Anglican Influence on John Wesley's Soteriology
by
William H. Shontz
Throughout the Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, John Wesley insists that the doctrines of the Methodists are the doctrines of the Church of England. "From the whole Tenor then of her Liturgy, Articles and Homilies, the Doctrine of the Church of England appears to be this.... That both Inward and Outward Holiness are consequent on this [lefting] faith, and are the Ordinary, Stated Condition of Final Justification" (12, 13). In A Farther Appeal (p. 26), he writes in response to a fellow Anglican's critique of Methodist teaching. Wesley asks, "What do you mean by their own Schemes? Their own notions? Their doctrines? Are they not yours too?" He also summarized:
By salvation I mean, not barely, according to the vulgar Notion, deliverance from Hell, or going to Heaven: But a Present Deliverance from Sin, a Restoration of the Soul to its Primitive health, its Original Purity; a Recovery of the Divine Nature; the Renewal of our Souls after the Image of GOD, in Righteousness and True Holiness, in Justice, Mercy, and Truth. This implies all Holy and Heavenly Tempers, and by Consequence all Holiness of Conversation (2, 3).
The Historical Background
The "Calvinist Controversy" in which John Wesley found himself embroiled had precedent within the history of his own church. The two most influential parties in the seventeenth-century Church of England were the Calvinist English Puritans and the Laudian High Churchmen. The latter were named after the (in)famous Archbishop William Laud (1573-1645) whose sweeping reforms in Anglican worship earned him the disdain of the Puritans. They charged that the worship of their freshly reformed church was returning to "popery."[1] The issues, even for Laud, were not merely liturgical. Laud was himself part of a growing movement within the Anglican Church, rooted in the English Reformation, which attempted to define it's theology without leaning on the progress of the Continental Reformers. The Puritans were keenly aware of the new threat and learned from their Dutch compatriots its label, Arminianism.
The real "dividing line" between the English Puritans and the High Churchmen of the seventeenth century was not drawn primarily over episcopacy or the use of set forms of liturgy, as is often assumed. It was fashioned in the paradigmatic shift by the High Churchmen from continental Reformation emphases of Western, forensic, and juridical soteriology to a more Eastern, imparted, and therapeutic soteriology grounded in patristic interpretations of the faith.[2] Theological method (Antiquity) and its results (Arminianism) created and sustained the breach between the two camps.
Both sides claimed fidelity to Scripture. The Reformation debate over the function of unwritten tradition had been settled in England. Both Puritans and "Arminians" held the conviction that the true interpretation of Scripture was not recovered by their particular group in their own time. They stood, as it were, on the shoulders of giants. For the Puritans, those giants came out of the Swiss Reformation. Some of the Puritan leaders had earlier corresponded with Calvin, seeking his advice.[3] John Knox, who helped establish Presbyterianism in Scotland and served as chaplain to the English Crown, described Calvin's Geneva as "the most perfect school of Christ that ever was in the earth since the days of the apostles."[4] By conviction, the English Puritans were more than willing to duplicate the Genevan Experiment on British soil.
The High-Church party also had its guiding giants, and they were not Swiss. While agreeing with the Puritans that theological and practical corruptions had crept into the Church, corruptions needing to be expunged, the High Churchmen believed that the primitive church remained loyal to the apostolic faith for a longer period of time than credited by the Puritans. Directly appealing to the Vincentian principle, Herbert Thorndike (1598-1672) declared "that whatsoever hath been unanimously taught in the Church by writing, that is, always, by all, everywhere, to that no contradiction is ever to be admitted in the Church" (II.123).[5]
"For the Religion of the Church of England," taught Simon Patrick (1626-1707), "is the true Primitive Christianity;[6] in nothing new, unless it be in rejecting all that novelty which hath been brought into the Church. But they [the Roman Catholics] are the cause of that.... And who dare say that this is a new religion, which is as old as Christ and His Apostles? With whom whosoever agree, they are truly ancient Churches, though of no longer standing than yesterday; as they that disagree with them are new, though they can run up their pedigree to the very Apostles" (VII.67, 68).[7]
To the Puritans, however, Tradition, antiquity, the decrees of Councils, and the writings of the Fathers meant little or nothing.[8] By adopting a patristic model, the line was clearly drawn by the Anglicans, who believed that the early church had a better grasp on the apostolic faith than did the theologizing of John Calvin. Peter Heylyn (1600-1662), whose exegesis was influential in Mr. Wesley's Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament (Preface, ¶8), argued "that Calvinism was not the native and original Doctrine of the Church of England, though in short time it overspread a great part thereof, as Arrianism did the Eastern Churches in the elder times...when the world groaned and trembled under the calamity of that dangerous heresie" (504).
Sanctification and Perfection in Anglican Theology
Wesley followed the example of the High Church tradition,[9] with which he consciously identified himself,[10] appealing to Scripture, Tradition, and Reason to left his theology.[11] Early in the year 1738, reacting to the extreme solifidianism of Lutheran and Calvinist authors, Wesley wrote: "The English writers, such as Bishop Beveridge, Bishop Taylor, and Mr. Nelson, a little relieved me from these well-meaning, wrong-headed Germans. Their accounts of Christianity I could easily see to be, in the main, consistent both with reason and Scripture" (Works, 18.212).[12] As with Wesley a century later, soteriology for the Anglicans focused mainly on transformation, being "partakers of the divine nature." "Neither did the death of my Savior reach only to the condemning, but likewise to the commanding power of sin," wrote Bishop Beveridge (1637-1708). He continued:
It did not only pluck out its sting, but likewise deprive it of its strength, so that He did not only merit by His death that I should never die for sin, but likewise that I should die to it. Neither did He only merit by His life that I should be accounted righteous in Him before God, but likewise that I should be made righteous in myself by God. (VIII.174)
One finds in the writings of the Anglicans[13] a correlation between the biblical notions of perfection, sanctification, and love. According to Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667), "perfection cannot be less than an entire piety, a holiness perfect in its parts, wanting nothing material, allowing no vicious habit, permitting no vile action, but contending towards the greatest excellency, a charitable heart...to be pure and pleasing to God in Jesus Christ..." (II.437). Bishop Wilson (1663-1755) prayed, "Perfect, O God, what Thou hast begun in me; inspire me with such a lively sense and clear knowledge of Thy love, that I may be able to convince others of the blessedness and the necessity of holiness, and the way to attain it, through Jesus Christ. Amen" (Wilson, II. 435).[14]
Far from being an innovator within Protestantism with his teaching of Christian perfection, John Wesley was the heir of a theological tradition firmly established in the Church of England.
The cry of Mr. Wesley's heart, "O grant that nothing in my soul may dwell, but Thy pure love alone!" (A Plain Account, 14) was shared by the representative Anglican theologians of a century earlier. In his Pattern of Catechetical Doctrine, Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626) declared: "And so this we must labor to attain unto, to love Him with all our heart and all our soul" (VI.110). "O Holy Spirit of Grace," wrote Bishop Wilson, "sanctify my heart, that no base or impure thoughts, no mean and covetous affections, may lodge there" (V.143).
For the Anglicans, the perfection which they espoused was not absolute, but qualified. Just as Wesley presented his teaching in such a way that the attainment of perfection did not exclude further growth in grace (A Plain Account, 62), the Anglican theologians attempted to express a doctrine of perfection that was not static but dynamic; one that was complete while still in process.[15] So Bishop Andrewes pronounced: "Why, is there any perfection in this life? There is.... Which is the perfection of travelers, of wayfaring men; the farther onward on their journey, the nearer their journey's end, the more perfect; which is the perfection of this life, for this life is a journey" (II. 95). In a similar vein, Mr. Wesley would write later in his sermon on "Christian Perfection": "Yet we may, lastly, observe that neither in this respect is their any absolute perfection on earth...none which does not admit of a continual increase" (Works, II. 104). In spite of the obstacles the word "perfection" would create, Mr. Wesley was determined to pursue a biblical perfection, in keeping with his theological forebears. In his Sacra Privata, Bishop Wilson, under the heading "Christian Perfection," wrote: "May thy Almighty and Powerful Grace make me as Perfect as Thou hast commanded me to be" (V. 371).[16]
Theosis and the Redeemed Humanity
The Anglicans, steeped in patristic thought, found a special affinity with the Eastern branch of Christianity,[17] which magnified a theology of the Incarnation, with Christ as the Head of a redeemed humanity. "We [are] made the sons of God, as He the Son of Man; we [are] made partakers of his divine, as He of our human nature" (Andrewes, I.59.). What is called in the tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy theosis[18] was in fact central to the theology of people such as Richard Hooker (1554?-1600) and Lancelot Andrewes.[19] It then became central to Caroline Divinity[20] in the seventeenth-century.[21] To the Anglicans, Christ in us was the logical conclusion of Christ for us, so that "the great end wherefore Christ gave Himself for us [was so] that He might make us pure and holy..." (Beveridge, V. 394). William Beveridge, in his sermon "Of the Justification of Man," is careful to distinguish between justification and sanctification. Both are acts of God, but while justification is imputed, sanctification is imparted. Justification is in God only, while sanctification is in ourselves only. "By our sanctification we are made righteous in ourselves, but not accounted righteous by God; by our justification we are accounted righteous by God, but not made righteous in ourselves" (VII.289).
By Christ becoming human, human nature itself became sanctified, acceptable in God's sight, worthy to become a vessel of God's Spirit once again. Richard Hooker taught:
But may it rightly be said concerning the incarnation of Jesus Christ, that as our nature hath in no respect changed his, so from his to ours as little alteration hath ensued? The very cause of his taking upon him our nature was to change it, to better the quality, and to advance the condition thereof, although in no sort to abolish the substance which he took, nor to infuse into it the natural forces and properties of his Deity.... For albeit the natural properties of Deity be not communicable to man's nature, the supernatural gifts, graces, and effects thereof are (I.V.50.3).
Because of the Incarnation, vile human beings are placed in the situation where they are capable of being redeemed by a holy God. "[God] cannot, we may be sure, account evil of that nature, that is now become the nature of His own Son--His now no less than our own" (Andrewes, I.41). Because humanity has been sanctified, individuals can and should obviously be conformed to Christ's likeness. Thomas Jackson (1579-1640) states that regeneration consists in "reviving God's image in us, and in the expunction and wiping out the stain of sin, (which is no other than the image of Satan)..." (X. 410).
The Holy Spirit, "infused into us by God," creates within us "passions and desires of things beyond and contrary to our natural appetites, enabling us not only to sobriety, which is the duty of the body, not only to justice, which is the rectitude of the soul, but to such a sanctity as makes us like to God: for so saith the Spirit of God, 'Be ye holy, as I am: be pure, be perfect, as your heavenly Father is pure, as he is perfect...'" (Taylor, I. 767). According to Bishop Beveridge, "By holiness you are like God, Matt. v. 48" (X. 113).
While the sanctification of humanity is what Christ wrought for us by his Incarnation, the sanctification of persons is what Christ wrought in us by his Spirit, "that we fashion ourselves like Him" (Andrewes, II.199, 200).[22] For Bishop Wilson, "The only way to perfection is to Live in [the] Presence of God" (V. 571). Thus by the infusion of Deity into the human soul, the human soul is so permeated with the Divine influences that it takes on the characteristics of Deity. "For the nature of God being purity itself, they who are pure in heart are so far like to God; and 'partakers of the Divine Nature,' as St. Peter speaks: and, therefore, if they do but look into their own hearts, so much as they see of purity, so much they see of God Himself there, Whose image and likeness it is" (Beveridge, V. 400).[23]
John Donne (1571?-1631) very poetically interpreted Psalm 51:7, "Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean, wash me and I shall be whiter than snow." He taught that originally human nature was made white, that is, pure. "Redness" comes from Adam, being a man of clay. Coming into the world bearing the image of Adam, Christian baptism does much to remove the red stain, but is incomplete by itself. "The purging with Hyssope...delivers us from that rednesse.... The more that rednesse is washed off, the more we return to our first whitenesse; and this which is petitioned here, is a washing of such perfection, as cleanses us Ab omni in quinamento, from all filthiness of flesh and spirit" (Donne, V. 313). Preaching on Matthew 5:8, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God," William Beveridge declared that "only they whose hearts are purged and freed from that filth and corruption that hinders their sight of Him, and are restored to their primitive holiness and purity" will see God (V. 398).[24]
Christian perfection requires and effects Christlikeness in the human soul and character. "Be ye therefore perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect," means to "Be ye holy like him, or in imitation of him" (Taylor, II.436). It is taken as a call to "Imitate the divine perfections in the inward holiness and sanctification of your nature, of your soul and mind" (Wilson, VI. 388). Thomas Jackson writes: "holiness doth properly and formally consist in the right temperature or disposition of the soul, specially towards God: the idea or exemplar of which temperature is conformity unto Christ our Head" (Jackson, XII.25). For William Beveridge, "Holiness consists in the inclination of the soul to God; the soul's conformity to God's nature and word; the soul's performing all duties upon holy motives; the soul's dedicating itself to God; its aiming chiefly at holy ends" (X. 111).
The Doctrine of Sin in Anglican Theology
How one understands sin, of course, plays a major role in how one understands holiness. According to Bishop Andrewes, sin may be understood as "some outward soil in the soul" and as "some inward pestilent humor in the soul and conscience" (I.113). Commenting on Ephesians 5:25-27, Jackson says: "Though we be washed with the water of baptism, and with the wine of the eucharist in this life, yet cannot we be so washed or cleansed as to be left without spot, wrinkle, or blemish, until we have put off this earthly tabernacle, either by death, or by that change whereunto all are subject that shall not die" (XII. 26). This seems to echo the opinion of Andrewes, who wrote:
To "cease from sin" I say, understanding by sin, not from sin altogether--that is a higher perfection than this life will bear, but as the Apostle expoundeth himself...from the "dominion of sin" to cease. For till we be free from death itself, which in this life we are not, we shall not be free from sin altogether; only we may come thus far, that sin "reign not," wear not a crown, sit not in a throne, hold no parliaments within us, give us no laws.... To die to the dominion of sin--that by the grace of God we may, and that we must account for (Andrewes, II. 200).
What Andrewes is saying is that there is yet a perfection awaiting the children of God after this life, when all lack of conformity to the absolute standard will be removed. While it may appear that theologians such as Andrewes[25] and Jackson ultimately do not represent a theology of entire sanctification as John Wesley would later, such need not be the conclusion, for Wesley himself distinguished between "sins properly so called" and "sins improperly so called" so that "sinless perfection is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself" (A Plain Account, 54). Andrewes himself, immediately after declaring his conviction that one cannot "cease from sin altogether" describes the life which a child of God should experience while still in this life.
...to live to God with St. Paul here [Rom. 6], is to live... "according to God in the Spirit," with St. Peter [1 Pt. 4:6]. And then live we according to Him, when His will is our law, His word our rule, His Son's life our example, His Spirit rather than our own soul the guide of our actions. Thus shall we be grafted into the similitude of His resurrection (II. 201).
Even before Wesley, however, Anglicans were expressing distinction between "sins properly so called" and "sins improperly so called." Commenting on 1 John 1:8, "If we claim to be without sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us," Bishop Wilson is careful to demonstrate that the Apostle never taught that all Christians are plagued by sin, as Wesley would say, "properly so called," throughout the remainder of this life. "One whose conversion is not perfect, may fall into some sins; and there are some sins into which the most perfect men may fall" (VI. 688). And into what kind of sins might the "most perfect" people fall? "Sins of ignorance, surprise, and infirmity, the best of men may fall into" (VI. 688). Jeremy Taylor makes a further distinction between "sins" and "infirmities": "For though God through Jesus Christ is pleased to abate for our unavoidable infirmities, that is, for our nature--yet he will not abate or give allowance to our superinduced evil customs..." (II.437).
Who then, according to the Anglicans, is being described by Paul in chapter seven of Romans? Employing the question asked by the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8, Jeremy Taylor admits, that because "We have a corrupted nature" and "our reason dwells in the dark," therefore "It is hoped that he speaks it of himself" (II. 11). To declare that Romans 7 is the typical description of a Christian is seen as an excuse for sin, and hinders the motivation to pursue holiness. According to Jackson, Romans 7 describes not the ideal Christian, but instead a person "inter regenerandum, during the immediate acts or conflicts betwixt the beginning and consummation of his regeneration" (IX. 52).[26]
In his sermon on Romans 7:19, called "The Christian's Conquest over the Body of Sin," Taylor proclaimed:
"He that saith he hath not sinned, is a liar:" But what then? Because a man hath sinned, it does not follow he must do so always.... "All men have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." But is there no remedy for this? Must it always be so?... When Christ reigns in our hearts by his Spirit, Dagon and the ark cannot stand together; we cannot serve Christ and Belial. And as in the state of nature no good thing dwells within us, so when Christ rules in us, no evil thing can abide.... But how shall this come to pass, since we all find ourselves so infinitely weak and foolish?... What we cannot do for ourselves, God can do for us, and with us. What nature cannot do, the grace of God can. So that the thing may be done; not indeed by ourselves, but gratia Dei mecum, saith St. Paul; God and man together can do it.... For it is impossible men should pray for deliverance, and not be heard; that they should labor and not be prosperous; unless they pray amiss, and labor falsely (II. 13, 14).
Lancelot Andrewes laments the condition of those who in their Christian pilgrimage find themselves in a persistent pattern of dying to sin, then falling back into sin, repenting, and dying to sin, falling, repenting, that he preaches from Romans 6 the need to die to sin once for all:
O that once we might come to this! no more deaths, no more resurrections, but one! that we might once make an end of our daily continual recidivations to which we are so subject, and once get past these pangs and qualms of godliness, this righteousness like the morning cloud, which is all we perform; that we might grow habituate in grace.... But as out of Christ, or without Christ, we can do nothing toward this account; not accomplish or bring to perfection but not do--not any great or notable sum of it, but nothing at all.... So, in Him and with Him enabling us to it, we can think good thoughts, speak good words, and do good works, and die to sin and live to God, and all... And enable us He will and can... (II. 202, 203).
Beveridge adds: "If the 'old man' be crucified with Him, they must become 'new men,' or nothing at all, 'in Him.' If the body of sin be destroyed, the body of grace must be formed in them" (I. 355).
When the Psalmist prayed "wash me," in Psalm 51:7, "This is more than a sprinkling. A totall, and intire washing" (Donne, V. 312). We are to be more than ordinary partakers of the outward means of grace, such as hearers of the Word and receivers of the Sacrament; there should be more than a temporary feeling of the benefit thereof in a present sense, for it is a building up of religious habits "visible to others" and a "holy and firme confidence created in us by the Spirit of God, that we shall keepe that building in reparation...." A washing like Naaman's in Jordan,
to be iterated seaven times, seaventy seaven times, daily, hourly, all our life.... Not such a washing, as the Washes have, which are those sands that are overflowed with the Sea at every Tide, and then lie dry, but such a washing as the bottome of the Sea hath, that is always equally wet. It is not a stillicidium, a spout, a showre, a bucket powred out upon us, when we come to Church, a Sabbath-sanctification, and no more, but a water that enters into every office of our house, and washes every action proceeding from every faculty of the soule. And this is the washing, A continuall succession of Grace, working effectually to present Habits of religious acts, and constituting a holy purpose of persevering in them, that induces the Whitenesse, the Candor, the Dealbation that David begs here... (Donne, V. 312, 313).
So Christ came "to save soul and body from bodily and ghostly enemies; from sin the root, and misery the branches; for a time and for ever"(Andrewes, I.79). Salvation from sin is to be realized in this life. Archbishop William Wake (1657-1737), arguing against purgatory, invokes early Fathers (Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom) who denied the possibility that any further purging from sin takes place beyond the grave, for purging from sin is to occur in this life (III.531). Bishop Wilson, who so strongly believed in the attainability and necessity of salvation from sin in this life, wrote: "'Every man, therefore, that has this hope' (of seeing God in peace), 'must purify himself even as He is pure' [1 Jn 3:3]. If death overtakes any of us, before this is done, we are ruined forever" (II. 447). When Jesus taught his disciples to pray "deliver us from evil" (Matt. 6:13), he meant deliverance from both the guilt and power of evil (Wilson, V. 369).
A pure heart, which is requisite for "seeing God" (Matt. 5:8), "is always single, and all of one piece, wholly and entirely inclined to God and goodness" (Beveridge, V. 393). In order for hearts to be made pure, it is necessary that "they be purged and cleansed from all the guilt and filth they have contracted by sinning against God; for till that be done, the spirits of fallen men are as impure and unclean in the sight of God as the fallen Angels themselves" (Beveridge, V. 392). Beveridge admonishes that "as ever we desire 'to be meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light' [Col. 1:12], we must be sure to depart out of this life with clean hands, and a pure heart..." (Beveridge, V. 404).
"Faith" as the Means of Sanctification
In his sermon on Acts 15:9, "...purified their hearts by faith," Beveridge writes:
By this we may see what is here meant by purifying the heart, for the heart may then be properly said to be purified, when it is freed from these noisome diseases and distempers, wherewith it is thus defiled; when it can clearly apprehend and discern between truth and falsehood, right and wrong, good and evil; when it can think aright of God, and of all things necessary to our eternal happiness...in short, the heart is then purified, when it is reduced in some measure to its first disposition, and set again to keep God's Commandments, and to do all such good works as He hath prepared for men to walk in (IV. 26).
A pure heart, however, reaches to the whole of the person. As with Mr. Wesley a century later, the Anglicans were constantly on guard against any form of antinomianism. "We are not sanctified wholly, nor preserved in safety, unless, besides our souls and bodies, our spirit also be kept blameless" (Taylor, I. 767). "Perfecting holiness" is "To be universally holy." It involves "the whole man, 1 Thess. v. 23" (Beveridge, X. 111).
Commenting himself on 1 Thessalonians 5:23, "The God of peace himself sanctify you entirely," Bishop Wilson writes in his Notes on the Holy Scriptures, "All these [spirit, soul, body] have been defiled, and all must be regenerated" (VI. 638). In pursuing holiness, they greatly err
who place holiness in outward devotion; in attending the public worship; in hearing the Word, and observing ordinances. Christians should consider, that these are only means of attaining holiness; that as such they are necessary to be observed; but that they are otherwise of no value in the sight of God, if they do not help to free us from the slavery of sin, cure us of an immoderate love for the world, increase our faith and hope in God, and bring us to love Him with all our hearts, and our neighbour for His sake (Wilson, II. 440).
The means, as important as they are, are only means and not ends in and of themselves. Wilson continues: "Christians should know, that faith is the only principle of holiness; because it is faith only that can create in us those holy dispositions of thankfulness to God for His mercies, of loving His law, of desiring to please Him, and of dreading His anger; all which are absolutely necessary to fit us for the vision of God" (Wilson, II. 441). For "it is not the work of nature but of grace," to perfect holiness in the fear of God (Wilson, II. 443).
To be set free from the power and dominion of sin, "The first great instrument is faith" (Taylor, II. 17); "Because upon our believing in Him, He diffuseth that measure of His Grace and Holy Spirit into us, whereby our hearts are purified and made holy" (Beveridge, V. 395). Faith works so mightily upon the human heart that when it comes with its full strength "it turns all things upside down; it casts out all proud conceits, all inordinate desires, all unruly passions, every thing that corrupts and defiles the heart, and so purifies, or restores it, as far as it goes, to a pure and holy temper again" (Beveridge, IV. 30).[27] But faith is not merely a human faculty, for it is through the Holy Spirit that one's heart is said to be purified by faith (Beveridge, IV. 35).
"Love" as the End of Sanctification
For the Anglicans, love is the predominant fruit of holiness. According to Bishop Wilson, holiness
consists in such a prevailing love of God as makes a christian hate all sin, as a thing most hateful to God; to be afraid of, and to avoid all temptations to every thing that he believes will displease God: such a love as makes us zealous to promote the glory of God, and to please Him in every thing; desirous to know His will, and resolved at all times to obey it; and cheerfully closing with all the means which He has ordained to work in us these holy dispositions (II.438).
With respect to one's neighbor, holiness "consists in loving him sincerely; that is, in doing to him all that in reason we desire should be done to ourselves"; with respect to ourselves, holiness consists "in keeping the body pure and undefiled, as the temple of God ought to be" (II.439). He concludes, "And they that satisfy themselves with any thing less than this holiness which we have now described, they do it at their utmost peril" (II.439).[28]
Godliness is not only "mystical," faith hidden in the soul with no outward expression, such as that found in Christian antinomianism, but is also a "manifestation." Bishop Andrewes states that "the life of Jesus must not only be had in our spirit, but manifest in our flesh. For godliness is not only faith, which referreth to the mystery...but it is love, too.... And if faith work by love," declares Andrewes, "the mystery will be so manifest in us, as we shall need no prospective glasses, or optic instruments, to make it visible; all men shall take notice of it" (Andrewes, I.42).
True love to God consists in embracing God as the highest good, thus having one's entire soul fully inclined to God that no other affection can draw it away. "But when this sacred fire of Divine love is thus kindled in a man's breast, it is not confined there, but breaks forth immediately, and shows itself in his thoughts, in his affections, in his words, and in all the actions of his life" (Beveridge, V. 208) so that those who so love God cannot help but also love their neighbor (Beveridge, V. 209, 210).[29]
Commenting on 1 John 2:15 ("Love not the world..."), Bishop Wilson teaches: "...have not such an affection for life, or anything in the world, as may hinder your loving God with all your heart and soul, or hinder that obedience which ought to follow such a love" (VI. 689).
The Optimism of Grace in Anglican Theology
Christ became human so that humans may become "partakers of the divine nature;" he made provision for redemption from sin and called his people to a perfect love of God. "But how can we ever make our unclean and sinful hearts thus pure and holy? For as the wise man observes, 'Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin? [Prov. 20:9]'" Bishop Beveridge inquires.
It is true that we can never do it by our own strength. But God has found a way whereby we may all do it if we will, even by the merits and assistance of His Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ, "Who," as St, John reports, "hath washed us from our sins in His Own blood," [Rev. 1:5]. "Which," as the same Apostle elsewhere observes, "cleanseth us from all iniquity." So that if we do but "confess our sins, God, for His sake, is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (V. 394).
Christ as a prophet speaks the word, as a priest he purges, and as a king he has the present power to purge, and the future power to exalt (Andrewes, I. 115, 116). "Look to the persons, Adam and Christ," directs Bishop Andrewes. "Shall Adam, being but a 'living soul,' infect us more strongly that Christ, 'a quickening Spirit,' can heal us again?" (II.215, 216).
The effects of sin are indeed great according to the theology of the Anglicans, but the effects of grace are greater still.
But could we once do that, what an excellent people should we then be! How soberly, how righteously, how godly should we then live! The Commandments of God would not then seem grievous but pleasant to us; because they are His Whom our souls love. If this sacred fire was once kindled in our breasts, it would soon inflame our hearts with such zeal for God, that we should be never easy in our own minds, but whilst we are laboring to promote His glory. We should then account it our only wisdom to know Him, our only pleasure to please Him, and the only honor we can ever have, to honor and glorify Him in the world. We should then despise this world and live above it. Nothing here below could molest or trouble us. For our love being placed upon God above all things else, all things else would seem as nothing to us. But whatsoever happens, our thoughts would still be running after Him, and our spirits rejoicing in Him, and pleased with every thing that he doth (Beveridge, V. 216).
"And therefore," he continues, "I shall say no more of it, but pray to God that we may all be in the number of those who love Him, through Jesus Christ our Lord" (V. 217).
The saving grace of God is not irresistible, but requires a human response, so that:
Whoever therefore aspires after holiness, and lays hold of the means, will certainly be renewed by the Spirit that is in him. And though to us evil habits may seem incurable, and true holiness almost impossible, considering our corrupt affections, yet they are not so to HIM Who hath called us unto holiness; and Who, by doing so, has obliged Himself to give us all necessary assistance. But then, let us remember, that we never shall be holy, never happy, without our own sincere endeavours (Wilson, II. 445, 446).
The synergism found throughout the theology of the Anglicans was in response to the monergism of supralapsarian Calvinism. While for the Puritans "Pelagian," "Romish," and "Arminian" were synonymous adjectives, the Anglicans, in their struggle to preserve the integrity of Divine mercy and the necessity of human responsibility, believed they found a via media. Bishop George Bull (1634-1710)[30] wrote: "Whilst we avoid Pelagianism, by acknowledging the necessity of grace, let us take care, on the other hand, that we fall not into the abyss of Manichean folly, by taking away free will, and the co-operation of human industry.... In whatever manner you interpret these words of the Apostle [Phil. 2:13-14], they totally overturn the irresistible operation of grace; for unto what purpose would be this grave exhortation of the Apostle's, that we should work out our own salvation, if we could not work?"(217, 219).
Bishop Taylor,[31] whom Wesley specifically credits as being influential to his own understanding of Christian Perfection, particularly in the area of the "purity of intention" (A Plain Account, 9) states:
To sum up all: every good man is a new creature, and christianity is not so much a Divine institution, as a Divine frame and temper of spirit--which if we heartily pray for, and endeavor to obtain, we shall find it as hard and as uneasy to sin against God, as now we think it impossible to abstain from our most pleasing sins.... But we shall hate what God hates, and the evil that is forbidden we shall not do; not because we are strong of ourselves, but because Christ is our strength, and he is in us; and Christ's strength shall be perfected in our weakness, and his grace shall be sufficient for us; and he will, of his own good pleasure, work in us, not only to will, but also to do, "velle et perficere," saith the apostle, "to will and to do it thoroughly" and fully, being sanctified throughout, to the glory of his holy name, and the eternal salvation of our souls... (II. 19).
That the Wesleyan revival of the eighteenth century should be led by a loyal son of the Church of England is no mere coincidence. What the representative theologians of a century earlier, with their ornate rhetoric,[32] may have lacked in providing "plain truth for plain people," John Wesley was more than able to supply as he continued in the tradition of proclaiming that Christians are, by God's grace, partakers of the Divine nature.
Works Cited
Andrewes, Lancelot. The Works of Lancelot Andrewes, John Henry Parker, Oxford: 1854.
Beveridge, William. The Theological Works of William Beveridge, D.D., John Henry Parker, Oxford: 1852.
Bull, George. Harmonia Apostolica, John Henry Parker, Oxford: 1864.
Donne, John. The Sermons of John Donne, University of California Press, Berkeley & Los Angeles: 1962.
Heylyn, Peter. The Historical and Miscellaneous Tracts of the Reverend and Learned Peter Heylyn, D.D., M. Clark, London: 1681.
Hooker, Richard. Hooker's Works, Appleton and Company, New York: 1865.
Jackson, Thomas. The Works of Thomas Jackson, D.D., Oxford University Press, Oxford: 1844.
Patrick, Simon. The Works of Simon Patrick, Oxford, 1858.
Taylor, Jeremy. The Whole Works of the Right Reverend Jeremy Taylor, D.D., Reeves & Turner, London: 1880.
Thorndike, Herbert. The Theological Works of Herbert Thorndike, John Henry Parker, Oxford: 1845.
Wake, William. Enchiridion Theologicum Anti-Romanum, Oxford: 1837.
Wesley, John. A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, W. Strahan, London: 1745.
-----------. A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City edition, Kansas City, MO: 1971.
-----------. Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City edition, Kansas City, MO: 1981.
-----------. The Works of John Wesley, Abingdon Press, Nashville: 1985.
Wilson, Thomas. The Works of the Right Reverend Father in God, Thomas Wilson, D.D., John Henry Parker, Oxford: 1859.
Endnotes:
