JOHN WESLEY'S CRITICAL APPROPRIATION OF EARLY GERMAN PIETISM

by
Kenneth Collins

Several recent authors have argued that Pietism as a religious movement has been poorly understood.¹ Indeed, for many, scholar and layperson alike, the term "Pietism" itself often evokes a well-worked stereotype which is composed of such unseemly traits as anti-intellectualism, obscurantism, individualism, irrelevance, and moralism. Part of the problem here, as Stoeffler aptly points out, arises from the practice of officials in religious establishments, professional religionists, who, for whatever reasons, have perpetuated this traditional caricature.² For an older example, Albrecht Ritschl, in his monumental Geschichte des Pietismus, maintained that Pietism was not, after all, a progressive movement, a continuation of the genius of the Protestant Reformation, as many of the Pietists themselves had claimed; rather, it was a backward movement in more than one respect.³ And Karl Barth, never known for understatement, observed on one occasion: "Better with the Church in hell than with pietists -- of higher or lower type -- in a heaven which does not exist."⁴ With such examples, still influential, it is little wonder that the traditional stereotypes have persisted.

However, the study of Pietism in the twentieth century has called the "Ritschlian and Barthian captivities"⁵ into question in a remarkable way. For example, in the middle decades, Church historians such as the Germans Karl Mirbt, Leube, and Erich Beyreuther took a fresh look at this movement, unfettered by the polemics that speckled earlier works.⁶ Nevertheless, the most recent approaches to this subject remain in virtual agreement with Ritschl's scholarship on at least two salient points: first, that Pietism of whatever sort must be viewed as a historical phenomenon within a definite social, cultural, political and theological setting, and secondly, that Pietism is by no means monolithic; instead, it represents a theological tendency, an emphasis, that characterized some considerably diverse groups.⁷

In light of this last point, this present study is of necessity limited to a consideration of the relationship of German Pietism -- as represented specifically by Johann Arndt, Philipp Jakob Spener, and August Hermann Francke -- to the life and thought of John Wesley. Thus, this paper will be composed of four sections: the first will place early German Pietism within its historical-theological context; the second will track Wesley's use and knowledge of the significant texts of this movement, as well as indicate some of the more interesting parallels between German Pietism and Methodism; the third will entertain Wesley's criticism -- some of it quite severe -- of the sources that nurtured and sustained German Pietism, demonstrating that the itinerant preacher's appropriation of the Arndt-Spener-Francke kind of Pietism was, in fact, both cautious and critical. And finally, the fourth section will offer some tentative conclusions.

I. The Historical Context of German Pietism

Three major factors prepared the way for the growth and development of Pietism in Germany during the early part of the seventeenth century. First of all, Protestant Scholasticism, with its emphasis on creeds (e.g., the Formula of Concord, 1577) and precise doctrinal formulation, led to a clear redefining of the Christian life. The ideal Christian believer was now "a person who interprets the Bible in terms of the Lutheran symbols as the truth of these symbols is expressed in an orthodox system of theology."⁸ And creedalism soon contributed to an objectification of the faith which emphasized the literal word, justification as a forensic exchange, and the sacraments as opera operata.⁹ Accordingly, faith as trust in the living God, so prominent in the writings of Martin Luther, had now begun to devolve into mere assent, into a simple subscription to the formulations of orthodoxy. In the words of Stoeffler, "Fiducia had become assensus."¹⁰

Moreover, a concomitant development which contributed to the construction of Verkonfessionalisierung¹¹ was the squabble which occurred within Lutheranism as the Philippists (followers of Philip Melanchthon) and the Gnesio-Lutherans ("true" Lutherans) vied with one another for power. The Lutherans, for their part, feared the supposed Aristotelian flavor of the theology of the Philippists while the latter charged the Gnesio-Lutherans with being both uncooperative and unecumenical. In this heated context, a premium was placed on a correct and exact articulation of the articles of faith which led, once again, to a rigid orthodoxy.¹²

Second, war -- contrary to popular belief -- does not usually enhance either the ethical or the religious life of the populace.¹³ If anything, war, as a cataclysmic disruption of the social order, often leads to moral and religious anomie as the structures which normally give meaning and order to everyday life are thrown into disarray. This was certainly the case with the Thirty Years War, an internecine struggle which began in 1618 with the Defenestration of Prague and which concluded in the Peace of Westphalia (1648). Its effect on the German people -- and other Europeans -- can hardly be overestimated. Beside the carnage, this war, in the words of Brown, was "religiously divisive, morally subversive, economically destructive, socially degrading, and ultimately futile in its results."¹⁴ And its effect on religious life, for the most part, was degrading, for it not only expanded the opportunities to express bigotry, hatred, and the worst sort of factionalism, but it also contributed to the hardening of a population which had witnessed, abetted, and encouraged almost every kind of atrocity. And these were performed, ironically enough, under the sacred canopy of religion and in the name of Christ.

Remarkably, a third contributing factor which gave rise to the response of Pietism was part of the legacy that Luther himself had bequeathed to the Church, that is, his bestowal of a spiritual role on the temporal powers -- in this case the German Princes. In his address, To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, for example, Luther declared:

I am carrying out our intention to put together a few points on the matter of the reform of the Christian estate, to be laid before the Christian nobility of the German nation, in the hope that God may help his church through the laity, since the clergy, to whom this task more properly belongs, have grown quite indifferent.¹⁵

Though Luther's design here was most probably to check papal power in a pragmatic way, the spiritual investiture of the German nobility eventuated in a new form of Caesaropapism. This factor, coupled with the later development of the religious and territorial factionalism that emerged in the wake of the Thirty Years War, under the aegis of the formula cujus regio ejus religio, tended to breed indifference and formalism in the area of religion. As we might expect, reaction set in.

Thus, the scholasticism of sixteenth and seventeenth century orthodoxy, its tendency towards formality and impersonality in religion, and its relative neglect of the ethical life¹⁶ led to both a mystical reaction, as represented by Stephan Praetorius (1536-1603), Valentine Weigel (1533-1588), Jakob Boehme (1575-1624), and Johann Arndt (l555-l62l),¹⁷ and to a theological one, as epitomized by the irenic and saintly Georg Calixt (1586-1656).¹⁸ The first group, for the most part, underscored the interior life, Christian devotion to God and the love of neighbor, while the latter developed the distinction between diaphora and adiaphora in its quest for Christian unity and peace.

To be sure, it was the "mystics" and those who followed in their train who believed that the renewal of doctrine and ecclesiastical practice which had begun during the Reformation must be supplemented by a renewal of life.¹⁹ This motif, in one form or another, surfaced repeatedly in the literature of German Pietism, but especially in the writings of Arndt, Spener, and Francke. "Classical Pietism," notes Parsons, "thus asserted on the basis of the Reformation's prior reassertion of the personal nature of faith the need for a radically existential turn in Protestant life and experience."²⁰ Where earlier there had been excessive institutionalism, arid doctrinalism, and theological intolerance, the early German Pietists -- as will be argued shortly -- offered a more profound, penetrating, and sensitive understanding of the nature of the Christian life, though the contours of that life would come to be questioned by John Wesley.

One might well argue here that Johann Arndt and not Philip Spener was the Father of German Pietism.²¹ In support of this, note that the themes of personal reform, the repudiation of stale intellectualism, the criticism of doctrinal provincialism, and the emphasis on sanctification-themes championed by the later Pietists -- were already present in Wahres Christenthum (True Christianity) as early as 1610.²² Observe the opening lines of this work and the emphasis which they place on the practice of the Christian life.

Dear Christian reader, that the holy Gospel is subjected, in our time, to great and shameful abuse is fully proved by the impenitent life of the ungodly who praise Christ and his word with their mouths and yet lead an unchristian life that is like that of persons who dwell in heathendom, not in the Christian world.²³

And Arndt continues with stinging effect:

Many think that theology is a mere science or rhetoric, whereas it is a living experience and practice. Everyone now endeavors to be eminent and distinguished in the world, but no one is willing to learn to be pious.²⁴

Arndt's work was immensely popular during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and eventually became a staple of German piety. In fact, in many German homes of this period, True Christianity found its place alongside the Bible. And though the term "pietism" came into vogue after Arndt's death,²⁵ his relationship to subsequent Pietism can be compared to that of Edouard Manet to Impressionism; that is to say, though Arndt was not, technically speaking, a part of the movement, he nevertheless served as its lodestar and mentor (largely posthumously). Simply put, the Pietists read Arndt.²⁶

Across the North Sea, in Britain, some were reading True Christianity as early as 1648.²⁷ However, it did not enjoy wide circulation until Anton Wilhelm Boehm (1673-1722), Chaplain to Prince George of Denmark (Queen Anne's husband), and Secretary to both Prince George and Queen Anne, translated it into English and submitted a copy to the Queen, with a suitable preface.²⁸

Did John Wesley read True Christianity (in either German or English)? His diary seems to attest to his having read at least some of it on 24 March, 1736, shortly after his arrival in Georgia, and having finished it on 31 March, 1736.²⁹ And, during early August, 1738, at least one interview with the Moravians in and around Hermhut brought it back to mind. In his Journal (for Tuesday, August 8, which also records some events of the 9th), he quotes at length from an interview with Pastor/Teacher David Nitschmann (we note only the paragraph salient to our purposes).

Many endeavored to persuade me that I [Nitschmann] had not a right faith in Christ. For I had no confidence in him; nor could I lay hold upon him as my Savior. Indeed. reading one day (in Arndt's True Christianity) that "if all the sins of all the men upon earth were joined in one man, the blood of Christ was sufficient to cleanse that man from all sin," I felt for a time comfort and peace.³⁰

And Wesley also included in his Journal a talk he held with Arvid Gradin three or four days after the conversation with Nitschmann, the content of which reflected his own experience when, in March of 1738, he had wanted to discontinue preaching for lack of the proper kind of faith.³¹ Wesley relates Gradin's words:

At seventeen, I [Gradin] went to the University of Upsal[la], and a year or two after was licensed to preach. But at twenty-two, meeting with Arndt's True Christianity, I found I myself was not a Christian. Immediately, I left off preaching, and betook myself wholly to philosophy.³²

Such reports doubtless impressed the leader of the British revival with the value of Arndt's work, so much so that he included an extract of it in the first volume of his Christian Library.³³ And on 3 March 1749, Wesley recorded in his Journal: "I corrected the Extract of John Arndt designed for part of the 'Christian Library.' But who can tell whether that and an hundred other designs will be executed or no?"³⁴

Just what did Wesley mean here? Did he really believe that True Christianity not only offered criticism but also a positive program, a design to implement (perhaps even in England), or was he simply referring to his own work, in particular the development of the Christian Library? The reference is not clear.

One can argue with some degree of confidence, however, that Wesley was probably attracted to True Christianity by three major themes found there: first, its soteriological thrust; second, its emphasis on genuine Christianity as embracing inward, as opposed to formal or external religion; and third, its irenic aim and tone.

As to the first point, the soteriological thrust, Arndt's work, like some of Wesley's sermons,³⁵ was very attentive to the developmental phases of the Christian life, as evidenced by the opening lines drawn from the introduction to Book Three:

As there are different stages and degrees of age and maturity in the natural life; so there are also in the spiritual. It has its first foundation in sincere repentance, by which a man sets himself heartily to amend his life. This is succeeded by a greater illumination, which is a kind of middle stage. Here, by contemplation, prayer, and bearing the cross, a man is daily improving in grace, and growing up to perfection. The last and most perfect state is that which consists in a most firm union, which is founded in, and cemented by, pure love. This is that state which St. Paul calls "the perfect man," and "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" (Eph. iv. 1 3).³⁶

Second, both Arndt and Wesley affirmed that true religion, in part, consists in inward renewal that goes far beyond formal or institutional change. Thus, the German pastor, in describing the true worship of God, declared: "But that which God. . . commandeth, consisteth not barely in external figures, rites and ordinances: but is inward, requiring spirit and truth; principally demanding faith in Christ."³⁷ And elsewhere he cautioned against the dangers of a formal Christianity: "While every one names himself a Christian, although he does not perform the part of a Christian; by such a conversation Christ is both denied and belied… "³⁸

Wesley, likewise, underscored this same theme, especially in his published sermons. In the Way to the Kingdom, for example, he declared:

...true religion does not consist in meat and drink, or in any ritual observances; nor indeed in any outward thing whatever, in anything exterior to the heart; the whole substance thereof lying in "righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."³⁹

Similarly, in another sermon, The Circumcision of the Heart, Wesley explored the title of this piece in the following way:

it is that habitual disposition of soul which in the Sacred Writings is termed "holiness," and which directly implies the being cleansed from sin, . . . and by consequence the being endued with those virtues which were also in Christ Jesus.⁴⁰

Clearly, Wesley's attention to dispositions, inward tempers, and a religion of the heart (Arndt's "inward religion"), quite readily predisposed the Methodist leader to a favorable reading of much of what Arndt had to offer in this regard.⁴¹

Third, Arndt held that we maintain purity of doctrine not by wrangling and needless dispute but by the demonstration of a holy life. And on one occasion he went so far as to say, ". . . it is infinitely better to love Him, than to be able to dispute and discourse about Him."⁴² Wesley, who once had quipped, "God made practical divinity necessary, the devil controversial," probably did not go so far in his quest for peaceful relations as Arndt suggests. But Wesley did immediately add: "But it is necessary: we must 'resist the devil,' or he will not 'flee from us.'"⁴³ And he earnestly sought to avoid bigotry and diligently sought to instill a catholic spirit among the Methodists.⁴⁴

B. Philipp Spener

Philipp Jacob Spener undoubtedly read True Christianity. Joachim Stoll had probably introduced him to it.⁴⁵ Indeed, Arndt's work directly informed much of Spener's thought, for its emphases were clearly congenial to the task which this German leader hoped to accomplish: namely, to engender reform in both civic and ecclesiastical life. Like Arndt, Spener was faced with the problem of Caesaropapism, an ex opere operato view of the sacraments, and doctrinal rigidity. Like Arndt, Spener met this challenge by differentiating "true" Christianity from formal Christianity,⁴⁶ by emphasizing that the essence of Christianity consists in a personal relationship to God,⁴⁷ and by centering his theological concerns not so much around the forensic issues of justification, but around the issues of regeneration and a holy life. Furthermore, Spener, like Arndt, realized that the heady days of the Reformation were clearly over and that the great threat to vital Christianity was no longer moralism, but immorality; not doctrinal error, but doctrinal fixation. In short, Spener's work marks a continuation and development of an Arndtian piety that was already well known.⁴⁸

Nevertheless, there are two very good reasons why it can be argued that German Pietism as a movement began with Spener. First of all, though neither the formation of conventicles nor the idea of ecclesiola in ecclesia was original to Spener,⁴⁹ he was the first among the Pietists to make use of collegia. In 1670, for example, Spener established a collegium pietatis at Frankfort-am-Main for the purpose of providing, in the words of Snyder, "the intimacy and discipline of community which [would] contribute to the health of the whole church."⁵⁰ And the design of these societies can be seen, in part, in a seminal and prophetic homily preached by Spener in 1669 in which he declared:

O, what good it would effect if good friends would come together on Sundays, and instead of taking up glasses, cards, or dice would partake either of a book from which they could read something edifying for everyone or would repeat something they had heard in the sermon and each one would remember something that would help another therein, so that they might have some profit from it.⁵¹

Now the nature of Spener's collegia pietatis was generally conservative; he was more interested in the reform of existing ecclesiastical structures and life than in their overthrow. He was not a revolutionary nor a radical such as the erstwhile Jesuit-Orationist-Jansenist, now Reformed pastor, Labadie.⁵² Certain aspects of a "national" church troubled him, such as its tendency to promote nominal Christianity. Nevertheless, he gave it tacit support by prohibiting the celebration of the sacraments in the collegia -- a move portending similar action by Wesley.⁵³ But we must note that Spener substantiated the creation of collegia by appeal to the well-worn Lutheran claim that all believers are priests; while Wesley defended a larger role for the laity, including preaching, by an appeal to a distinction between ordinary and extraordinary messengers.

In 1744, all the Methodist Preachers had their first Conference. But none of them dreamed, that the being called to preach gave them any right to administer sacraments. And when that question was proposed, "In what are we to consider ourselves?" it was answered, "As extraordinary messengers, raised up to provoke the ordinary ones to jealousy."⁵⁴

Not surprisingly, opposition to the Frankfurt collegia pietatis emerged quickly. Both the temporal and the spiritual authorities saw the collegia as a threat to the institutional church in terms of both the increasing role given the laity and the laity's relative independence. Perceptions (and realities) along both lines raised issues of power, prerogatives, and control.

Spener tried to address this last charge, and by 1675 he desired a change in the collegium from "a private matter created for Christian fellowship"⁵⁵ to "a churchly institution."⁵⁶ Spener repudiated all notions of separation from the mother church as Wesley would later do. In fact, as early as 1670, he so feared the specter of division that he declared to his people: "as long as God permits it to abide, even a corrupted ministry is an honorable office from which one may not separate."⁵⁷ Compare this with Wesley's comments to Rev. Samuel Walker in 1755 concerning his own ecclesiastical relation:

At present I apprehend those, and those only, to separate from the Church who either renounce her fundamental doctrines, or refuse to join in her public worship. As yet we have done neither, nor have we taken one step further than we were convinced was our bounden duty.⁵⁸

Given the sincerity, intensity, seriousness, and practical orientation of Spener and Wesley, and their respective followers, it is not surprising to learn that these leaders formed intentional groups to supplement -- not to oppose -- the normal ministry of the church. Simply put, these deeply committed Christians hungered for more than the common fare offered to conventional Christians, and so they created parachurch structures, societies and collegia to meet their growing spiritual needs. Still, as Snyder correctly points out, "[Though] Wesley did not . . . explicitly draw on the Pietist ecclesiola model, he in fact viewed Methodism as an ecclesiola."⁵⁹ That is to say, "his view of 'extraordinary ministers and gifts' seems to presuppose some kind of ecclesiola conception."⁶⁰

The second major reason why it is appropriate to state that the German Pietist movement began with Spener is that he was the first to offer an extensive, clearly defined program of reform. The principal vehicle for this endeavor was none other than his famous Pia Desideria (Pious Desires), which first appeared as a preface to Arndt's Postils! However, because of the popularity of Spener's own work, it was soon issued in a separate edition in 1675. For the most part, the argument of the Pia Desideria is straightforward and moves from an assessment of the corrupt conditions in the church -- Spener calls it discerning the times -- to entertaining the possibility of better conditions, and then finally to some practical and specific proposals to correct matters in the church.⁶¹

Concerning corrupt conditions, Spener highlights defects in the character and practices of civil authorities, the clergy, and the common people. Of the clergy, for example, he maintained:

We must confess not only that men are to be found here and there in our estate who are guilty of open scandals but also that there are fewer than may at first appear who really understand and practice true Christianity (which consists of more than avoiding manifest vices and living an outwardly moral life) . . . their lives reflect (subtly, to be sure, but none the less plainly) a worldly spirit, marked by carnal pleasure, lust of the eye, and arrogant behavior....⁶²

A similar concern over the state and motivation of the ministry was likewise expressed by John Wesley in 1756, in his Address to the Clergy:

He therefore must be utterly void of understanding, must be a madman of the highest order, who, on any consideration whatever, undertakes this office, while he is a stranger to this affection [the love of God and neighbor]....

And is not even this degree of love to God and man utterly inconsistent with the love of the world; with the love of money or praise; with the very lowest degree of either ambition or sensuality.⁶³

When Spener, in the third section of his Pia Desideria, addressed the important topic of specific reforms to eliminate some of the abuses already noted, his discussion revolved around six principal issues: first, ministers should promote a wider use of the Bible which will entail not only reading the Scriptures publicly in church but also privately at home; second, the exercise of the spiritual priesthood of all God's children must be established, strengthened, and encouraged; third, pastors must underscore the importance of a practical versus a speculative knowledge of the Christian faith; fourth, the earnest believer should avoid all needless and harmful disputation, and instead demonstrate the truth of Christianity by a holy and God-fearing life -- a life, by the way, which for Spener included the possibility of Christian perfection; fifth, administrators should reform the educational institutions so that, in the training of pastors, the maxim, "knowledge without piety is worthless," is suitably inculcated; and lastly, all pastors, of whatever age and rank, are to be impressed with the value of preaching for the purpose of edification.⁶⁴ In other words, with the advent of Spener, Pietism had now moved beyond "indiscriminate criticism to a definite plan of action."⁶⁵

However, what is truly remarkable here is the fact that although the life and thought of Spener suggest many parallels with Wesley in terms of an emphasis on the holy life and perfection,⁶⁶ the use of intentional groups, the stress on practicality, and the avoidance of needless doctrinal disputations, there is no direct evidence whatsoever either that Wesley ever read the Pia Desideria, or that the Anglican cleric ever looked to Spener himself as a model of what Christianity should be. In short, Spener's name does not appear in Wesley's Journal, diaries, letters, or theological treatises. (In fact, the complete Pia Desideria does not appear in English translation until 1964.)⁶⁷

Nevertheless, we justify the inclusion of Spener in this study on three grounds. First, we would point to the high degree of similarity between the teachings of Spener and those of Wesley -- direct influence or no. Second, German Pietism as a whole cannot be understood or accounted for, nor its story faithfully related, without reference to Spener; nor can the story of Wesleyanism be understood or accounted for, nor faithfully related, without reference to German Pietism. Third, although Wesley probably never read Spener himself, he did read Arndt (to whom Spener owed much) and he did read Francke (who owed Spener much). These "grounds," put together, rather strongly suggest at least, if they cannot prove, that Spener's thought had a significant influence on the thought of John Wesley. And that influence merits due and sufficient consideration.

C. August Francke

August Hermann Francke had become well acquainted with Arndt's True Christianity in his childhood in Lubeck. His father, Johannes, had introduced it to him.⁶⁸ When August was only seven, his father died, but his sister Anna, who now took over many of the responsibilities of rearing the youngster, exercised a spiritual stewardship over the Francke household which included reading both the Bible and True Christianity.⁶⁹ (Later, Fraucke's continuing recommendation of Arndt's work would serve to increase its popularity well into the eighteenth century.⁷⁰) As a student at the University of Leipzig, matriculating in 1684, August Hermann maintained contact with Pietism by boarding at the home of Spener's son-in-law, Professor Rechenberg.⁷¹ And in 1686, while still a student in Leipzig, Francke began to take an active role in the Collegium Philobiblicum, a religious society with purposes that anticipated those of the Wesley's Holy Club at Oxford some forty-three years later.⁷² The Leipzig society so intrigued Spener that he visited it in 1686 and there met the young and energetic Francke for the first time.⁷³ Subsequent events indicate that Spener developed a positive, but not uncritical assessment of the Collegium Philobiblicum, and that he liked what he saw in August Hermann Francke. In January and February of 1689, Francke visited Spener's home,⁷⁴ and by 1692 he had won appointment to the faculty of the University of Halle, largely on the recommendation of Spener.

If it be said that Spener launched the Pietist movement, it may be said as well that Francke saw to its institutionalizing. From Halle, he gave the movement the prestige "associated with academic theologians."⁷⁵ And, equally importantly, he invested an outstanding gift for organization in establishing numerous enterprises (connecting many of them directly to the University or the city). Among these were "an orphanage, . . . a home for widows, a farm, a book store, a hospital, a bakery, a brewery, a library, and an art museum."⁷⁶

In theology, Francke extended and refined (see would say "essentially changed") some of the major themes of Arndt and Spener. Under his influence and direction, theological studies at the University of Halle bore four distinct marks. First, emphasis fell not on dogmatics and philosophical theology (then the standard fare in German theological education) but on Biblical theology.⁷⁷ Second, whereas Spener had thought primarily in terms of the church, the community of faith, Francke placed increasing emphasis on the individual. Third, as his predecessors had done, Francke closely associated theology and ethics, and insisted that the study of theology must lead to moral renovation. And fourth, Francke reversed the order of priorities found in most German theological education by underscoring the primary importance of the devotional aspects of the Christian life, though it can scarcely be said that he mitigated academic and intellectual demands.⁷⁸

Perhaps the most striking discontinuities between Francke and his pietistic predecessors lay in his individuation of the faith and his consuming concern with conversion, both its reality and its form. Writing of these matters in his study of the relationship between Pietism and Methodism, Arthur Nagler refers to Francke as "the prophet of the Busskampf [penitential struggle]," and observes that "this could never have been said of his forerunner [Spener]."⁷⁹ To be sure, though Spener had emphasized the doctrine of the new birth, he never recounted a personal dramatic conversion experience, nor did he ever even hint that he had labored over what for Francke and others was the dark, slow and agonizing process of repentance. Dale Brown, in essential agreement with Nagler, postulates that it was "Francke who bequeathed to Pietism the penitential struggle and dated conversion experience."⁸⁰ But perhaps Nagler, especially, goes too far here. He does marshal good evidence supporting a close association between Francke and Busskampf, but in drawing conclusions concerning Wesley from the same data, he appears to have made a too facile connection, and perhaps exercised ill-conceived judgment.⁸¹

John Wesley was twenty-four years of age when Auguste Francke died, and the two never met. But there is ample evidence to suggest that Wesley was familiar with the writings and the work of Francke. We know that en route to Georgia, both John and Charles Wesley read Francke 's Pietas Hallensis.⁸² And subsequently, during his stay in Savannah, Wesley encountered the Halle Pietists Boltzius and Gronau. In fact, the Pietist leader Ziegenhagen asked Boltzius and Gronau to describe Wesley's activities and assess his character to the Pietist leaders in Halle in writing. Gronau wrote:

Mr. Wesley certainly is sincere in his Christianity and his ministry, and surely seeks nothing more than to bring salvation to himself and those who hear him. . . . Yet he has many a legalistic practice which I cannot imagine for myself, such as sleeping on the bare ground like the Indians, with a fur under him and his clothes on, or eating foods without salt or fat, or wearing long linen trousers which reach to his shoes and, therefore, no stockings, etc.⁸³

And Boltzius expressed a similar estimation of Wesley to a correspondent in London: "He seems otherwise to be a sincere man, who has also presented the Divine Truth with diligence and zeal, if more legalistically than evangelically."⁸⁴

As it turned out some months later, on 17 July 1737, Wesley, though he probably was not aware of what had been written of him, returned the compliment, as it were, and refused communion to Boltzius. Wesley noted in his diary on that date: "I had occasion to make a very unusual trial of the temper of Mr. Boltzius, pastor of the Saltzburghers, in which he behaved with such lowliness and meekness as became a disciple of Christ."⁸⁵

Such occasionally strained relationships with the Salzburgers did not overshadow Wesley's continuing interest in Halle. In fact, on his way to Herrnhut to visit the Moravians, in the summer of 1736, Wesley stopped over at Halle, on 26-27 July. On the return to Britain from Herrnhut, he again visited Halle for two days, 18 and 19 August. On the latter occasion he conversed with Professor G. A. Francke, son of the now-departed August Hermann Francke.⁸⁶

Wesley also demonstrated his interest in Hallensian Pietism by the value which he placed upon its literature. En route to Georgia, he read the Pietas Hallensis, as has been noted earlier, and he also read August Her-mann Francke's Nicodemus (or A Treatise on the Fear of Man), which Anton Wilhelm Boehm had translated into English in 1706.⁸⁷ Wesley's decision to include this latter work in his Christian Library would seem to say that he valued it highly.

The central theme of Nicodemus, not surprisingly one very congenial to Wesley, was the necessity of overcoming fear of humanity through the power of faith. Francke warned his fellow ministers: "A fearful minister reproves common people boldly; but when he is to speak to great and honorable persons, his mouth is gagged."⁸⁸ And the grand excuse for not speaking honestly and sincerely is found in the fear "of getting an ill name."⁸⁹ Further, Francke saw clustering around the fear of humanity the ancillary issues of fear of suffering, "flinching from the cross,"⁹⁰ and lack of self-denial,⁹¹ all of them often leading to failure in the pulpit. The antidote for the vapid preaching which such attitudes produces, and an antidote to the fear of humanity, said Francke, is the exercise of a vital faith in God which entails consideration of one's true spiritual state. Francke counseled his ministers:

The first and most necessary of all means is, a constant and earnest endeavor to free ourselves from the most dangerous deceitfulness of our own hearts. Nothing is a more fatal hindrance of a man's salvation, than the false conceit that he is already a Christian.⁹²

Francke went on to underscore the salutary effect of preaching on inward religion⁹³ and on holiness: "There is no true faith without holiness of heart and life.. . [and] the true boldness of faith is known by its continually working by love."⁹⁴ These are, of course, themes familiar to other Pietists as well.

Wesley was well aware, early in his career, of the importance of Francke's warnings to preach boldly. Two of his sermons, The Almost Christian, and Scriptural Christianity, among a few others, show Wesley displaying the Gospel without pulling any punches, before the gathered great in Oxford. In The Almost Christian, preached at St. Mary's Oxford, on 25 July 1741, he was in earnest to communicate the difference between nominal Christianity and real Christianity, a distinction which Francke had often treated in sermons. And if this sermon was warm in its exhortations, the next and last installment before an Oxford audience, Scriptural Christianity, was quite hot. Wesley concluded it with a stinging indictment of the youth assembled in that city: " . . . a generation of triflers; triflers with God, with one another, and with your own souls."⁹⁵ Francke would have been pleased; but Oxford was not.

D. Some Observations

The evidence brought forward so far would support an assertion that the Arndt-Spener-Francke movement had at least some explicit impact on the life and thought of John Wesley. The following list, long but by no means exhaustive, represents areas of religious concern held in common by the German Pietists and John Wesley: soteriology, the nature of true Christianity and the place of inward religion, Biblical theology, the development of small groups, the role of laity in developing spiritual life, organizational acumen and attentiveness, motivation for and of the ministry, fear of separation from the Mother Church, and, last, the avoidance of needless and harmful disputation.⁹⁶

Arthur Nagler was sufficiently impressed with the broad similarity in the concerns of the two movements to claim that "most of the principles at the basis of Methodism had their analogies in Pietism; and . . . many of Methodism's institutions and practices found a precedent in the German revival."⁹⁷ In partial support of his assertion, he goes on to note, "about the middle of the eighteenth century, Steinmetz, a Pietist in England, gave expression to his astonishment at seeing a movement (Methodism) which in so many respects was similar to his own."⁹⁸

However, though German Pietism⁹⁹ and early Methodism clearly held some elements in common, as Nagler and others have noted, these must not be permitted to obscure the differences between them, some of which were considerable. Such is the task to which we now turn.

In the polemic with the orthodoxy of their day, the early German Pietists appealed to medieval mystics "as Zeugen in support of a specific wing within Lutheranism."¹⁰⁰ So it is that Arndt, who marks the beginning of this tendency,¹⁰¹ held up as paradigms of Christian spirituality and life examples from the much-criticized Middle Ages rather than examples drawn from his own age or that of the Reformation. Luther was his sole exception. This tendency led to the accusation that mysticism -- more specifically, Roman Catholic mysticism -- tainted Arndt's work.¹⁰²

One of Arndt's sources for his defense of "true Christianity" was John Tauler (1300-1361), a Dominican who was himself deeply influenced by the mysticism of Meister Eckhart. Tauler's writings sufficiently impressed Arndt that he used them as the principal basis for Book Three of True Christianity.¹⁰³ "The medieval mystic Tauler in particular treats of this [i.e., an inner Sabbath of the heart]," Arndt wrote, "and I have used his writings throughout this book."¹⁰⁴

Arndt also greatly valued the mystical spirituality of the Theologia Germanica, an anonymous, (probably) mid-fourteenth-century treatise.¹⁰⁵ He encouraged wide reading of the work by publishing it anew, with a lengthy introduction in which he took issue with some of the more controversial publications of the day.¹⁰⁶ He gives his own estimate of its value in Book Six of True Christianity:

. . . so this old Theologia deutsch steps forward in its rude German farmer's cloak; that is, in its old, rude speech in which it still teaches very high spiritual and lovely things, namely, to take on Christ's life, to practice the teaching of Christ in life, how Christ is to live in us and Adam is to die in us.¹⁰⁷

What is noteworthy for the task at hand is the fact that both the writings of Tauler and the Theologia Germanica represent a medieval mysticism that speaks the language of both asceticism and union with God in its attempts to explore soteriology. In defining spiritual growth, for example, the Theologia Germanica marks out a slightly abbreviated mystical way:

Now be assured that no one can be enlightened unless he be first cleansed or purified and stripped. So also, no one can be united with God unless he be first enlightened. Thus there are three stages: first, the purification, secondly, the enlightening; thirdly, the union.¹⁰⁸

In time, this mystical legacy was mediated to Arndt, who often wrote of the unio mystica and "sometimes in terms of God['s] being in the believer."¹⁰⁹ Arndt explored the notion of mystical union, in considerable detail, in Book Five of True Christianity^l10 where he portrayed the union of the believing soul with Christ in terms of a favorite image of the mystic, a spiritual wedding.¹¹¹

Spener also appealed to medieval mystics in his struggle with his contemporaries. In emphasizing the new birth, Spener found the brautmystik of Tauler and the Theologia Germanica both useful and instructive.¹¹² So it is that in his Pia Desideria he wrote:

It might also be useful to make more effort to put into the hands of students, and recommend to them the use of such simple little books as the Theologia Germanica and the writings of Tauler, which, next to the Scriptures, probably made our dear Luther what he was.¹¹³

Elsewhere in the same work he continued:

Concerning Theologia Germanica Luther expressed this opinion: "To boast with my old fool, 'No book except the Bible and St. Augustine,' it has come to my attention from which [book] I have learned more about God, Christ, man, and all things." Hence this little book was republished and furnished with a foreword by our dear Arndt in the interest of Christian edification. Moreover, it is in order to praise him rather than criticize him that we mention that the dear man often made use of Tauler and extolled him in his True Christianity.¹¹⁴

In his sermon, Spiritual Union With God, Spener exhibited a Christmysticism which is remarkably similar to that found in Arndt's early writings.¹¹⁵ However, it should also be noted that although a mystical piety is evident in Spener's writings, he was very reluctant at times "to express his open appreciation for the Mystics." It was the speculative and at times fanatical mysticism of Jacob Boehme, especially, that gave him pause.¹¹⁶ Not, as we have seen, was it that of Tauler and the Theologia Germanica.

Francke, in his own way but in continuity with this spiritual trend, utilized the same mystical vocabulary of unio mystica so familiar to his pietist predecessors. Martin Schmidt, in his Wiedergeburt und Neuer Mensch, notes this appropriation of mystical spirituality:

In the rendering of the Christian life following the new birth, following the triumph of the new humanity over the old [with its] deep temptations, Francke himself employed mystical images in a way similar to Spener.¹¹⁷

It was especially useful to Francke in his considerations of conversion and of the new life in Christ --- very important themes for him. At times, he spoke of being "united with Christ,"¹¹⁸ and at other times, for instance, in his Sonn-und Festtagspredigten, he spoke of being a "bride of Christ."¹¹⁹

Nevertheless, Francke, again doing as Spener did, used mystical texts sparingly, and from time to time he "energetically opposed"¹²⁰ some of the more recalcitrant mystics of his own time, especially those with Quietist leanings.¹²¹

There is considerable evidence in Wesley's journals, diaries, and letters that he was quite early acquainted with the mysticism of Tauler and the Theologia Germanica -- the mysticism which surfaced repeatedly in the writings of the Pietists. For example, Wesley's diary entry for 4 March 1736 says that he was then reading Tauler's life. The next day's entry reports that he had completed the piece.¹²² Almost nine months later, in a letter to his older brother Samuel, John Wesley shows a knowledge of both Tauler and the Theologia Germanica. With some measure of exasperation with them, he writes:

I think the rock on which I had the nearest made shipwreck of the faith was in the writings of the mystics, under which term I comprehend all, and only those, who slight any of the means of grace.

I have drawn up a short scheme of their doctrines, partly from conversations I have had, and letters, and partly from their most approved writers, such as Tauler, Molinos, and the author of Theologia Germanica.¹²³

When Wesley finally read Luther's Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, on 15 June 1741, he expressed dissatisfaction with both Luther and Tauler: "How does he [Luther] (almost in the words of Tauler), decry reason, right or wrong, as an irreconcilable enemy to the Gospel of Christ. "¹²⁴

Interestingly enough, in his subsequent correspondence, Wesley often named Tauler and Jacob Behmen (Boehme) in the same breath, as it were. For instance, in a letter to Bishop Lavington in 1752, Wesley protested: "The Mystic divinity was never the Methodists' doctrine. They could never swallow either John Tauler or Jacob Behmen; although they often advised with one that did."¹²⁵ That advisor was William Law, to whom Wesley, Law's erstwhile protege, wrote in 1756: "In matters of religion I regard no writings but the inspired. Tauler, Behmen, and a whole army of Mystic authors, are with me nothing to St. Paul."¹²⁶ And on 6 January 1756, Wesley counseled Law: "Oh that your latter works may be more and greater than your first! Surely they would, if you could ever be persuaded to study, instead of the writings of Tauler and Behmen, those of St. Paul, James, Peter, and John."¹²⁷

If Tauler did not fare well in the writings of Wesley, neither did the Theologia Germanica. As was noted earlier, Wesley records reading this work on 15 January 1736 and finishing it the next day, apparently for the first time, while travelling to Georgia.¹²⁸ It was none other than William Law who had given it to Wesley, with high recommendation: "If that book does not plainly lead you to Jesus Christ, I am content to know as little of Christianity as you are pleased to believe."¹²⁹ But the book did not lead Wesley to Christ, and Wesley later complained to Law about it: "In Theologia Germanica I remember something of Christ our pattern, but nothing express of Christ our atonement."¹³⁰ To this, Law replied, "If you remember the Theologia Germanica so imperfectly as only to remember 'something of Christ our pattern, but nothing express of Christ our atonement,' it is no wonder that you can remember so little of my conversations with you."¹³¹ A few years later, in 1741, perhaps to see whether he had indeed misunderstood this work, as Law had claimed he had, Wesley once again read it in its entirety. His view did not change: "Oh how was it that I could ever so admire the affected obscurity of this unscriptural writer!"¹³²

Wesley's complaint concerning the writings of the mystics was threefold. First, as was indicated earlier in the discussion of his letter to his brother, Samuel, the mystics' depreciation of the means of grace disturbed John Wesley. Many mystics instructed their adherents to "use all outward means only as they are moved thereto."¹³³ Others said, "when the end is attained the means cease."¹³⁴

Wesley specifically rejected these formulations in an important sermon, The Means of Grace, first preached in 1746. In this homily, Wesley contends that means of grace -- e.g., reading the Scriptures, praying, and receiving the Lord's Supper -- have a place at every stage in the Christian life.¹³⁵

The second aspect of Wesley's complaint concerning the writings of the mystics had to do with their understanding of the "dark night of the soul." Both Tauler and the Theologia Germanica taught that it is spiritually therapeutic for those who persevere in faith.¹³⁶ So, the Theologia Germanica taught that as "Christ's soul must needs descend into hell, before it ascended into heaven, so must also the soul of man."¹³⁷ Elsewhere, the same work advised: "Now God hath not forsaken a man in this hell, but He is laying his hand upon him, that the man may not desire nor regard anything but the Eternal Good only . . ."¹³⁸

There is evidence which suggests that Wesley himself imbibed some of these ideas, at least for a time. But later, he came to believe that not only is a state of alienation not necessary for growth in grace; in many instances, it is quite detrimental. So, he warned his followers:

But is not darkness much more profitable for the soul than light? Is not the work of God in the heart most swiftly and effectually carried on during a state of inward suffering? Is not a believer more swiftly and thoroughly purified by sorrow than by joy? By anguish and pain and distress and spiritual martyrdoms than by continual peace? So the mystics teach; so it is written in their books -- but not in the oracles of God.¹³⁹

The third aspect of the teaching of the German mystics which disturbed Wesley was their depiction of the highest reaches of the Christian life in terms of union with God. (Some of them called it perfection.) For example, Tauler, in his Sermon for Whitsunday, pointed out that after the disciples had seen to the purging of their souls from all images, "the Heavenly Father drew [them], thus free and acquiescing, into so close a union that He gave Himself as truly unto them as they had given themselves unto Him."¹⁴⁰ And the Theologia Germanica averred, "we should be of a truth purely, simply, and wholly at one with the One Eternal Will of God, or altogether without will, so that the created will should flow out into the Eternal Will, and be swallowed up and lost therein . . ."¹⁴¹

Wesley much preferred the language of communion to that of union; the language of the perfection of love (conceived as fellowship between God and persons of faith) to that of the melding of the soul into the dark abyss of God. In fact, in his commentary on the Gospel of John, Wesley passes over 17:23, the heart of Jesus' prayer for unity and therefore a very important verse, most probably, Nagler thinks, because of his misgivings concerning unitive mysticism.¹⁴² "These considerations insensibly stole upon me," Wesley noted, "as I grew acquainted with the Mystic writers, whose noble description of union with God and internal religion made everything else appear mean, flat, and insipid."¹⁴³

Though it could be that Wesley was simply being guided by earlier editings of the work (originally it was published in four, not six, books), it was more probably Wesley's uneasiness about mysticism that removed practically every reference to Tauler and to the Theologia Germanica from the edition of Arndt's True Christianity which he prepared for inclusion in his Christian Library. This meant the excision of all of Book III, chapter 4, where Arndt used Tauleran language to depict the soul's union with God, and of Arndt's exaltation of the quiet Sabbath of the heart (a well-worked Tauler metaphor), in chapter 10.¹⁴⁴ Wesley may have simply omitted books five and six for similar reasons.

IV. CONCLUSION

At the end of section two of this essay, we summarized and assessed the many parallels which emerge when the life and thought of John Wesley are compared to those of Arndt, Spener and Francke. Few would doubt their theological significance. But the mere observation of similarities and the noting of a common spirit and perspective do not in themselves substantiate a direct, causal relationship or a significant appropriation. There does seem to be stronger evidence of a direct relationship and significant appropriation in some other data: Wesley did meet with some of the Halle Pietists; he read the works of Arndt and A. H. Fraucke; he edited these works (and how!), and included them among his own. But is this sufficient to warrant including Wesley among the Pietists? Does it suggest truly significant appropriation? I think not, for the following reasons:

First of all, the term Pietism properly refers to a rather well-defined movement which surfaced in the seventeenth century and ran its course by the end of the eighteenth. By no stretch of the evidence was Wesley a part of that movement. Rather, Wesley was an English evangelical caught up in his own thriving, demanding, awakening movement (a movement also rather well defined, historically). Wesley did evidence at times a spirit akin to that of the Pietists, but he was not part of that movement. A vague, largely amorphous understanding of just what it is that constitutes Pietism has led some to contend that Wesley was a Pietist, "just like Spener." But the historical data belie and make almost comical such an assertion, as we have seen.

Second, Wesley flatly rejected much of the mystical piety which was so important to the early German Pietists' descriptions of the Christian life and their critiques of the church. This is to say that although the Pietists and Wesley had similar soteriological emphases -- e.g., repentance, new birth, holy living, perfection, etc. -- the critical terms were nuanced differently in each case. The Pietist and Wesleyan soteriologies in themselves were significantly different. For example, the Wesleyan ordo salutis had little, if any, room for a stage of mortification (the concept of the dark night of the soul and Francke 's Busskampf are two Pietist forms of it); nor did the Wesleyan ordo conceive perfection as Arndt and Spener had -- i.e., in terms of mystical union with God. Tauler and the Theologia Germanica were Zeugen for the Pietists; they manifestly played no testimonial role for Wesley.¹⁴⁵

Albert Outler has argued that Wesley was indebted for many of his soteriological emphases not so much to Latin mysticism (and, by implication, to German Pietism, which was based upon it) as to early and Eastern spirituality. This is especially true with respect to Wesley's understanding of Christian perfection.¹⁴⁶ Beyond this, Wesley's understanding of what Robert Cushman has referred to as the "Scripture way of salvation"¹⁴⁷ was informed not simply by Moravianism but by a vast and impressive array of readings from writers within the Anglican Reformation (Cranmer in particular), seventeenth-century English "Divinity," and Puritanism. Wesley was, in fact, quite eclectic in his appropriation of traditional sources and apparently owed no allegiance to any particular school, Pietist or other, with the possible exception of Anglicanism. This eclectic approach has made it possible for many to claim Wesley as their own.

Ernest Stoeffler, whose studies of Pietism have advanced so greatly, especially among the English-speaking, the understanding of that tradition, has made much of the fact that Arndt's True Christianity appears in the first volume of Wesley's Christian Library. But it must be remembered that Wesley placed immediately ahead of Arndt's work, in good Anglican fashion, the Apostolic Fathers and the Homilies of Macarius!

¹ Cf. Dale W. Brown. "The Bogey of Pietism," Covenant Quarterly 18 (1960). Brown, Understanding Pietism (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1978), p.9, says: "Pietism has been one of the least understood movements in Judaeo-Christian history." This statement may be hyperbolic, but Brown is not alone in his judgment. Hereinafter, Brown's Understanding Pietism will be referred to as Brown, UP, p.9, etc. See Karl A. Olsson, "What is Pietism?" Covenant Quarterly 28 (1970), 3-14.

² F. Ernest Stoeffler, review of Brown, UP in Covenant Quarterly 36:4 (November 1978), 17.

³ Albrecht Ritschl, Geschichte des Pietismus (3 vols.; Bonn: Adolph Marcus, 1880-1886), I.1.3-80; also see II.4, chapters 27, 28, entitled, respectively, "Die Herkunft der Lehre von der mystischen Vereinigung mit Christus bei den jungeren lutherischen Theologen," and "Das wahre Christenthum von Johann Arndt." For critique of Ritschl's position see Martin Greschat "Zur neueren Pietismusforschung. Em Literaturbericht" in Jahrbuch des Vereins fur Westfallische Kirchengeschichte 65 (1972), pp.220-268, and Martin Schmidt, Wiedergeburt und neuer Mensch (Wittenberg: Luther Verlag, 1969), pp. 169ff. Hereinafter, this work will be referred to as Schmidt, Wiedergeburt, 169ff. etc.

⁴ Cf. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, tr. G. W. Bromiley (13 vols.; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1936-1977), IV.3.2, pp.539-540.

⁵ Gerald Parsons, "Pietism and Liberal Protestantism: Some Unexpected Continuities," Religion 14 (1984), 223-243. It should be mentioned that in this article, Parsons tries to show that, on the basis of the shared tenet, "Christianity is essentially life, not doctrine," there is continuity between classical Pietism and the theological liberalism of Adolf von Hamack. Parsons' thesis is interesting but by no means convincingly argued.

⁶ H. Weigelt, "Interpretations of Pietism in the Research of Contemporary German Church Historians," Church History 39 (June 1970) 236- 241.

⁷ Cf. Ritschl, op. cit., passim, but see especially his work on Pietism in the Reformed churches of the Netherlands (Labadie and Labadism), Germany, and Switzerland; in the Lutheran churches; in Halle, and in the Duchy of Wurttemberg; and lastly, the Pietism of Nicolas Zinzendorf. See also, F. Ernest Stoeffler, The Rise of Evangelical Pietism (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965), pp.24-108. Hereinafter, this work will be referred to as Stoeffler, REP, 24-108, etc.

⁸ Stoeffler, REP, 183. Howard Snyder, "Pietism, Moravianism, and Methodism as Renewal Movements," (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 1983), p.56, sets the chronological boundaries of Protestant Scholasticism roughly at 1580 and 1680; more precisely the agreement on the final form of the Formula of Concord (1577) and the publication of Spener's Pia Desideria (1675).

⁹ Stoeffler, REP 202.

¹⁰ Stoeffler, REP, 183. For a lucid discussion of Protestant Scholasticism as it would bear upon the development of Pietism, see K. James Stein, Philipp Jakob Spener: Pietist Patriarch (Chicago: Covenant Press, 1986), pp.9-30.

¹¹ Wilhelm Koepp, "Johann Arndt un sein Wahren Christentum," in Aufsatze und Vortrage zur Theologie und Religionswissenschaft, 1959, p. 26.

¹² F. Ernest Stoeffler, "Religious Roots of the Early Moravian and Methodist Movements," Methodist History 24 (April 1986), 136.

¹³ For an example of pastoral concern over familial piety during the Thirty Years War, see Martin Schmidt, Pietismus (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1972), p. 32ff.

¹⁴ Brown, UP, p.21.

¹⁵ Martin Luther, "To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation," Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann (55 vols.; St. Louis and Philadelphia: Fortress, 1955-1968), 44 (ed. James Atkinson):123.

¹⁶ Stein, op. cit., pp.20-22.

¹⁷ Ibid., pp.23-24. For a comprehensive study of the life and thought of John Arndt, cf. Wilhelm Koepp, Johann Arndt. Eine Untersuchung uber die Mystik in Luthertum (Berlin, 1912).

¹⁸ Stein, op. cit., p.24.

¹⁹ See F. Ernest Stoeffler, German Pietism in the Eighteenth Century (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), p. x. In this work, Stoeffler emphasizes the pluralism within Pietism by examining the form of it which developed in Wurttemberg, Radical Pietism, and the Neo-Pietism of Jung-Stilling, a mystic who had much to do with forming the religious perspective of Tsar Alexander I of Russia in the early years of the nineteenth century. Cf. Ibid., pp. 253ff. Hereinafter, this work will be referred to as Stoeffler, GP, x, etc.

²⁰ Parsons, op. cit., p.227.

²¹ Stoeffler maintains that Arndt has not generally been recognized as the "Father of Pietism" because of the lingering effect of Ritschl's argument that conventicles were of the esse of Pietism. Cf. Stoeffler, REP 202-203. Also see Ritschl, op. cit., 11.97ff.

²² Cf. Peter Erb, "Introduction" to Johann Arndt, True Christianity, tr. Peter Erb (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), p.5. Erb notes here that Book I of True Christianity appeared in 1604, and that before 1609 Arndt had written three more books to be added to the work, so that, in 1609, he published Vier Bucher vom Wahren Christentum. Book I was entitled "The Holy Scriptures"; Book II, "The Example of Christ"; Book III, "Humanity"; and Book IV, "Nature." By 1610, Arndt added yet two more books, in part to defend his position and to respond to some of his critics. So, from 1610, the work bore the title Sechs Bucher vom Wahren Christentum. Hereinafter, the edition of Arndt's True Christianity cited here will be referred to as Arndt, True Christianity (Erb ed.), p.5, etc.

²³ Erb, "Introduction" to Arndt, True Christianity (Erb ed.), p.21.

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁵ It appears that the religious perspective of Spener and his followers was first called "Pietism" in 1674. Cf. F. Ernest Stoeffler, Continental Pietism and Early American Christianity (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1976), p.8.

²⁶ Koepp, op. cit., p.19.

²⁷ Arthur Nagler, Pietism and Methodism (Nashville: M. E. Church, South, Publishing House, 1918), p.143.

²⁸ Johann Arndt, True Christianity, in John Wesley, ed., A Christian Library (30 vols.; London: T. Blanshard, 1819)1.137-139. This edition of Arndt, True Christianity, will hereinafter be referred to as Arndt, True Christianity (Wesley ed.), 1.137-139, etc.

²⁹ John Wesley, The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley, Frank Baker, ed.-in-chief (Nashville: Abingdon, 1984- ; vols. 7, 11, 25, and 26 of this edition appeared as the Oxford Edition of the Works of John Wesley, Frank Baker, ed.-in-chief [Oxford: Clarendon, 1975-19831], Vol.18: Journals and Diaries, W. Reginald Ward and Richard P. Heitzenrater, eds., (Nashville: Abingdon, 1988), pp.371, 373. Hereinafter, this work will be referred to as Wesley, Works (BE). Journals and Diaries 18:371-373, etc. The primary reason for caution here is the simple fact that Wesley says he "began Arndt," but does not say which of Arndt's works he "began."

³⁰ Ibid., p.283.

³¹ Ibid., p.228.

³² Ibid., p.290. The themes of the Almost Christian and Scriptural Christianity (as opposed to nominal or popular Christianity) were important for Wesley. Cf. John Wesley, Sermon: The Almost Christian in Works (BE). Sermons Vol.1:131-141; and Sermon: Scriptural Christianity in Works (BE). Sermons Vol. I:159-180, to Erb, "Introduction" to Arndt, True Christianity (Erb ed.), pp.21-25.

³³ Stoeffler, op. cit., pp.203-204, appears to attribute some significance to the fact that True Christianity was placed in the first volume of A Christian Library.

³⁴ John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, Thomas Jackson, ed. (3d ed.; 14 vols.; London: Wesleyan Book Room, 1872 [Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979], Journal, Sat. 12 Aug. 1738, I.130. Hereinafter, this edition of Wesley's works will be referred to as John Wesley, Works (Jackson ed.). Journal, Sat. 12 Aug. 1738, I.130. etc.

³⁵ Cf. Wesley, Sermon: The Spirit of Bondage and of Adoption in Works (BE). Sermons Vol. 1:248-266; and Sermon: The Scripture Way of Salvation in Works (BE). Sermons Vol.2:153-169. For a detailed treatment of Wesley's soteriology, see Kenneth J. Collins, Wesley On Salvation: A Study in the Standard Sermons (Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury Press/Zondervan, 1989).

³⁶ Arndt, True Christianity (Wesley ed.) 1:355. Arndt's soteriological concerns can also be seen in treatments of the following topics (page references are to Arndt, True Christianity [Wesley ed.]): repentance, p.277; self-denial, p.168; justification by faith, pp.172-173, 265, 381; faith and love, pp.170, 240-241; humility, pp.305-306; hope, p.343; regeneration by faith, p.267; new birth, p.153; deliverance by faith from the guilt and power of sin, pp.177, 367-368; restoration of the imago dei, pp.135-143; holiness and happiness, pp.173-203; Christ, our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption, pp.208, 274; love of God and neighbor, - 82 - pp.217-219, 221, 313; redemption, a narrow path, p.250; and Christian perfection, pp.355, 358. See also, Wilhelm Koepp, Johann Arndt (Berlin: Protestantischer Schriftenvertrieb, 1912), pp. 73ff.

³⁷ Arndt, True Christianity (Wesley ed.), 1:207; see also 1:211, 213, 270, 356.

³⁸ Arndt, True Christianity (Wesley ed.), I:177; see also I:269. Note that for Arndt and Wesley, social action is not the opposite of inward religion; rather, it is formal, orthodox (correct in opinion), impersonal, lifeless religion. Also, notice how deftly Wesley ties together inward religion, i .e. the religion of the heart and good works in the following comment, which is characteristic: "So manifest is it that although true religion naturally leads to every good word and work, yet the real nature thereof lies deeper still, even in 'the hidden man of the heart.'" Cf. John Wesley, Sermon: The Way to the Kingdom in Works. (BE) Sermons I: 220; and see ibid., 3:313, 320, 496, and 523.

³⁹ John Wesley, Sermon: The Way to the Kingdom in Works (BE). Sermons I:218. Wesley often used the text for this sermon ("For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost" [Romans 14:17]) as a principal or supporting text for other sermons. For a complete listing of his uses, see ibid., 4:674.

⁴⁰ Wesley, Sermon: The Circumcision of the Heart in Works (BE). Sermons I:402-403.

⁴¹ Further evidence of Wesley's understanding of inward religion may be found in a number of places. E.g., John Wesley, Sermon: The Marks of the New Birth in Works (BE). Sermons 1:418: "The true living, Christian faith, which whosoever hath is 'born of God,' is not only an assent, an act of understanding, but a disposition which God hath wrought in his heart"; and Sermon: The Great Privilege of Those That are Born of God in Works (BE). Sermons I:432: 'We may learn that it [being born of God] implies not barely the being baptized, but a vast inward change; a change wrought in the soul by the operation of the Holy Ghost." Further examples may be seen in Wesley, Sermon: Christian Perfection in Works (BE). Sermons 2:117; and Sermon: The New Birth in Works (BE). Sermons 2:195.

⁴² Arndt, True Christianity (Wesley ed.), 1:356.

⁴³ John Wesley, The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, A. M., Nehemiab Curnock, ed. (8 vols.; London: Epworth Press, 1938), 4:4. Hereinafter, this work will be referred to as Wesley, Journal (Curnock ed.), 4:4, etc.

⁴⁴ Cf. John Wesley, Sermon: A Caution Against Bigotry in Works (BE). Sermons 2:61-78; and Sermon: The Catholic Spirit in Works (BE). Sermons 2:79-96.

⁴⁵ Stein, op. cit. p.39. For a detailed account of the influence of Stoll on Spener, cf. Martin Schmidt, op. cit., pp.43-44.

⁴⁶ Stoeffler, REP, p.238.

⁴⁷ Stoeffler, REP, p.235. For more on Arndt's influence on Spener, see A. Ritschl, op. cit., 2:97-98.

⁴⁸ Stoeffler, REP, p.230. For a view which holds that Spener's work marks the beginning of Pietism, see Schmidt, op. cit., p.42. Schmidt compares Spener's relationship to Pietism with that of Luther to the Protestant Reformation.

⁴⁹ Howard Snyder, op. cit., p.72. Also cf. pp. 11ff., where Snyder presents seven frameworks for analyzing the structures of renewal movements.

⁵⁰ Ibid., p.15. But, cf. Brown, UP p.61, who sees the creation of the collegia simply as an "extension" of the values derived from [Spener's] catechetical activities."

⁵¹ Stein, op. cit., p.87; Ritschl, op. cit., 2:135.

⁵² Cf. Olsson, op. cit., pp.8-9, where Olsson calls into question any facile association of Anabaptists and Pietists when the issue of ecclesiastical reform is addressed. He insists that the Anabaptists were revolutionaries who sought to go beyond the accommodation of cujus regio, ejus religio, a form of compromise first worked out by Luther and the German princes and later formalized for the first time in the Peace of Augsburg (1555). Spener and other Pietists did find this arrangement chafing at times, but they worked within its terms. Olssen refers to the Pietists as "accommodants," moderates, on this point.

⁵³ Wilda Morris, "Philipp Jakob Spener: Continuing the Reformation," Covenant Quarterly 38 (February 1980), 15.

⁵⁴ John Wesley, Sermon: The Ministerial Office in Works (Jackson). Sermons 7:277.

⁵⁵ Stein, op. cit., p.90.

⁵⁶ Ibid. Also see Snyder, op. cit., p.71. Snyder points to three reasons behind the objections to the collegia pietatis: first, they elevated the role of the laity; second, they altered local congregational organization, especially the collegium presbyterorum; third, they tended to substitute meetings of the collegium for the confessional.

⁵⁷ Stein, op. cit., p.92. Also see Ritschl, op. cit., 2:97-124. For a study of the source of the pietistic pastoral ideal, see Martin Schmidt, Der Pietismus als theologische Erscheinung (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1984), pp. 122ff.

⁵⁸ John Wesley, Letter to the Rev. Mr. Walker, 24 September 1755 in Works (BE). Letters 26:595.

⁵⁹ Snyder, op. cit., p.261.

⁶⁰ Ibid. Note, however, that Spener was not as enthusiastic about the collegia toward the latter years of his career, especially after he had witnessed some flagrant abuses. Indeed, at one point, he even admitted that these groups were not necessary to carrying forward the reforming work he had in mind. Cf. Nagler, op. cit., p.51.

⁶¹ Theodore Tappert, "Introduction" to Philip Jacob Spener, Pia Desideria, Theodore Tappert, tr. and ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964), p. iii. Hereinafter, this work will be referred to as Spener, PD, p. iii, etc. Page numbers in small Roman numerals indicate Tappert's introduction.

⁶² Spener, PD, p 45.

⁶³ John Wesley, Address to the Clergy in Works (Jackson) 10:487.

⁶⁴ Spener, PD, p. iii. Also see Nagler, op. cit., p.31. Nagler says that Spener, reflecting on doctrinal reform, affirmed all of the following: the right of private opinion, that doctrine should be simplified, that correct-ness of belief was not as important as [Lutheran] orthodoxy took it to be; and that the various aspects of a doctrinal system are of unequal value.

⁶⁵ Stoeffler, REP, p.235. See K. James Stein, "Philipp Jakob Spener's Hope for Better Times for the Church," Covenant Quarterly 37 (August 1979), 3-20, for an account of Spener's assessment of the likelihood for success for his reforms.

⁶⁶ Spener's theological opponents charged him with Vollkommenheit (perfectionism), and he wrote Von dem Tempel Salomons, setting forth and defending perfection as a "valid Biblical and traditional doctrine." Cf. Brown, op. cit., p.97. Also see Spener, PD, p.80, where Spener says," . . . we are nevertheless under obligation to achieve some degree of perfection."

⁶⁷ Spener, PD, p.17.

⁶⁸ Stein, op. cit., p.115.

⁶⁹ Gary F. Sattler, God's Glory, Neighbor's Good: A Brief Introduction to the Life and Writings of August Hermann Francke (Chicago: Covenant. 1982), p.22. Hereinafter, this work is referred to as Sattler, Francke, p.22, etc.

⁷⁰ Stoeffler, GP, p.2. For a more detailed treatment of the influence of Arndt on Francke, cf., E. Peschke, Studien zur Theologie August Hermann Franckes, 1964, vol.1, p.150-151.

⁷¹ Stein, op. cit., p.115.

⁷² Stoeffler, GP, p.4. Note that the Collegium Philobiblicum studied the Bible in its original languages. One would also observe that August Hermann Francke had become involved with the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge in 1698 (the year of its founding), and later with the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. For a discussion of the influence of Horneck on the religious society movement in England, see Snyder, op. cit., pp. 111ff. Also cf. Sattler, Francke, pp.76, 78.

⁷³ Stein, op. cit., p.116; and Ritschl, op. cit., 2:250-251.

⁷⁴ Stein, op. cit., p.116.

⁷⁵ Sattler, Francke, p.19. Also see Schmidt, Wiedergeburt und Neuer Mensch, pp. 195ff.

⁷⁶ Stein, op. cit., p.132.

⁷⁷ Stoeffler, GP, p.51; and Ritschl, op. cit., 2:385ff.

⁷⁸ Stoeffler, GP, p.55.

⁷⁹ Nagler, op. cit., pp.57-58. This doctrine quickly (and unfortunately) devolved into the notion that only the converted could or did understand the Bible or could or did have spiritual light. Martin Schmidt, op. cit., p.74, states: "Er selbst [Francke] bezeichnete mit dem Busskampf . . . das Ringen des alten und des neuen Menschen in der Seele des einzelnen und war davon uberzeugt, dass der neue nur unter heftigen Geburtsschmerzen ans Licht trat."

⁸⁰ Brown, UP, p.147. Emphasis mine. Scholarship on this matter is not of one mind. Stoeffler takes issue with those interpretations which closely associate the idea of Busskampf with Pietism at Halle. Cf. Stoeffler, GP, pp.49-SO.

^8l Nagler, op. cit., p.126, says, "We find Francke and Wesley insisting upon the importance of penitential pains with greater emphasis than the mild Spener, who even professed that they were not necessary." The present writer would take issue with Nagler here, for although Wesley recommended a judicious use of the means of grace and works "meet for repentance" prior to justification (if there were time and opportunity), he also affirmed that works which precede justification are not the basis for divine acceptance and approval, nor are they absolutely necessary. For Wesley, the only necessary and sufficient ingredient for justification and regeneration is faith. Penitential struggles, dark nights of the soul, etc., really have little, if any, place in Wesley's ordo salutis. Cf. Collins, Wesley On Salvation: A Study in the Standard Sermons, pp.33-42.

⁸² John Wesley, Works (BE). Journals and Diaries 18:319.

⁸³ Karl Zehrer, "The Relationship Between Pietism in Halle and Early Methodists," Methodist History 16, No.4 (July 1979), 214, 216ff. Zehrer points out the fact that once it became clear that Wesley desired a closer association with the Moravians, Gottlieb Francke showed little interest. When Wesley finally broke with the Moravians, Francke requested his writings.

⁸⁴ Ibid., p.215.

⁸⁵ John Wesley, Diary in Works (BE). Journals and Diaries 18:528.

⁸⁶ Snyder, op. cit., p.137.

⁸⁷ Martin Schmidt, John Wesley: A Theological Biography, tr. Norman R. Goldhawk (3 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), 1:140. Note that Anton Wilhelm Boehm is the translator of Arndt's True Christianity noted earlier.

⁸⁸ August Hermann Francke, Nicodemus in A Christian Library: Consisting of Extracts from and Abridgments of the Choicest Pieces of Practical Divinity Which Have Been Published in the English Tongue, John Wesley, ed. and comp. (30 vols.; London: J. Kershaw, 1826 [reprint of 1st ed.; 50 vols.; London, 1749-1755J), 29:468.

⁸⁹ Ibid., 29:479.

⁹⁰ Ibid., 29:473.

⁹¹ Ibid., 29:483.

⁹² Ibid., 29:482.

⁹³ Ibid.

⁹⁴ Ibid., 29:492.

⁹⁵ John Wesley, Sermon: Scriptural Christianity in Works (BE). Sermons I:179. Also see Collins, op. cit., pp.30-31, from which some of this material is taken.

⁹⁶ Stoeffler, REP, pp. 13ff. lists the major characteristics of Pietism: a belief that the essence of Christianity consists in a personally meaningful relationship to God; a belief in religious idealism; an emphasis upon the study of the Bible; and a morally critical or oppositive perspective regarding the established Church. Brown, UP, pp. 27ff., suggests that the major characteristics of Pietism were: a concern for the reform of the Church; a Biblical orientation; a conscious concern to continue the Reformation, moving from doctrine to life; a theology of experience; and hope for the world.

⁹⁷ Nagler, op. cit., p.141.

⁹⁸ Ibid., p.148. Also see Ritschl, op. cit., 2:507.

⁹⁹ Two movements which lie beyond the scope of this present work also mediated the Pietist impulse to Wesley: the religious society movement in England (under the influence of Horneck and Labadie) and, more importantly, Wurttemberg (Swabian) pietism, one of whose principal leaders was Johann Albrecht Bengel. Few can doubt the considerable impact of Bengel on John Wesley, especially as Wesley composed his Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament. For discussion of the impact of the religious society movement on Wesley, cf. Snyder, op. cit., pp. 111ff. For information on the Pietism of Wllrttemberg, cf. Ritschl, op. cit., 3:3-194.

¹⁰⁰ Peter Erb, "Introduction" to Arndt, True Christianity (Erb ed.), p. 16.

¹⁰¹ Ibid.

¹⁰² Brown, UP, p.19. Italics mine.

¹⁰³ Ritschl, op. cit., 2:37. Erb attempts to downplay the Tauleran sources though they are considerable. Cf. Erb, "Introduction" to Arndt, True Christianity (Erb ed.), p.17.

¹⁰⁴ Arndt, True Christianity (Erb ed.), p.224. Other references to Tauler in this work may be seen on pp.25, 30-31, 76, 166, and 175.

¹⁰⁵ Luther rediscovered this work and published editions of it in 1516 and 1518. Cf. Susanna Winkworth, tr., Theologia Germanica (London: Macmillan and Co., 1907), pp. ixff. Hereinafter, this work will be referred to as Theol. Germ. (Winkworth ed.), pp. ixff., etc.

¹⁰⁶ Erb, "Introduction" to Arndt, True Christianity (Erb ed.), p.5.

¹⁰⁷ Arndt, True Christianity (Erb ed.), p.280. See pp.275, 278, and 281 for other references to the Theologia Germanica.

¹⁰⁸ Theol. Germ. (Winkworth ed.), pp.46-47. It is recognized, of course, that while perhaps a majority of Christian mystics write in terms of three stages in the mystic way to union (or could be interpreted as presenting three stages), that number is hardly fixed.

¹⁰⁹ Stoeffler, REP, p.209. Also see ibid., p.200; where Stoeffler says, "Arndt took chapter 34 of the second book of his True Christianity directly from [Valentin] Weigel's Gebetbuchlein." Weigel (1533-1588) was the Lutheran pastor in Zschopau, Saxony, who developed a theosophic mysticism which was often criticized but never officially condoned in his lifetime. The theosophic side of his thought flowered in the thought of Jakob Bohme. Wesley denounced the views of Bohme on more than one occasion. Cf. John R. Tyson, "John Wesley and William Law: A Reappraisal," Wesleyan Theological Journal 17, No.2 (Fall 1982), 67.

¹¹⁰ Erb, "Introduction" to Arndt, True Christianity (Erb ed.), p.7.

¹¹¹ Arndt, True Christianity (Erb ed.), p.255.

¹¹² Martin Schmidt, Wiedergeburt und Neuer Mensch, pp.169-170. Schmidt takes issue with Ritschl's emphasis on the influence of medieval mysticism, asceticism, and monasticism on Spener.

¹¹³ Spener, PD, p.110. Note that in his proposals for creating better conditions in the church, Spener cites approvingly sections in Arndt's True Christianity which were based largely on the writings of Tauler. Cf. ibid., p.96.

¹¹⁴ Ibid., p. 111.

¹¹⁵ Nagler, op. cit., p.39.

¹¹⁶ One possible explanation for this reluctance is that Friedrich Mayer, an opponent of Spener and a critic of the Hamburg movement, severely criticized Spener's failure to distance himself from the excesses of Jacob Bohme. But especially noteworthy here is Spener's apparent strategy: he apparently refused even to read Bohme 's writings so that he would not have to make a judgment on their merit. Cf. Stein, op. cit., pp. 122-138. For a study which downplays Spener's relationship to the mystics, see Johannes Wallmann, "Weidergeburt und Emeuerung bei Philipp Jakob Spener," in Pietismus und Neuzeit, Andreas Lindt and Klaus Deppermann, eds. (Bielefeld: Luther Verlag, 1977), pp.7-31.

¹¹⁷ Schmidt, op. cit., p.205. Schmidt uses the same argument verbatim in his Pietismus, pp.74-75.

¹¹⁸ Stoeffler, GP, p.17.

¹¹⁹ Ibid.

¹²⁰ Nagler, op. cit., p.130.

¹²¹ Ibid.. p.131.

¹²² John Wesley, Diary, 4 March 1736, in Works (BE). Journals and Diaries, 18:363.

¹²³ John Wesley, Letter to Samuel Wesley, 23 Nov. 1736, in Works (BE). Letters, 25:487-488.

¹²⁴ John Wesley, Journal, 15 June 1741 (Curnock ed.), 2:467.

¹²⁵ John Wesley, Letter to Bp. Lavington (Exeter), 8 May 1752, in John Telford, ed., The Letters of John Wesley, A.M. (8 vols.; London: Epworth Press, 1931), 3:321. One has to consider, however, whether it is fair to associate so closely with Tauler and Bohme. Hereinafter, this edition of the letters of John Wesley will be referred to as John Wesley, Letter to Bp. Lavington (Exeter), 8 May 1752 in Letters (Telford ed.), 3:321, etc.

¹²⁶ John Wesley, "An Extract of a Letter to William Law," 6 January 1756, in Letters (Telford ed.), 3:332.

¹²⁷ Ibid., 3:370.

¹²⁸ Cf. supra, n29.

¹²⁹ Works (BE). Letters 25:543-544.

¹³⁰ Ibid., 25:547.

¹³¹ Ibid., 25:548. Wesley's estimation of the christology of the Theologia Germanica was probably more accurate than William Law's. For instance, in the sections of the book where one would normally expect to find some comments on the death of Christ as in some way effectuating a reconciliation of humanity and God, one instead finds numerous descriptions of the problem of the "I, and Me, and Self, and Mine, and the like," (the author's way of depicting original sin) which is resolved in the example of Christ whose "human nature was so utterly bereft of Self, and apart from all creatures, as no man's ever was, and was nothing else but 'a house and habitation of God.'" Cf. Theol. Germ. (Winkworth ed.), pp. 48, 50.

¹³² John Wesley, Journal, 7-15 November 1741, in Journal (Curnock ed.), 2:515.

¹³³ John Wesley, Letter to Samuel Wesley, 23 November 1736, in Works (BE). Letters, 25:488.

¹³⁴ Ibid.

¹³⁵ John Wesley, Sermon: The Means of Grace in Works (BE). Sermons, 1: 376-397. Outler correctly points out that "this sermon carries us back to Wesley's earlier conflicts with the Moravians and other 'quietists' " (Ibid., 1:376). However, it would be a mistake to assume that this period (Fetter Lane experience) represents the terminus a quo for much of the thought contained in this homily. One should keep in mind that Wesley had already excoriated the mystical depreciation of the means of grace in 1736 in a way which portended his rebuke of the Moravians in July, 1740. Cf. John Wesley, Letter to Samuel Wesley, 23 November 1736, in Works (BE). Letters, 25:488.

¹³⁶ Meister Eckhart described this "dark night" thus: "The genuine word of eternity is spoken only in that eternity of the man who is himself a wilderness, alienated from self and all multiplicity. . . . Where may one find peace and rest? Really only where he rejects all creatures, being alienated from them and desolate." Cf. Meister Eckhart, "Sermon Four" in Walter T. Stace, ed., The Teachings of the Mystic (New York: New American Library, 1960), p.149.

¹³⁷ Theol. Germ. (Winkworth ed.), p.35.

¹³⁸ Ibid., p.38.

¹³⁹ John Wesley, Sermon: On the Wilderness State in Works (BE). Sermons 2:219. One could call into question Wesley's apparent equating of the mystics' dark night of the soul and what he calls the wilderness state. The notions of Eckhart and Tauler concerning the dark night of the soul do not necessarily see it entailing a sinful state. To be sure, for these mystics, the dark night of the soul expresses an introvertive mysticism in which the mind becomes a desert (i.e., a wilderness state), devoid of all sensate content. By Wesley's time meanings were probably in some sense conflated. Cf. Stace, op. cit., p.15, and W. R. Inge, Mysticism in Religion (London: Hutchinson and Co., 1947), pp. 45ff.

¹⁴⁰ Susanna Winkworth, The History and Life of the Rev. Doctor John Tauler of Strasbourg; with Twentyfive of His Sermons (New York: Eaton and Mains, 1907), p.351.

¹⁴¹ Theol. Germ. (Winkworth ed.), p.98.

¹⁴² Nagler, op. cit., p.97.

¹⁴³ John Wesley, Georgia Diary 1: 30 December 1735 to 17 January 1736, in Works (BE). Journals and Diaries, 18:338-342.

¹⁴⁴ Cf. Arndt, True Christianity (Erb ed.), Book III, chptrs. 4 and 10 and Arndt, True Christianity (Wesley ed.), l.378ff.

¹⁴⁵ Tuttle contends that Wesley rejected the mystical in orco (dark night of the soul) as a stage along the soteriological path. However, he also argues that Wesley "continued to uphold the mystical concept of perfection (Christian mysticism's fifth stage) as the end of religion." It is perhaps more to the point to observe that Wesley had little use for either the fourth stage (mortification) or the fifth (union) as conceived by some mystics. Cf. Robert G. Tuttle Jr., John Wesley: His Life and Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980), pp.219-219, 331.

¹⁴⁶ Albert C. Outler, ed., John Wesley (Oxford University Press, 1964), p.252. Observe that it makes little difference to the present argument whether or not Wesley correctly interpreted the mystical authors. Wesley's perception, accurate or not, and the consequences which flowed from it, are the significant matters here. Cf. Nagler, op. cit., p.101, for a discussion which maintains that Wesley's system contained several mystical elements, and Stoeffler, GP, p.18, for a discussion which attempts to mitigate the unitive mysticism found in Arndt and Spener by drawing the distinction between ontological and psychological union.

¹⁴⁷ Robert E. Cushman, John Wesley's Experimental Divinity (Nashville: Kingswood, 1989), p.80.

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.