were especially productive, and Wesley would use their materials.18 Continental scholars Jean Daille', Claude Fleury and Johann Lorenz von Mosheim (1694-1755) contributed programmatic works which circulated in England and were used (in the cases of Fleury and Mosheim, edited and republished in translation without crediting the authors or the translators!) by Wesley.19 Wesley also edited a volume on ascetic spirituality by Anthony Horneck which appears to draw heavily upon Clement and other Alexandrians and includes Horneck's "Letter to a Person of Quality, Concerning the Lives of the Primitive Christians."20 Wesley concludes his first edition of Horneck's work with a recommendation of Clement of Alexandria and Origen, among other Ante-Nicene writers.21 Philip Jacob Spener (1635-1705), the German Pietist, provided extensive patristic quotations in his Pia Desidera seeking to demonstrate the high moral values of the early Church.22 Johann Arndt (1555-1621), a principal progenitor of German Pietism, earlier contributed a volume which sought to ascertain the nature of primitive, "true" Christianity. Wesley also abstracted it for inclusion in his Christian Library.23 Arndt's work reflects a developmental spirituality and he is obviously aware of the Alexandrian tradition.

Other key texts from the Caroline period which are related to the patristic materials and which Wesley appropriated include John Williams (1636? 1709), A Catechism Truly Representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, with an Answer Thereto (London: Richard Chriswell, 1686). Wesley plagiarized this work for his "A Roman Catechism...With a Reply Thereto."24 The work of another Caroline writer, William Beveridge, Sunodikon, sive Pandectae Canonum 55. Apostolorum et Conciliorum Ecclesia Graeca Receptorum, provided grist for Wesley's liturgical experimentation in Georgia.25 Wesley knew and positively appreciated the work of the Caroline divines sufficiently to follow them as models in the use of early Christian literature, as Campbell has demonstrated.26 The Caroline writers themselves had used early Christian writers as resources in every aspect of their theological inquiry and reflection, especially in their considerations of Christian virtue. For example, Jeremy Taylor and William Law, who influenced Wesley early in his quest, were apparently endeavoring to present patristic primitivist syntheses of the virtuous Christian life, viewing it developmentally.27

The importance of these precedents to the purposes of this essay lies in the fact that the transmission of the writings of early Christian writers was not simply a matter of direct reading and literal translation of otherwise unknown texts. The continental Pietist and Caroline writers had in mind purposes other than mere transmission of texts and traditions. These other purposes conditioned Wesley's reading of those texts and his publication of them in his Christian Library. In fact, he virtually excluded the actual early sources themselves from it.

The second methodological issue involved in discussing Wesley's use of patristic materials, the works of the Alexandrians and their disciples in particular, is the assumption that before the Renaissance, Western Christianity had come to be isolated from the neoplatonic structures of Alexandrian spirituality. In fact, those structures had been transmitted to the West along several active avenues. Most effective in its pervasion, perhaps, was the tradition of John Cassian (c.360-435). Cassian came back to the West from sojourns in Bethlehem, the desert outside Alexandria, and Asia Minor with a keen appreciation for the spirituality he had found in the east. In the desert, he had learned from Evagrius, who had himself been deeply influenced by the tradition of Origen and Clement; in Asia Minor, he had learned from the Cappadocian theologians. And he had physically brought back with him Basil's Institutes, a work which would serve as a model for western monastic rules, including Benedict's. Cassian's work had wide effect throughout the Middle Ages, most importantly for the case presented here in the development of the Brethren of the Common Life, and most especially on Brother Thomas a' Kempis, whom Wesley cites, in turn, as a major influence on his understanding of Christian perfection.28 Cassian also influenced the Jansenists and Port-Royalists, their Augustinian orientation notwithstanding.

The second source was, perhaps, more important. Most in Wesley's day considered the works now attributed to a fifth-century Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite to be authentic first-century documents29 This corpus articulates a neoplatonic conceptualization of Christian theology, spirituality and ecclesiology. Translated into Latin by John Scotus Erigena, the Pseudo-Dionysius became a central pillar of western medieval theology, influencing scholastics as diverse as Joachim of Fiore and Thomas Aquinas; mystics such as Meister Eckhart and John Tauler; and probably Miguel de Molinos, Fenelon, Madame Guyon and the Theologia Germanica.30 Wesley's eventual aspersions on the "Mystics" were an aspect of his break with the Moravians, expressed in terms reflecting popular, stereotypical, unnuanced definitions and reactions; the positive influence of the mystics on his own understanding of the Christian life is patent.31

A third source of Alexandrian influence on Wesley in his considerations of virtue was the Cambridge Platonists. Of special note are John Norris, who was a friend of Samuel Wesley, and Richard Lucas.32 Wesley also abstracted a proportionately impressive number of Cambridge Platonists in his Christian Library, including such writers as Ralph Cudworth, Nathaniel Culverwel, Henry More, Simon Patrick, John Smith, and John Worthington.33

So it is that we can see that influences from Alexandria were present in various parts of Wesley's world.

However, what we can also see is the fact that the effort to isolate the influence of the Alexandrian tradition on John Wesley is problematic. Problematic on three levels: (1) the source of the influence may not have been direct but, rather, mediated by quotations, summaries or other appropriations in secondary works; (2) the parameters within which Wesley read and interpreted the texts were conditioned by more than a century of Caroline, and later, discussions of the early Christian texts; (3) Wesley was also preconditioned to read the ancient texts in the light of his encounters with mystical writers, pietists, and importantly, Pseudo-Dionysius, who, in turn, had been influenced by the Alexandrian tradition. And, again, with regard to Wesley's positive appreciation of the patristic writers, only the first volume of the Christian Library actually transmits works of early Christian writers; and even then, the selection is limited to the so-called Apostolic Fathers and Macarius. Wesley preferred to edit and present the works of the Caroline and continental interpreters of the ancient texts rather than to edit and present the ancient texts themselves!

Given the force of these caveats, how does one responsibly approach the question of Wesley's appropriation of an individual ancient writer or tradition? The only certain foundation is Wesley's own claims to being influenced by given writers. These claims can be examined in the light of Wesley's texts and of the patristic texts as appropriated by the Caroline tradition. Beyond that, convergences or divergences of Wesley and the early writers can legitimately be suggested and evaluated so long as it be realized that the mediation of convergences may involve a variety of sources, Wesley's own linguistic skills and academic expertise notwithstanding.

MODELS OF VIRTUE: WESLEY'S REFERENCES TO THE ALEXANDRIANS

Wesley cites, appeals to or alludes to Clement of Alexandria and Origen in a number of texts. We examine them here in chronological order.

(1) On Clemens Alexandrinus's Description of a Perfect Christian (1739)

John and Charles Wesley published this seven stanza poem in 1739, in Hymns and Sacred Poems, and George Osborne reprinted it, with minor variations, in his 1868 collection of "the poetical works" of the Wesley brothers.34 This poem is probably not from the pens of the Wesleys but from that of a friend, John Gambold (1711-1771), an attribution first suggested by Osborn on the basis of its placement "in the 'Collection of Moral and Sacred Poems' among other poems of Gambold and apart from those which are afterwards claimed for J. and C. Wesley."35 However, the fact that John Wesley published the text in Hymns and Sacred Poems suggests a degree of approbation for its content and probably reflects positive appreciation for Clement of Alexandria. The contents of the poem reflect an awareness of Clement's Stromata 4, as well as of Stromata 7 "On Perfection."36 Desert tracts filled with struggle separate us from the goal (holiness) to which we aspire. To overcome the world, one is to develop the virtue of inpassibility (with resultant resistance to temptation), the surety of God's sustaining grace, and an entrance into a state of "Peace," wherein

'Tis in that peace we see and act

By instincts from above;

With finer taste of wisdom fraught,

And mystic powers of love.37

There are, as one might anticipate, given the genre, no direct quotations from Clement of Alexandria. But there is here a reasonable likeness of the portrayal of the quest of perfection described in Stromata 4 and Stromata 7, albeit without any indication of an awareness of the larger context of Clement's work. Here, gnosis and praxis do not balance goal and apathy, passionlessness.

(2) The Character of a Methodist (1742)38

In an entry in the Journal, dated Thursday, 5 March 1767, Wesley includes a letter, "To the Editor of Lloyd's Evening Post."39 in this letter he defends himself against charges that in his tract, The Character of a Methodist, he claims sinless perfection. After noting that the model for the essay was a text by Clement of Alexandria, Wesley explains that he makes no such claim for either himself or the Methodists.

Five or six and thirty years ago, I much admired the character of a perfect Christian drawn up by Clemens Alexandrinus. Five or six and twenty years ago, a thought came to my mind, of drawing such a character myself, only in a more scriptural manner, and mostly in the very words of Scripture: This I entitled, The Character of a Methodist," . . . But that none might imagine I intended a panegyric either on myself or my friends, I guarded against this in the very title page, saying,..." Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect." To the same effect I speak in the conclusion, "These are the principles and practices of our sect; these are the marks of a true Methodist;" i.e., a true Christian By these marks do we labor to distinguish ourselves from those whose minds or lives are not according to the Gospel of Christ.40

But Clement of Alexandria would not have been an obvious model for this catalogue of Christian virtues. Wesley does not once quote Clement directly. The technical language is different from that of Clement. And, the sequences followed by the two writers, and the frameworks into which they place their respective treatments of virtues, are quite different. Had Wesley not noted that Clement was his source, we might not have guessed it to be the case.

Clement presents his vision for the "gnostic Christian" within a cosmic framework. After arguing that the "gnostic Christians" are not atheistic or irreverent, he asserts that they are humans who, by freedom of the will, under the guidance of the Divine, choose to reorient their lives into congruency with the will of God, aspiring to union with God in response to the "song of salvation," which has been emanating through the universe since the beginning, calling the entire creation back to God. Response to this "song of salvation" leads to the "true worship" of God, which takes the form of liturgical participation, fasting, prayer, praise, study, instruction and self-discipline, honesty, meekness, self-mortification, sympathy for others, forgiveness, courage, temperance, and justice. These are not goals in themselves, but results of "perfection" and contributory to it. It will be sustained and perhaps limited by a valid reading of the Scriptures, unlike the reading of sectarians and heretics.

Wesley's Character of a Methodist also has both a positive and a negative thrust. Negatively, he argues, with dubious relevance, that a Methodist does not hold the opinions of "Jews," "Turks," "Infidels," "the Romish Church, Socinians and Arians." But, he goes on to insist, "as to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think."41 Of course, much depends upon his own definition of Christianity, but Wesley avers that Methodists do not interpret the Scriptures in peculiar ways, nor does being a Methodist require negation of or nonparticipation in cultural structures so long as they be not forbidden by "the word of God."42 Nor do Methodists emphasize any particular aspect of religion. Rather, they focus on the central tenet: "Salvation ... means holiness of heart and life. And this he [the Methodist] affirms to spring from true faith alone"43 True religion, Wesley asserts, lies not in merely keeping the laws, customs and statutes any more than it lies in a denial of these.

Positively, Wesley asserts that a Methodist is one who is infused by the love of God, by the gift of the Spirit, and who loves God. The entire being seeks God and God's will with an intense desire, and, having "found 'redemption,'" it rejoices and delights in the witness of God's Spirit as well as in the hope of immortality.44 In this new state, there is an ability to ignore the undesirable aspects of life and to remain undistracted by its positive aspects. The new state involves a life of prayer, love of neighbor and enemies, purity of heart, mercifulness, kindness, humility, meekness, freedom from worldly desires and evil, social justice/ministry/hospitality. It depends upon conformity to the will of God; keeping the commandments and disciplined, purposeful living; and it is typified by consistent inward and outward holiness.

There are more similarities between Clement and John Wesley than these summaries would suggest. In general, they may be found under the rubrics doctrinal flexibility, the character of true gnosis and Christian perfection, conformity to the will of God, contemplation of God; apathy, prayer, hope of immortality, love of neighbor; moral consistency and obedience to God's commandments. The technical vocabularies of the two men are often different, but these emphases are shared, so we turn to a brief examination of the parallels.

(a) Doctrinal Flexibility. In one of his rare miscues, Campbell identifies Clement's gnosis with doctrinal structures and suggests that Clement is doctrinally more rigid than Wesley.45 For Clement, gnosis is to be understood in the context of the Alexandrian philosophical tradition, which adapted the Platonic and Aristotelian definitions of praktikos, theoretikos and gnoetikos , mediated through Philo, who insisted that praktikos (religious and moral activity) was specifically ordained for the search for God. Clement, and Origen, established a three-stage process which is perhaps best articulated by Origen in his commentary on the Mary, Martha and Lazarus narrative in the Gospel of John: praktikos, theoretikos and gnosis.46 Praxis leads to contemplation which makes gnosis possible. Gnosis is the knowledge of God (including basic doctrinal elements) understood in terms of intimacy and identity of purpose. In Stromata 7, Clement asserts, as he does elsewhere, that Greek and other philosophies were also given by God and could lead one to a knowledge of God, though not as clearly and efficiently as the example of Christ could. This goes beyond what Wesley would later say, though Wesley implicitly accepts Clement's Tendenz. Clement could happily and forthrightly use Greek philosophy to provide a theoretical framework for the teaching of Christian ideals. For both Clement and Wesley, particular formulations of doctrine are secondary to the knowledge of God; they are dependent upon traditionally normative readings of Scripture and they are of no value apart from the practice of Christian virtues.47

(b) The Character of True Gnosis and Christian Perfection. The "gnostic Christian," says Clement, is one who has conformed his/her will to the will of God; one who has developed patterns of praxis (not simply right actions, but right actions done on principle, rather than as requirements of God or law or for reward, present or future) congruent with the divine will; one who has developed a life characterized by contemplation, and one who is striving toward union with God. Throughout his or her lifetime on earth, the "gnostic Christian" progresses continuously toward the image of God, progressively developing patterns of service to humanity and freeing himself or herself from the yokes of passion and desire for the world.48 Perfect (passionless) love of God and of humanity and the world is the summit of spirituality.49

For Wesley also the "perfect Christian" is one who is transformed by love to love God, humans and the world, including enemies,50 with a "pure love," a love which becomes oblivious to all temptations;51 and, one whose love is "renewed after the image of God, in righteousness and in all true holiness. And, having the mind that was in Christ, he so walks as Christ also walks.52 The dissimilarities between Clement and Wesley are primarily in the philosophical and linguistic structures used to express the vision (of which more will be said below) and the extent of the development of the paradigm.

(c) Conformity to the will of God. Clement (Stromata 7) developed a more extensive analysis of the role of the will in the Christian life than Wesley did in the Character of a Methodist. Clement's perspective is cosmic; Wesley limits himself to the role of the will in the life of the Methodist. Both assert that the "gnostic" or "perfect" Christian has a will which is conformed to the will of God. Every element of willing is identical with God's will. Every thought and act which arises from the will is to be obedient to God and the "law of Christ." It is the will which enables the Christian to maintain the praxis, the exercise of virtue, until it becomes natural.53

(d) Contemplation of God. Campbell suggests that "such characteristically Clementine notes as . . . contemplation of the divine find no place in Wesley's work."54 This opinion is based, I suspect, on a misunderstanding of Clement's view of contemplation. For Clement, contemplation is not an inactive, passive, engrossment in God, removed from the world, its structures and temptations, an understanding that would develop later among Christians in both East and West. Contemplation, for Clement, is actually maintaining in love the vision of God gnosis by exercising helpful structures of spirituality and the virtues. The end in view is a state of apatheia, apathy toward the values and things of the world.55 Wesley's description of a Methodist is remarkably similar to Clement's description of a true gnostic, given their different philosophical frameworks. The Methodist is one who continuously loves God; one whose soul constantly cries out for more of God; one who has a constant prayer-relationship with God, "never hindered, less interrupted, by any person or thing"; one for whom "God is in all his thoughts" and one who is "pure in heart," not detracted by cultural structures.56

(e) Apathy or Passionlessness. While Wesley does not use the language of apathes, apathy or passionlessness, perhaps because of the semantic ranges of terms in his day, his understanding of the Christian's relationship to the "world" and to God is similar to Clement's. This is seen in his insistence that the Christian must be single-minded in his or her desire for God and godliness; in his understanding of the patterns of virtues prohibited to a Christian; his conviction that a Christian "thinks, speaks and lives, according to the method laid down in the revelation of Jesus Christ"; and in his demand that one "walk with God continually, having the loving eye of his mind still fixed upon him, and everywhere 'seeing him that is invisible.' "57 Phoebe Palmer and other holiness advocates would, on the basis of Wesley and John Fletcher develop a theory of apathes, often maladroitly expressed, which passed over into their doctrine of "eradication." Of course, as might be expected in the 19thcentury, perfectionists believed that God confers "eradication" (the ersatz apathes) instantly, by grace, rather than making it attainable by way of developmental and educational means. Wesley and Clement tended to think of apathy in processive ways."

(f) Prayer. Paragraph 8 of Wesley's Character of a Methodist has perhaps the most consistent and non-problematic relationships with Clement's Stromata, especially with its chapter 7. Clement suggests that the prayer of the "gnostic Christian" is not confined by the liturgical structures of prayer which are (were) given to teach neophytes. Rather, it is constant and unhindered by social or material circumstances. Such prayer, possible only to the "gnostic Christian," is true prayer. Such prayer is efficacious: it provides control over the passions and it is instrumental in achieving union with the Divine. In the latter case, it aids in achieving union through its central character, which is contemplation.59

Wesley says, "The Christian is not always in the house of prayer; nor always crying aloud, . . . for many times 'the Spirit maketh intercession for him with groans that cannot be uttered.' . . . 'my heart, though without a voice, and my silence speaketh unto thee."' This, affirms Wesley, "is true prayer, and this alone." It is unhindered by persons, things, occupations or position. It is continuous communion with God by one who has "the loving eye of his mind still fixed upon him."60 Wesley's view of prayer is quite congruent with that of Clement of Alexandria although the language employed to articulate the theory is different, and Clement's philosophical structures would seem to allow for a more intimate prayer relationship with the Divine than would Wesley's.

(g) Hope of Immortality. Campbell believes that Wesley's statement with regard to "hope, thus full of immortality''61 has a parallel in Clement. 62 However, here the relationship is philosophically problematic: for Wesley it was a "hope," for Clement and others influenced by neoplatonism it was an expectation. Even when they use the same words regarding "immortality," it would appear that there is little similarity of understanding. Both affirm that the "gnostic" or "perfect" Christian will be united with God (Clement would say reunited!). However the conceptions of the nature of immortality, as well as the cosmic content of that immortality, are different. And they differ regarding the nature of the "fall" (the Augustinian tradition seems to influence Wesley more on this matter), regarding the nature of the process of salvation, regarding the role of Christ and of the Holy Spirit in that process, and regarding the structures of post-death experience. They agree that the practice of Christian virtues is essential to salvation and that a "good death," to use Wesley's term, indicates that a "gnostic" is bound toward the divine.

(h) Love of Neighbor. Wesley states that a Methodist is to do good to all persons, "unto neighbors and strangers friends and enemies: And that in every possible kind."64 This includes care for physical distress as well as evangelism "to awake those that sleep in death."65 Clement insists on the same as a characteristic of the "gnostic Christian," although it is clear that the radical bifurcation of spiritual from physical needs was alien to his thought. Charity includes the giving of material goods and services of hospitality. This use of material resources is a result of being "gnostic."66 He takes it further to insist that the Christian is responsible both to forgive the neighbor and to avoid causing the neighbor to sin. Thus, the "gnostic" is responsible for the spiritual wellbeing of the neighbor.67

(i) Moral Consistency. Both Clement and Wesley insist that consistency between the internal and the external life and through the days of one's life is essential to the "gnostic" or "perfect" Christian. Wesley discusses the matter in terms of singleness of intention, identity with the mind of God and keeping the commandments. Summarizing his views, Wesley observes, "And whosoever is what I preach, . . . he is a Christian, not in name only, but in heart and life."68 For Clement, this consistency of life and faith is characteristic of the"gnostic Christian." Consistency is required for growth toward union with God. To be inconsistent is to succumb to temptations or to adopt values which are not Christian and consequently, by such inappropriate exercises of free will, to fall away from the prospect of divinisation.69

(J) Obedience to God's Commandments. The shared emphasis of both Clement and Wesley on obedience to the commandments of God is an important aspect of their understandings of the Christian virtues. In The Character of a Methodist, Wesley states that a Methodist keeps "all the commandments of God," an obedience which grows out of the Methodist's love for God and is in proportion to it. Clement would agree with this but would go on to insist that 'the law from the beginning . . [is] that he who would have virtue must choose it."70 In the early stages of spiritual development, commandments and laws serve as guides and warnings.71 The "gnostic Christian," however, keeps the commandments neither because they are commandments nor because of expected rewards, but, rather, because that is the way the "gnostic Christian" chooses to live.72

With this impressive list of parallels, The Character of a Methodist would appear to be a clear-cut case of Wesley's appropriating Clement of Alexandria, an appropriation perhaps in ways unique to post-Nicene Christianity. The reality, however, is not so simple.

To understand that reality, let us begin with an example: Anthony Horneck, The Happy Ascetic: or the Best Exercise (1699), a work which Wesley excerpted for The Christian Library.73 Horneck, who knew intimately the writings of the early Christian writers, including those of Clement of Alexandria, argues that every Christian should be a "happy ascetic" on the models proposed by early Christian spirituality, especially, it would appear, that of Clement.

He discusses "Christian Perfection" in terms of love of God,74 love which is sustained by intense prayer irrespective of situation and context, love which provides strength to fight off temptations.75 This perfection gives hope for immortality.76 It will be a communion with "those spirits of man made perfect."77 The task of the "happy ascetic," put personally and in the form of a prayer, is to "curb my passion, and break through my sinful inclination," and thereby "submit my will to thy will."78 In eternity, "I shall love thee perfectly ... [and] shall be eternally united to thee."79 To achieve this state of "Christian perfection," one must develop attitudes and virtues conducive to contemplation, and do so in the context of community.80 Charity, or love of neighbor, is an essential virtue.81 Christians must continue to develop in the exercise of the virtues and in communion with God.82

One can easily argue that there are more correspondences between Clement and Horneck than between Clement and Wesley; and, one could argue that Wesley appears to depend on Horneck's sequence of virtues and other emphases rather than on those of Clement. Horneck appears to have understood the integral theological and philosophical structures of the Alexandrian position better than Wesley did, Wesley being concerned about the Alexandrian appropriation of platonism and stoicism. Thus, Horneck reflects more accurately than Wesley does both the developmental spirituality of Clement and the metaphysical structures of neoplatonism.

It may be said, then, that in spite of the fact that they shared concerns, and in spite of the fact that Wesley added a footnote about Clement more than a quarter-century after he wrote his original edition of The Character of a Methodist, we cannot say that Clement exclusively influenced Wesley's list of Christian virtues. And, it is significant that seven years after writing The Character of a Methodist, Wesley included Horneck's work in The Christian Library.

(3) A Letter to Dr. Con yers Middleton occasioned by his late "Free Inquiry's" (1748~1749)83

The reference to Clement of Alexandria in this letter(84) deals merely with incorrect inferences drawn by Middleton from Clement's quotation of a "heathen" text. The citations from Origen seek to demonstrate that in Origen's time the church still maintained its apostolic vision.85

(4) An Address to the Clergy (1756)86

In this text, Wesley suggests "acquired endowments" for the clergy. He begins this discussion by declaring his conviction that the clergy should know Scripture, Greek, and Hebrew, and what it is "to be an Ambassador of Christ, an envoy from the King of Heaven;" profane history, the sciences (logic, metaphysics, natural philosophy). Then, before he passes on to speak of the necessity of "knowledge of the world," he suggests that the clergyman should ask himself, "Am I acquainted with the Fathers ...?" He names as among those worth "one reading, at least," Origen and Clement of Alexandria.87

(5) Letter to a Member of the Society, 30 November 1774(88)

In this letter, Wesley suggests reasons for his cautious approach to Clement of Alexandria and his eventual disenchantment with him. For Wesley, the central issue is ''apathy.'' Earlier, Wesley had admired the Stoic qualities of the ''gnostic" Christian achievement of the ability to stand beyond temptation and to be unfazed by the surrounding circumstances. "And just such a Christian," says Wesley, "one of the Fathers, Clemens Alexandrinus, describes."89 But Wesley had come to understand the difference between a Stoic and a Christian and he warned his followers away from being apathetic:"... at some times I have been a good deal disgusted at Miss J's apathy."90 Rather than being apathetic, says Wesley, citing an example, one should rejoice at the restoration of a friend. He also counsels against the "littleness of understanding" which impassiveness can produce, especially when it leads to the avoidance of all books but the Bible. Wesley does not reject the virtue of apathes as Clement describes it. Rather, he warns against a misunderstanding of it which differences in semantic range, philosophical structures and culture have created. It is worth noting that certain ascetic and monastic traditions which drew on Clement and other Alexandrians, from the fourth century onward, would come to the same conclusions!

(6) Journal, Thursday, March 5, 176791

In this entry, Wesley includes the letter to the editor of Lloyd's Evening Post in which he suggests that he constructed The Character of a Methodist on the model provided by Clement of Alexandria.92

VIRTUE IN WESLEY AND THE ALEXANDRIANS: CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE

As we demonstrated above, it is impossible to ascertain whether John Wesley received a given emphasis directly from his reading of the Alexandrian theologians or through the mediation of western mystical, ascetical traditions or by way of the primitivizing efforts of the Caroline writers. But even given this fact, it is still possible to suggest points of convergence and divergence between Wesley and the early Christian writers.

Points of Convergence

Wesley, the Caroline divines and many western ascetic, mystical writers shared understandings of the Christian virtues, and the context of their exercise, which have parallels with the Alexandrian theologians. From the beginning (variously understood, as we shall see), God has sought union (or reunion) with the human creation. Clement's "song of salvation" and Wesley's "prevenient grace" depict the divine in search of humanity. In both instances it is the gracious love of God which is reaching out to the entire creation. Wesley's understanding that evangelism is intended "to awaken those that sleep in death"93 does not make sense in Augustinian understandings of the fall and original sin. It does make sense when one understands the entire creation as having a divine element within it which "yearns for union with God," and which has the capability for achieving that union. Once the God in us responds to this love of God, it progressively changes the orientation of the individual from willing against God to willing with God. It results in love of self and neighbor. It is upon this base of divine love, human response and human aspiration to divinity that the entire system of virtues is built. Love of God is expressed in prayer, worship, contemplation, participation in the liturgies, conformity to the will of God.

Identification of the individual's will with the will of God results in a consistent Christian life, a life which is typified by its "fruits," ability to resist temptation and exercise of personal and social Christian virtues. Because of love, which becomes progressively more natural for the "gnostic" or "perfect" Christian, the individual lives a life in which acts of charity and evangelism directed toward the neighbor and acts of love, including all aspects of aid and accountability, toward fellow believers is normal and normative. The laws and commandments are given as guides toward "perfection" as the Christian progressively moves toward divinization. The Alexandrians did not deny, nor did they emphasize, crises (turning points, moments of awareness). Rather, like Wesley, they emphasized continuing growth and development in the quality of the Christian life, in contemplation and in union with God. The Christian community is to provide an arena for worship of God, it is to define an ethic by which the Biblical virtues are practiced praxis, it is to develop structures of personal piety and contemplation theoria, it is to encourage personal growth in virtue, it is to hold individuals accountable for growth, it is to watch for signs of willing against the will of God, and it is to minister corporately in its context, thereby enabling the believer to strive toward Christian perfection. (Gnosis).

In The Character of a Methodist, The Principles of a Methodist, The Principles of a Methodist Farther Explained, A Plain Account of the People Called Methodist, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection and the sermon, "On Christian Perfection" Wesley describes the life of "Christian perfection" as a life lived expressing the classical Christian virtues in conformity with the ideals set forth by "primitive Christianity." And, as was the case for the early writers, Wesley was never able to achieve a clear articulation of the extent to which one can become "perfected" in this life. This can be seen in the evolving definitions and expectations in the texts gathered in A Plain Account of Christian Perfection. The ancient writers and Wesley agreed that death is a mere point of passage for the "gnostic" or "perfect" Christian. Clement, and, especially, Origen, however, worked with philosophical structures which allowed for continued sanctification after death. Wesley, as a child of the enlightenment, could only make observations about the quality of a given death as evidenced by the "groans" of the dying and talk of the "hope of immortality."

Points of Divergence

Wesley and the Alexandrian theologians diverge at a number of points regarding the exercise of Christian virtue. These differences lie not so much in the definitions of specific virtues or in the manner in which each is to be exercised as in the philosophical structures which sustain the vision, in the language acceptable for articulating the vision, and in the cultural contexts into which the vision was interjected.

The philosophical structures differed greatly. Clement of Alexandria contentedly adapted developing neoplatonic philosophy. This philosophical system, which is both implicit and explicit in Clement's treatments of the Biblical narratives, provided a way in which the entire creative order, its fall and redemption, could be understood. It provided a multidimensional universe populated with individuals, angels and demons, "principalities and powers," at various stages of "perfection," stages of willing toward or away from the Divine Unity. It allowed for stages of development in this life and the next as individuals sought reunion with the Divine Unity against which they had rebelled through the exercise of the free will.

John Wesley was an appreciative heir of the enlightenment and of Copernicus and Newton. His philosophical tradition had ascertained, again, that the world is round, but had made reality flat; they had discovered the structures of the universe but found it empty. The Deists were the realists. As did the Caroline divines, pietists and European mystics, Wesley perceived contemporary human life to be devoid of goals and cosmic structures for spirituality.

As the others, he turned to the early Christian writers as mentors and for models. His problem, which was a problem for the Caroline divines as well, was the fact that the early Christian articulations of spirituality were dependent upon the philosophical structures of their own day, and those neoplatonic structures were alien to seventeenth and eighteenth-century European thought. Wesley solved the problem (as did Arndt, Horneck, Taylor, Law, and others) by following Alexandrian understandings of the nature of the earthly course of Christian life and dispensing with more speculative Alexandrian concepts,and by accepting and developing certain institutionalized doctrinal tenets. So, he (and the Carolines) accepted the Alexandrian lists of virtues, the Alexandrian definitions of sin in this life, the Alexandrian developmental model for spirituality in this life, the radical piety of the Alexandrians, (with some hesitation) their understanding of the goal of the Christian life (divinization), and their doctrine of prevenient grace. Wesley (and the Caroline divines) dispensed with the Alexandrians' understandings of original sin, christology, eschatology, Judgment, and progression and reversion in previous and future lives. And Wesley (and the Carolines) "institutionalized" Christ, Satan, hell, Judgment, and original sin according to western patristic and medieval models.

Eventually, although Wesley discretely resisted the trend himself, many would progressively qualify and then eradicate belief in angels, demons and "principalities and powers" in conformity with the intellectual expectations of the enlightenment. Wesley, with typical inconsistency, does not explore post-Nicene Alexandrian theology, but accepts most of western theology, as mediated through the Caroline divines.

Because of the philosophical and cultural differences, the language of "gnosis" and "perfection" was problematic for Wesley and his predecessors. "Gnosis" had been made unacceptable by the discovery of scathing attacks on the "gnostics" in early Christian apologists. Wesley's free use of the language of perfection, which appears to have been less precise than the use of it made by the Caroline writers, led to numerous misunderstandings of his intent and to the attacks on his position recorded in his Works. These engendered rather undignified discussions which can be summarized thus: "When I say perfect, I don't mean perfect." They also fueled Wesley's efforts to define "Christian perfection." In this, he followed the lead of the Caroline writers who had obviously encountered the same problem. For the Carolines, the result was a series of catalogues of virtues which did not require Christian structures. The theoretical framework required for the practice of their virtues was not radically different from that of many humanists, who had advocated similar positions.

The Alexandrians and Wesley attempted to speak to two very different cultural contexts. The most telling difference related to the Christian virtues was at the point of the stance taken vis-a-vis the larger society. Clement and Origen lived before anyone envisaged a Constantinian Christian Empire. The virtues, and their exercise, were therefore moralistic and understood in light of their impact on individual spirituality and on the community, anticipating that both would have salutary effects on the context. There is nothing of Wesley's vision to "reform the nation" by calling it back to its avowed Christian state.

CONCLUSION

This essay argues that while the avenues by which the Alexandrian understanding of Christian virtue was mediated to Wesley cannot be described with precision and that claims to direct influence may be misleading, it is still certain that he does ground his theory of virtue (sanctification) in this tradition. While there are no textual warrants for claiming direct appropriation, Wesley's adaptations of various expressions of this tradition are evident in his own writings, with their parallels to earlier writers, as well as in the Tendenzen of the writings of the pietists and Caroline primitivists which he chooses to include in the Christian Library.

It can also be argued that only by a reading of Wesley in light of these sources can we adjudicate conflicting understandings and claims about the virtues and the nature of sanctification, in the context of which virtues are practiced. One example will suffice to demonstrate this point. Wesley and the Alexandrians believed that virtues were exercised as results of the process of growing in grace after conversion (turning the will of the individual to conformity with God's will). Sanctification (divinisation) described both the process and goal of the Christian life. It was that toward which, in its fullness, one was to strive in this life (and, according to the Alexandrians, thereafter). Its great end would be assimilation into the Unity of God. For Wesley, too, sanctification was an eschatological goal, a goal spoken of in terms often tempered by acknowledgement of enlightenment and scientific "realities." If one reads the Wesley/Fletcher/Palmer development of this analysis" in light of the Alexandrians, one can still argue that Fletcher is on the same trajectory, but if and only if, his identification of the "baptism in the Holy Spirit" with sanctification is understood in the context of a reading of the Pentecost narrative in the Acts of the Apostles as an idealized model, and f there is understood to be no qualitative or quantitative difference in the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer before and after the event. In this case, the only difference in the believer pre-Pentecost and post-Pentecost would be in an enhanced intenfionality in the individual's practice of heavenly, personal and social virtues, with a concomitant reaffirmation of the eschatological goal of union with God. But it would appear that Fletcher's analysis does not meet these criteria.

It is clear that the interpretations of Lorenzo Dow, Phoebe Palmer, Daniel Steele and other nineteenth-century American (and British) perfectionist writers are adaptations of an understanding of virtue and its Christian framework which are not congruent with the Alexandrian tradition, the western mystics, the pietists or the Caroline writers.97 In the perfectionist model, sanctification (divinisation is frequently intended) becomes a present reality from which the virtues necessarily follow; they are done "not for the right reasons," as Clement of Alexandria expressed it, but as ends in themselves; they are designed to achieve present and future recognition of the sanctified state. This interpretation would suggest that among the major writers who have shaped the American Wesleyan/Holiness Movement, Charles Finney and B. T. Roberts, because of their connections to the Puritan tradition; and Mildred Wynkoop and H. Ray Dunning, are most congruent with the vision of the Alexandrians... and Wesley.98

There are two other implications of this study which are worth noting. One is theological, the other ecumenical. First, Wesley's theological structures must be interpreted in light of his sources, including, most importantly, the Caroline divines. The primitivist vision of early Christianity promulgated in those circles, especially, and their use of the early Christian writers; and the various trajectories of the Alexandrian tradition in their work all influenced Wesley's perspective. In other words, Wesley must not be viewed as the theological genius who discovered and used early Christian sources, but as one who took much of the Caroline synthesis out of the academy, church and cloister and brought it to the people; who adapted that synthesis in structures of discipline and accountability for laity; and who modeled what he preached.99

Ecumenically, Wesleyans cannot approach the Orthodox traditions assuming that Wesleyans are direct heirs of the Patristic tradition. One should learn from the experiences, some of them disappointing, of the sixteenth-century Lutherans who went to Constantinople with a similar misconception. 100 What Wesleyans can do is to engage in dialogue with Orthodox and Roman Catholic groups as Christians who have also developed understandings of virtue and sanctification qua divinization which are built on the base the Alexandrian and Cappadocian tradition, but as mediated through differed intellectual and cultural structures.101

Notes

1Abbreviations:

BE The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, Frank Baker, ed-in-chief, (Nashville: Abingdon, 1984 ). Volumes 7, 11, 25 and originally published as the Oxford Edition of the Works of John Wesley (Oxford: Clarendun Press, 19751983).

Strom Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata Buch 1VI, hrsg. Otto Stählin; neu hrsg. von Ludwig Frlchte; 4. Auflage mit Nachtra~gen von Ursula Treu (Clemens Alexandrinus, 2; Die Griechischen christlichen Schrijtsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, 162 [Berlin: Akademie Verlag 1985]); Stromata Buch VII und VIII. Excerpts ex Theodoto, Eclogae propheticae, Quisdiues saluetur, Fragmenta (Clemens Alexandrinus, 3; Die Griechischen christlichen Schrifsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, 17 [Berlin: Akadamie Verlag, 1970]). For citations to Stromata VII in this paper, where it will be noted as Stromata 7, cf. F. J. A. Hurt and J. B. Mayor, Clement of Alexandria. Miscellanies's Book VII; the Greek Text with Introduction, Translation. Notes and Indices (London: MacMillan, 1902). This edition is more accessible in American libraries. Clement called his work of Stromateis (sing., o Stromateus, Stramata). It was transmitted in the textual tradition as Stroma, Stromata and the latter title has become a convention.

Works, Jackson John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, Thomas Jackson, ed. (14 vols.; 3d ed.; London: Wesleyan Methodist Book Room, 1872; reprinted Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978).

2J. Wesley, Journal, Thursday, 5 March 1767 (Works, Jackson, 3:273).

3Ted Allen Campbell, John Wesley's Conceptions and Use of Christian Antiquity (Ph.D. diss. Southern Methodist University, 1984), 328, 335336.

4 S. Krawczynski and U. Riedinger, "Zur Uberlieferungsgeschichte des Havius Josephus und Klemens von Alexandria in 4.6. Jahrhundert," Byzantinisches Zeitschrift 57(1964), 625.

5Werner Jaeger, Two Rediscovered Works of Ancient Literature: Gregory of Nyssa and Macanus (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974). Cf. Albert Outler, ed., John Wesley (Library of Protestant Thought; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964), p.9n26.

6Reinhart Staats, Gregor von Nyssa und die Messalianer (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1968) and idem, Macarios-Symeon Epistola Magna: Eine messalianische Monchsregel und ihre Umschrift in Gregors von Nyssa. "De institutio cristiano" (Go~ttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1984). See also Thomas E. Brigden, "Wesley and the Homilies of Macarius," Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society 8(1911), 67; David C. Ford, "Saint Makarios of Egypt and John Wesley: Variations on the Theme of Sanctification," Greek Orthodox Theological Review 33(1988), 285312; Howard Snyder, "John Wesley and Macanus the Egyptian," Asbury Theological Journal 45, 2(1990), 5560.

7S. Lilla, "Middle Platonism, Neoplatonism and Jewish-Alexandrine Philosophy in the Terminology of Clement of Alexandria's Ethics," Archivo italiano per Ia storia della pieta's 3(1962), 136. See also Andre' Mehat, Etude sur les ((Stromates)) de Clement d'sAlexandrie (Patristica Sorbonensie, 7[Paris: Seuil, 1966]); D. J. M. Bradley, "The Transformation of the Stoic Ethic in Clement," Augustinian Review 14 (1974), 4166; 5. R. C. Lilla, Clement of Alexandria.. A Study of Christian Platonism and Gnosticism (Oxford, London: Oxford University Press, 1976); Elizabeth Clark, Clement's Use of Aristotle: The Aristotelian Contribution of Clement of Alexandria's Refutation of Gnosticism (Texts and Studies in Religion [Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1977]); and Dietmar Wyrwa, Die christlicke Platonaneignung in den Stromateis des Clemens von Alexandrien (Arbeiten zur Kirchengischichte, 53 [New York, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1983]).

8Harald Lindstrom, Wesley and Sanctification (Stockholm: Nya Bokforlags Aktieforlaget, 1946), p.195.

9Outler, ibid., 10.

10Lawrence D. McIntosh, The Nature and Design of Christianity in John Wesley's Early Theology: A Study in the Relationships of Love and Faith (Ph. D. diss. Drew University, 1966), 8595 et passim.

11Albert Outler, "John Wesley's Interests in the Early Fathers of the Church," Bulletin: Committee on Archives and History of the United Church of Canada 29(198082)12.

12Arthur Christian Meyers, John Wesley and the Church Fathers (Ph. D. diss. St. Louis University, 1985).

13Campbell, ibid. Cf . Randy Maddox, "John Wesley and Eastern Orthodoxy," Asbury Theological Journal 45, 2(1990), 43n3.

14Cf. S. L. Greenslade, The English Reformation and the Fathers of the Church (Oxford: Clarendon, 1960); William P. Haaugaard, "Renaissance Patristic Scholarship and Theology in Sixteenth-Century England," Sixteenth-Century Journal 10(1979), 3760.

15Cf. P. Meinhold, Geschichte de kirchlichen Historiographie (Munchen: Verlag Karl Albert Freiburg, 1967).

16Cf. John K. Louma, "Who Owns the Fathers? Hooker and Cartwright on the Authority of the Primitive Church," Sixteenth-Century Journal 8(1977), 4853.

17E.g., Lancelot Andrewes, Opuscula quaedam postuma (London: Felix Kyngston, 1629); and Jeremy Taylor, The Rules and Exercises of Holy Living. In Which are described the Means and Instruments of Obtaining Every Vertue, and the Remedies against every Vice, and Considerations serving to the resisting all temptations... (London: Richard Royson, 1651).

18Cf. William Wake, trans., The Genuine Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers (London: Richard Sare, 1693); William Cave, Primitive Christianity; or the Religion of the Primitive Christians in the First Ages of the Gospel (London: R. Chiswell, 1673), Vol.31, in John Wesley, ed., The Christian Library (Bristol: Farley, 1753), pp.148298 (in 2d ed., Vol.19, pp.1121 [London: T. Cordeux, 1830]). See Campbell, ibid., 126129; and William Cave, Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum historia literaria (London: Richard Chiswell, 16881699).

19Cf. Jean Daille', A Treatise Concerning the Right Use of the Fathers, trans. Thomas Smith (London: John Martin, 1651). The preface of this work (pp. ixx) includes notes of approval from, among others, Jeremy Taylor, author of The Rules and Exercises of Holy Living, cited by Wesley in his Plain Account of Christian Perfection (Works, Jackinan, 11:366) under the title Rule and Exercises of Holy Living and Dying. Also see [Claude Fleury], An Historical Account of the Manners and Behavior of the Christians (London: Thomas Leigh, 1698), ed. by John Wesley as Manners of the Ancient Christians (Bristol: Felix Farley, 1749); and J. L. von Mosheim. An Ecclesiastical History, ancient and modern from the Birth of Christ, to the beginning of the Present Century: in which the rise, progress and variations of Church Power are considered in connection with the state of learning and philosophy and the political history of Europe during that period, trans. Archibald MacLame (2d ed.; London: A. Miller, 1765), ed. by John Wesley as A Concise Ecclesiastical History (4 vols.; London: J. Paramore, 1781).

20Anthony Horneck, The Happy Ascetick: or, the Best Exercise (London: Henry Mortlock, 1699) in John Wesley, ed., A Christian Library Vol.29 (1st ed.) and Vol.16 (2d ed.).

21Cf. Wesley, ibid. (1st ed.), 138 = Horneck, ibid., 602.

22Cf. Philip Jacob Spener, Pia Desidefla: oder hertzlickes Verlangen nach gottgefalliger Besserung der wahren Evangelischen Kirchen ... (Fraakfort am Mayn: Johann David Zunners, 1676).

23Probably the most comprehensive translation of Johann Amdt, Vier Bticher vom Wahren Christentum (Braunschweig, 1609), available to John Wesley was that of Anthony William Boehm under the title True Christianity; wherein is contained the whole economy of God toward man and the whole duty of Man toward God (London: J. Downing, 1720), which Wesley abstracted as volume 1 of his Christian Library.

24Cf. John Wesley, A Roman Catechism, . . . With a Reply Thereto (Works, Jackson, 10:86128). Also see Campbell, ibid., 130131.

25(Oxford: William Wells and Robert Scott, 1672). It is Albert Outler's opinion that this work affected Wesley as noted. Cf. Outler, John Wesley, 1 2n4 1.

26Cf. Campbell, ibid.

27Cf. Jeremy Taylor, ibid.; William Law, A Serious Cal/to a Devout and Holy Life; Adapted to the State and Condition off All Christians (London: William Innys, 1729); and idem, A Practical Treatise upon Christian Perfection (London: William and John Innys, 1726). Wesley, without mention of Law, abstracted the latter work as A Practical Treatise on Christian Perfection: Extracted from a Late Author (Newcastle upon Tyne: J. Gooding, 1743). See Wesley's suggestion of the importance of Taylor and Law to his own understanding of Christian Perfection: Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection 2, 4 (Works, Jackson, 4 11:366367).

28Cf. Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection 3 (Works, Jackson, 11:366367).

29Cf. Jean Daille', De Scripturis quae sub Dionysii Areopagitae et Egnatii Antiocheni nominibus circumferentur (Geneva: I. A. et Samuelis de Tournes, 1666).

30Cf. Jean Orcibel, tes Spirituels Fran~ais et Espagnola chez John Wesley et ses contemporaines," Revue de I's histoire des religions 139(1951), 50109.

31Cf. Outler, ibid., 375376 etpassim; and R. A. Knox, Enthusiasm (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1951), passim.

32Cf. Albert Outler, "~Introduction," BE 1:35, 59.

33The best discussion of this influence on Wesley, together with a list of items included in the first edition of A Christian Library, is that of John C. English, "The Cambridge Platonists in Wesley's Christian Library," Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society 38(1968), 161-168.

34John Wesley and Charles Wesley, Hymns and Sacred Poems (London: William Strahan, 1739), 3738; [G. Osborn, ed.,] The Poetical Works of John and Charles Wesley: Reprinted from the Originals with the Last Corrections of the Authors; together with The Poems of Charles Wesley not before Published. Collected and Arranged by G. Osborn (13 vol.; London: Wesleyan Methodist Conference office, 1868), 1:3435.

35Ibid., note. For further discussion on the possibility of Gambold's authorship, see Campbell, ibid., 99100.

36Cf. Strom. 4.2126 (ed. cit., 305325); Strom. 7 (ed. cit).

37Osborn, ed., ibid. 1:35.

38Wesley, The Character of a Methodist (Works, Jackson, 8:339347).

39Wesley, Journal, March 5,1767 (Works, Jackson, 3:272274.

40Ibid.

41Wesley, The Character of a Methodist 1 (Works, Jackson, 8:340).

42Wesley, ibid., 23 (Works, Jackson, 8:340341).

43Ibid., 4 (Works, Jackson, 8:341).

44lbid., 6 (Works, Jackson, 8:342).

45Campbell, ibid., 101; also 139140, n20.

46Cf. Origen, Der Johanneskommentar, hrsg. E. Preuschen (Origenes Werke, 4; Die Grieschischen Christlichen Schrftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, 10 [Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 1903]), Johannes 12:111. See Clement's distinctions between praxis, faith and love (Strom. 7.46, 55) as well as the distinctions between gnosis and sophia (Strom. 7.55).

47Cf. Wesley, The Character of a Methodist (Works, Jackson, 8:340 et passim); Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.1, 89110 et passim.

48Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.3,13. Cf . K. Schmole, 'Gnosis und Metanoia: Die anthropologische Sicht der Busse bei Klemens von Alexandrien," Trierer Theologische Zeitschrft 82(1974), 304-312.

49Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.55 et passim.

50Wesley, ibid. 56, 9, 16 (Works, Jackson, 8:341342, 343, 346).

51Wesley, ibid. 15 (Works, Jackson, 8:345).

52Wesley, ibid. 17 (Works, Jackson, 8:346).

53Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.3, 42, 45, 59, 7481; Wesley, The Character of Methodist 11 (Works, Jackson, 8:344).

54Campbell, ibid., 101.

55Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.11,41,73 et passim.

56Wesley, The Character of a Methodist 5, 811, 14 (Works, Jackson, 8:341 345)

57Wesley, ibid. 5,14, 8 (Works, Jackson, 8:341, 345, 343).

58Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.55, 5963 et passim. Also see, for example, John Wesley, A Plain Account of the People Called Methodists, (Works, Jackson, 8:248268); and idem, The Principles of a Methodist (Works, Jackson, 8:361374).

59Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.3845. The reference in Campbell, ibid., 139n20 (to Strom. 7.12) is not helpful since Clement's passage affirms that all things help the "gnostic Christian" to achieve virtue, and does not discuss prayer.

60Wesley, ibid. 11 (Works, Jackson, 8:343).

61Wesley, ibid., 7 (Works, Jackson, 8:342).

62Campbell, ibid., 139n20.

63Cf. Klaus Schblz, Lauterung nach dem Tode und pneumatische Auferstehung bei Klemens von Alexandrien (Münsterische Beitrage zur Theologie, 38 [Münster: Aschendorff, 1974]).

64Wesley, ibid. 16 (Works, Jackson, 8:346).

65Ibid.

66Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.80.

67Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.8182.

68Wesley, ibid. 17 (Works, Jackson, 8:346).

69Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7 passim.

70Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.9.

71Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.9, 7476.

72Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.59.

73Horneck's title has been modernized here. Citations to Horneck in this paper are to The Christian Library (2d ed.; London: T. Cordeux, 1830)16:290 432.

74Ibid., 294-295.

75Ibid., 296-300.

76Ibid., 306. Horneck's phraseology is much more akin to Wesley's than Wesley's is to Clement's. Cf. Wesley, The Character of a Methodist 7 (Works, Jackson, 8:342)

77Horneck, ibid., 307.

78Ibid., 308.

79Ibid., 309.

80Ibid., 331358.

81Ibid., 360379.

82Ibid., 393394.

83Wesley, A Letter to Dr. Conyers Middletom Occasioned by his late "Free lnquiry"s (Works, Jackson, 10:180).

84Wesley, ibid. 111.7 (Works, Jackson, 10:3132).

85Wesley, ibid. 13, 1.13, 11.68 (where the reference is to the Contra Celsum but does not name Origen), 11.9 (Works, Jackson, 10:13, 22, 2526; 27).

86Wesley, "An Address to the Clergy" (Works, Jackson, 10:480500).

87Wesley, ibid. 11.1. (1)(7) (Works, Jackson, 10:490492). Also see idem 1.12 (Works, Jackson, 10:481486).

88Wesley, Letter CCLXVI, November 30, 1774 (Works, Jackson, 12:297-298).

89lbid.

90Ibid. (Works, Jackson, 12:298).

91Wesley, Journal, March 5, 1767 (Works, Jackson, 3:272273).

92 See the earlier discussion in this paper.

93Wesley, The Character of a Methodist 16 (Works, Jackson, 8:346).

94Wesley, The Character of a Methodist (Works, Jackson, 8:340347); idem, The Principles of a Methodist (Works, Jackson, 8:359374); idem, The Principles of a Methodist Farther Explained (Works, Jackson, 8:414480); idem, A Plain Account of the People Called Methodists (Works, 8:248268); idem, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection (Works, Jackson, 11:366446); idem, Sermon XL: Christian Perfection (Works, Jackson, 6:119).

95The comparison of Macarius and Wesley proffered by Howard Snyder, "John Wesley and Macarius the Egyptian," Asbury Theological Journal 45,2(1990), 5560, is futher evidence. Macarius, in Wesley's abridgement, as described by Snyder, is an heir to the Alexandrians. Indeed, Wesley's abridgement minimalizes the differences between Macarius and Clement of Alexandria! A detailed textbased analysis of the differences between Wesley's version, the earlier anonymous translation and the Greek Vorlage of these translations is urgently needed: Primitive Morality: Or, The Spiritual Homilies of St. Macanus the Egyptian (London: W. Taylor, W. and I. Jump, and I. Osborn, 1721); John Wesley, ed., The Spiritual Homilies of Macanus the Egyptian (Vol.1 of The Christian Library [1st ed.]; Bristol: Felix Farley, 1749), 79154; idem (2d ed.; London: T: Cordeux, 1819), 69-131. This would provide critical data for understanding the relationship between the two periods. For example, in his edition of Macarius' work, Wesley suppressed Macarius' use of the term divinisation" and used instead the term "sanctification."

96Cf. Herbert McGonigle, "Pneumatological Nomenclature in Early Methodism," Wesleyan Theological Journal 8(1973), 6172; David Bundy, "Wesleyan Perspectives on the Holy Spirit," Asbury Seminarian 30,2(1975), 3141; John A. Knight, "John Fletcher's Influence on the Development of Wesleyan Theology in America," Wesleyan Theological Journal 13(1978), 1333; Timothy Smith, "How John Fletcher Became the Theologian of Wesleyan Perfectionism," Wesleyan Theological Journal 15(1980), 6887; Donald Dayton, The Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan / Francis Asbury Press, 1987), 1118. Also see the helpful article by Allen Coppedge, "Entire Sanctification in Early American Methodism: 1812-1835," Wesleyan Theological Journal 13(1978), 5164.

97For a discussion of these developments, see John Leland Peters, Christian Perfection and American Methodism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1956).

98 0n Finney, see Timothy Smith, "The Doctrine of the Sanctifying Spirit: Charles G. Finney's Synthesis of Wesleyan and Covenant Theology," Wesleyan Theological Journal 13(1978), 92113; B. T. Roberts, Holiness Teachings, Benson Howard Roberts, compiler (reprint; Salem, Ohio: H. E. Schinul, 1972); Mildred Bangs Wynkoop, A Theology of Love: The Dynamic of Wesleyanism (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill Press, 1972); H. Ray Dunning, Grace, Faith and Holiness (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill Press, 1988).

99The study of Wesley's use of early Christian texts for these ideas has heen begun by Campbell in John Wesley's Conceptions, but the trajectories of influence, especially via the Caroline writers, deserve additional attention.

100For an extended discussion of the complex literature, see John J. Zoppi, "The Correspondence of 1573-1581 Between the Lutheran Theologians at Tubingen and the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate at Constantinople and the Dispute Concerning Sacred Tradition," Patristic and Byzantine Review 4(1985), 175195; 5(1986), 518, 139146, 207221. Also see, L. Petit, "Jeremie II Trance," Dictionnaire de theologie catholique 8,1(1924), cols. 886894.

101It is important to note that neither the Orthodox nor the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges Clement of Alexandria, Origen, or Macarius as "teachers." But both traditions have named the Cappdocians and Cassian as such.

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.