|
JOHN
WESLEY- AN EXAMPLAR OF THE CATHOLIC SPIRIT
Dr
Herbert McGonigle, Chairman of the Wesley Fellowship,
writes.
When
John Wesley published his sermon, Catholic
Spirit, in 1755, it was much more than merely
an addition to his sermon corpus. In content and
intention, it expressed Wesley’s understanding
of what the essentials of Christian experience
are, and his resolve to work with all those who
honoured Christ and promoted his kingdom, even
if he differed from them in some doctrinal matters.
Earlier he had published another sermon along
similar lines, A Caution Against Bigotry.
In both sermons Wesley spelt out his warning against
the sectarian spirit that divides the people of
God and prevents Christians from understanding
that God is present and working in fellowships
and parties and denominations other than their
own. In this volume of essays that proclaims a
true ecumenity of spirit and acceptance without
sacrificing orthodox and evangelical truths, John
Wesley has something to say to all of us in the
21st century. This contribution will look at what
Wesley meant by the catholic spirit and how he
practised that spirit in half a century of preaching,
writing and setting up the Methodist Societies.
The
sermon on bigotry is based on Mark 9:38, 39, where
Jesus cautioned his disciples not to exclude the
man casting our demons just because he did not
belong to the circle of Jesus' disciples. Wesley
defined bigotry as ‘too strong an attachment
to, or fondness for, our own party, opinion, Church,
and religion.’ 1
The reference to casting out demons is taken to
mean the proclamation of the gospel in the widest
sense. The devil has set up his throne in every
human heart and it is only the power of Christ,
mediated in the gospel, which can evict him. Wesley
here assumes a very orthodox understanding of
original sin and the deep conviction that the
gospel is God’s power for our salvation.
So the man casting out demons represents all those
who truly and faithfully proclaim Christ’s
gospel. But how, Wesley asks, will we recognise
such a man? The test is really quite simple. Have
we sufficient proof of a particular man or woman,
now unquestionably a Christian, and who was previously
a ‘gross, open sinner’? If there is
also plain proof that this transformation of life
came about by hearing a particular preacher, then
that preacher unquestionably casts out demons.
The point that Wesley wants to make is clear enough
– such a preacher is exercising a gospel
ministry and we should not hinder him. Having
detailed the various ways in which Christians
hinder one another because of bigotry, Wesley
goes much further. It is not enough merely to
tolerate the other preacher and refrain from attacking
his methods and party and his particular theological
stance; we must positively pray for him and speak
well of his ministry. The sermon concludes with
a very moving appeal.
If you will avoid all bigotry, acknowledge the
finger of God. And not only acknowledge but
rejoice in his work, and praise his name with
thanksgiving…. Speak well of him wheresoever
you are; defend his character and his mission.
Enlarge as far as you can his sphere of action.
Show him all kindness in word and deed. And
cease not to cry to God in his behalf, that
he may save both himself and them that hear
him. 2
Most
of us will probably have to conclude, to our shame,
that there have been too many occasions in the
work of God when we have not treated colleagues
and our brethren in the Lord in the way Wesley
recommends.
A
few years later John Wesley published his sermon,
Catholic Spirit. He based it on Jehu’s
question to Jehonadab; ‘Is thine heart right,
as my heart is with thy heart?’ And Jehonadab
answered: ‘It is. If it be, give me thine
hand.’ 3
While acknowledging that Jehu was
not exactly a model saint, yet Wesley urges that
his example here is one that every Christian should
imitate. Jehu’s question is not about Jehonadab’s
opinions but about his spirit, his attitude and
his affections. How does he regard his neighbour?
In a word, is there love in his heart? And then
Wesley writes a glorious sentence, pleading that
even allowing our differences of opinions, we
must not let this stand in the way of brotherly
affection. ‘Though we can’t think
alike, may we not love alike?’ 4
John Wesley wrote much in defence of that understanding
of Christian sanctification that he understood
as love perfected, and this sentence is as good
a practical summary of it as anything he argued
elsewhere.
Wesley’s
sermon goes on to explain that while Christians
have differing modes of public worship, differing
ideas about church government and differing practices
about the subjects and manner of baptism, yet
far more important than any of these is the question:
do you love God and all mankind? If you do, then,
says Wesley, give me your hand, and I will seek,
by God’s grace, to love you in His name.
This ‘catholic spirit’ is more important
than denominational zeal, or distinctives or any
of the outward characteristics of the various
‘parties’ that make up Christ’s
Church. Where it is found, Christians go forward
in God’s work hand in hand, and the One
great Head of the Church is glorified in his people.
Like
the sermon against bigotry, this sermon is a call
to Christians to put away the party spirit, the
unkind criticism, the harsh judgements and the
censorious back-biting that Wesley knew only too
well to be so prevalent in his own day. The first
decade of the 18th century Revival had witnessed
not only strong opposition from many of the clergy
of the established church, but bitter controversy
inside ‘Methodism’ itself. Hardly
had Wesley’s ‘field preaching’
begun in Bristol in 1739 when the ‘Societies’
of the converts were sharply divided over the
doctrines of election and predestination. The
long-standing friendship begun at Oxford between
John and Charles Wesley and George Whitefield
was strained to breaking point. There were rival
claims about who really ‘owned’ the
revival work in Bristol and allegations that John
Wesley had usurped Whitefield’s rightful
leadership. Back in London the Moravians and the
‘Methodists’ were going separate ways,
and the split among the members of the Fetter
Lane Society epitomised the growing divide among
these former good friends. 5
All these sad divisions, with the accompanying
rancour and mutual suspicion, must have been in
Wesley’s mind when he published this sermon.
If only Christians would love on another as their
Lord had directed them! There was a great need
to call fellow-believers back to the catholic
spirit and that was the sermon’s intention.
John Wesley knew that however well intentioned
this sermon was, its plea to ‘think and
let think’ 6
could easily be misunderstood for theological
and doctrinal indifference. The sermon concluded
with a rejection of what Wesley called ‘speculative
latitudinarianism.’ This meant uncertainty
and indifference about the doctrines of the historic
Christian faith. Wesley protested that the man
of true catholic spirit is as ‘fixed as
the sun in his judgement concerning the main branches
of Christian doctrine.’ Among those who
subscribed to the Creeds of the Church there had
always been differences of opinion about ecclesiastical
practices and those doctrines that did not directly
affect our salvation. With many of high-Calvinist
persuasion, Wesley did not share their opinions
about absolute predestination, limited atonement
and irresistible grace. Against Roman Catholic
theologians John Wesley had no place for their
teachings on papal infallibility, a propitiatory
Mass, the adoration of Mary, purgatory and other
Roman doctrines. But with protagonists of both
Calvinistic and Catholic Christianity, Wesley,
while rejecting what he saw as their peripheral
teachings, was at one in confessing with them
such foundation doctrines as the holy Trinity,
the deity of Christ, original sin, justification
by faith, holy living and final destiny. But this
catholic spirit, which strongly identified with
all who asserted the historic doctrines of the
faith, was not at all complacent about dangerous
diversions.
This
was well illustrated in Wesley’s response
to what he saw as the reductionist Christology
of John Taylor of Norwich. A popular Socinian
preacher and writer, Taylor published his book,
The Scripture Doctrine of Original Sin, Proposed
to Free and Candid Examination. Written in
a lively and very readable style and showing a
mastery of the Biblical languages, it was the
18th century’s most trenchant attack on
the orthodox doctrine of original sin. As a corollary,
it undermined the evangelical teaching on justification
by faith and, as a pronounced Socinian, Taylor
saw Christ as the world’s greatest teacher
and exemplar of God’s grace but not as God
incarnate.
As
John Wesley itinerated across the four kingdoms
of Great Britain, he lamented that Taylor’s
teaching was producing disciples who ridiculed
evangelical Christianity. 7
He waited for some orthodox theologian to reply
to Taylor, and when none appeared, Wesley took
up the cudgels. Retiring for some ten weeks to
a friend’s house in London late in 1756,
he wrote, The Scripture Doctrine of Original
Sin according to Scripture, Reason and Experience
(1757). Running to some 522 quarto pages, it was
the single longest treatise that Wesley published.
It was followed two years later by a summary,
in his sermon, Original Sin, and there
were letters to friends about this controversy,
including a letter to Taylor himself. In all these
publications Wesley did not attack Taylor in person;
indeed he acknowledged that he esteemed his opponent
a man of ‘uncommon sense and knowledge.’
But Wesley had no time for Taylor’s Enlightenment
optimism about fallen mankind. No writer since
Mahomet had given such a wound to Christianity.
8
Wesley unsheathed his controversial
sword and threw away the scabbard. What was at
stake was nothing less than our ‘eternal
peace.’ The issue between himself and Taylor
was, quite simply, ‘Christianity or heathenism.’
Either he had mistaken the whole of Christianity
from beginning to end – or Taylor had. Wesley’s
scheme – or Taylor’s – was as
‘contrary to the scriptural as the Koran
is.’ If the scriptural doctrines of redemption,
justification and the new birth are removed, or,
alternatively, explained as Taylor explains them,
then Christianity is no better than heathenism.
If the doctrine of Original Sin means no more
than John Taylor asserts, then Christianity is
merely a system of good advice and the religion
of St Paul has no pre-eminence over the teaching
of Socrates or Epictetus. 9
Having
looked at John Wesley’s plea for the Catholic
spirit to prevail among Christians, and noting
that it did not mean indifference to plausible
heresies, it is time to turn and see how far Wesley
exemplified this spirit in his own life and work
and ministry. An appropriate starting point is
the year 1739 when Wesley first organised his
followers into ‘Societies.’ Most of
these men and women had been awakened by the Methodist
preachers and they requested Wesley to help them
in discipleship. In this way the Societies were
begun and the conditions of membership were simple:
‘a desire to flee from the wrath to come,
to be saved from their sins.’ 10
The rules of these Societies forbade, among other
things, swearing, Sabbath-breaking, drunkenness
and quarrelling. There were also positive injunctions
about doing good, attending the means of grace,
studying Scripture and family and private prayer.
But John Wesley imposed no doctrinal or theological
test on those joining the Societies. They might
be Calvinists or Catholics, Presbyterians or Moravians,
Quakers or Dissenters of any colour – all
this made no difference. 11
If their intention was to seek the salvation of
their souls, then they were welcome in Wesley’s
Societies. Whatever opinions they held about other
doctrines, provided these were not the occasion
of conflict and controversy, Wesley made then
welcome. With the help of his preachers and assistants
and class-leaders, he watched over their souls,
preached, taught and explained repentance and
faith and then instructed the regenerate to grow
in the love of God and man. In a famous passage
he said of himself that in life he wanted to know
one thing – ‘the way to heaven.’
12
Having found it, he spent the rest of his life
helping others to find it. Salvation was not in
creeds, or dogmas, or styles of worship, or denominational
labels but through faith in the Son of God. Taking
the world as his parish, 13
he laboured to help men and women on the way to
heaven, for the catholic spirit permitted no barriers
among those who practised the love of God and
man.
John
Wesley’s ‘United Societies,’
as they were first called, had been preceded by
the Religious Societies. These had come into existence
in the late 17th century, mostly as the work of
Dr Antony Horneck. 14
They, too, catered for those who wanted gatherings
where prayer, fellowship and devotional reading
were encouraged. But they catered mostly for a
religious elite and offered little attraction
to those who were not regular worshippers or acquainted
with religious matters. In contrast, Wesley’s
Societies were open and democratic, and their
pattern ensured that they were geared to help
those who were mostly strangers to religious practices,
forms and terminology. Indeed many of these early
‘Methodists’ were illiterate and the
societies introduced them not only to the essentials
of Christian doctrine but also spurred them to
learn to read and write.
In
the late 1730s and early 1740s, the Methodists
were divided by wrangles over election and predestination.
An anonymous letter circulated among the converts
in Bristol, warning them not to listen to John
Wesley because he preached against predestination.
Although the accusation was false, the rumours
spread and finally Wesley preached, and then published
his sermon, Free Grace. It was a strong
attack on absolute predestination but no names
were mentioned. George Whitefield replied with
his A Letter to the Rev. Mr John Wesley,
censuring him for publishing a provocative sermon,
and then attacked Wesley’s theology. The
outcome of this doctrinal quarrel among former
friends was that the revival split into two groups;
those who followed the Wesley brothers were designated
Wesleyan Methodists and those who sided with Whitefield
and his supporters became known as Calvinistic
Methodists. This ‘parting of the ways’
among old friends hurt both parties and it bred
mistrust and suspicion of fellow believers on
both sides.
The
record of this early, and lasting, breach in the
work of the 18th century revival constitutes a
sad and depressing chapter. While this historic
divide, usually but inaccurately, labelled the
Calvinistic/Arminian dispute, had been part of
Evangelicalism since the 17th century, its resurrection
among the 18th century Methodists can never be
an occasion of rejoicing for the evangelical historian
or theologian. Former friends went their separate
ways, fellowships were broken off, misunderstandings
and half-truths proliferated and the work of God
and evangelism suffered. If only John Wesley and
George Whitefield had come together and, even
if complete doctrinal agreement was not possible,
surely there could have been a brotherly rapport
that eclipsed discord and allowed the glorious
work of soul-saving to prosper. Looking at both
camps, with Whitefield, John Cennick and their
supporters on one side, and the Wesley brothers
and their preachers on the other, what potential
there was to advance the work of God. What might
have been achieved if these good and godly people
had been catholic enough in spirit to agree to
disagree on some theological interpretations in
order to support each other in evangelising the
land.
Writing
to Whitefield in the midst of the warfare, John
Wesley acknowledged that it was bigotry that divided
the Evangelicals.
The case is quite plain. There are bigots both
for Predestination and against it. God is sending
a message to those on either side. But neither
will receive it, unless from one of his own
opinion. Therefore for a time you are suffered
to be of one opinion and I of another. But when
His time is come God will do what man cannot
– namely, make us both of one mind. 15
Over
the next few years this dispute rumbled on and
there was also a gap opening up between John Wesley
and the Moravians. Ever since he had first met
the Moravians on a voyage to America in 1735,
John Wesley had been profoundly influenced by
their teaching and example of holy living. His
ties with them in Georgia were very strong, and
when he returned to England early in 1738, he
and Charles formed a close friendship with the
Moravian Peter Bohler. The progress of the Wesleys’
spiritual pilgrimages between February and May
1738 was directed by the counsel and teaching
of Bohler and it climaxed at Pentecost that year.
Charles Wesley found the assurance of sins forgiven
on Pentecost Sunday while staying in a Moravian
home in London. Three days later a similar experience
of ‘heart-warming’ came to John while
attending a Moravian gathering. His record of
what happened that Wednesday evening in Aldersgate
Street was couched in Moravian language. ‘I
felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust
in Christ, Christ alone for salvation, and an
assurance was given me…. .’ 16
The
Wesley brothers and the Moravians worked together
very closely in London and later in 1738 John
Wesley visited the Moravian headquarters in Herrnhut
in Germany and met the founder, Count Zinzendorf
and other leaders. When his itinerant preaching
ministry began in Bristol in April 1739, he had
the full support of the Moravian brethren and
his many letters to James Hutton, a leading English
Moravian, shows how close this friendship was.
Differences began to emerge when a German Moravian,
Philip Molther, introduced ‘Stillness’
practices into the Fetter Lane Society. This teaching
advocated that seekers after God should refrain
from all the means of grace, including Scripture
reading, prayer and hearing sermons, and wait
for the Spirit to bring to them the gift of faith.
The Wesleys opposed this emphasis, convinced that
through these means of grace God mediated His
Spirit to bring people to repentance and faith.
There was a split in the Fetter Lane Society and
a large number followed the Wesleys out of that
Society and joined with them in a new fellowship,
the first of the many Wesleyan Societies that
would be organised in the years ahead. 17
Although
the Wesleys and the Moravians still shared some
Love feasts together, there was disagreement among
them on the question of the believer’s sanctification.
With their strong Lutheran background, the Moravians
emphasised the imputation of Christ’s righteousness
to the Christian. Increasingly the Wesleys, while
advocating imputation, were also stressing the
transforming work of the Spirit in the Christian’s
life and spoke of imparted or inherent righteousness
as well. The Christian is not only accounted righteous
but he is being made righteous. This emphasis
convinced John Wesley that the Moravian teaching,
unless it was expressed very carefully, opened
the door to antinomianism. This dispute with old
friends who esteemed each other highly might well
have been amicably resolved but for the intervention
of Count Zinzendorf. On a visit to London in 1741
he met with John Wesley and was totally unsympathetic
to any notion of imparted holiness. James Hutton’s
biographer later recorded that Zinzendorf openly
disparaged what he called the Wesleys’ ‘self-made
holiness.’ In his capacity as ‘bishop
and guardian of the Church of the Brethren,’
he publicly branded John and Charles Wesley as
‘false teachers and deceivers of souls’
and declared that fellowship between the Moravians
and Methodists could only be restored if the Wesleys
dropped their delusions about ‘Christian
perfection.’ 18
It
was John Wesley’s growing unhappiness about
these divisions between the three groupings of
the revival movement that led him to propose a
conference of all the parties in an attempt to
heal the breaches. He took the initiative to call
the leaders together in London in August 1743.
George Whitefield responded positively and Howell
Harris likewise. Harris, a recognised leader of
the revival work in Wales, was a close friend
of both Whitefield and the Wesleys and a man of
a truly catholic spirit. Although his theological
persuasions put him closer to Whitefield than
to the Wesleys, both parties regarded him with
warm affection. 19
Charles Wesley recorded that he was itinerating
in Cornwall when John wrote and asked him to attend
the conference. Whitefield, Harris and the Wesley
brothers convened but the Moravians were not represented.
John Wesley invited one of their leading preachers,
August Spangenberg, an old friend of his from
their days together in Georgia, but just before
the conference was due to start, Spangenberg left
England for America. This was a blow to John Wesley’s
high hopes that the gathering would resolve differences
among brethren and bring about a closer co-operation
in the work of evangelism and building up the
work of God. The reason for the Moravians’
refusal to take part was their condition that
the Archbishop of Canterbury should be informed
of the proposed meeting and that an Anglican bishop
should be invited. Charles Wesley wrote of his
disappointment when he arrived in London and heard
that the meeting had been cancelled.
There
is clear evidence that John Wesley was deeply
disappointed that the divisions among the Methodists
and between the Moravians and Methodists had not
been resolved. Out of a ‘strong desire to
unite with Mr Whitefield as far as possible’
and to ‘cut off needless dispute,’
20
he had proposed some modifications in his own
doctrinal emphases. He reasoned that the two sides
were divided over three main points; unconditional
election, irresistible grace and final perseverance.
He would accept a doctrine of unconditional election
for some, provided it did not entail the necessary
damnation of all the rest. Nor would he object
to an interpretation of irresistible grace, unless
it implied that those on whom it worked without
apparently producing any response were therefore
irrevocably damned. As to final perseverance,
Wesley went even further in trying to effect a
harmonious unity among the leaders of the revival.
He confessed that he believed there was a state
of grace from which the Christian could not fall
away.
On
any scale of measurement Wesley’s olive
branch was a remarkable gesture. In the history
of theological disputes among Christian theologians,
there are few examples of those who were willing
to moderate previously held views for the sake
of co-operation and brotherly affection. Far more
often these disputes have led to protagonists
hardening their attitudes, and, it is to be feared,
also their hearts. John Wesley knew that many
would interpret his proposals as a ‘climb
down’ on his part, but there is no doubt
that he genuinely wanted to be reconciled with
Whitefield. He published this remarkable theological
eirenicon in his Journal for all to see. Given
the time of its composition, it looks as if John
Wesley had prepared these propositions for the
hoped-for conference in London. Sadly, nothing
came from these proposals. John Wesley had taken
considerable steps to bring old friends together
and even though they failed, they were welcome
examples of the catholic spirit.
Five
years later there were still some lingering hopes
that even now Whitefield and Wesley might yet
establish some kind of union in the work of the
revival. Whitefield had been in America for four
years and on his return he wrote to both the Wesleys,
expressing the hope that they would meet him in
London. John Wesley was preaching in the north
of England and Charles was in Ireland. Whitefield
wrote another letter to John Wesley, expressing
disappointment that they had not been able to
meet in London and then asked Wesley if he had
any further thoughts about union. Whitefield confessed
that he felt he and Wesley were on ‘two
different plans.’ 21
His own ‘attachment’ to America did
not allow him to stay long in England and he expressed
fears that even if he formed societies here he
had no ‘proper assistants’ to take
care of them. He hoped that he and John would
meet soon and in the meantime he asked for his
prayers, assuring John that he esteemed him ‘most
affectionately.’
While
Whitefield’s letter seemed to discourage
any move towards a union of his people and Wesley’s,
yet the tone was warm and friendly and it breathed
good will. In the hope of yet establishing a closer
relationship with Whitefield, John Wesley proposed
a meeting in Bristol. It was another olive branch
in another attempt to settle differences and bring
the leaders of the revival closer together. On
Wednesday, August 2, 1749, John and Charles Wesley
met with George Whitefield and Howell Harris in
the Wesleyan ‘New Room’ in Bristol.
The first day was spent in discussing how they
might establish ‘a closer union in affection.’
They agreed not to believe rumours about each
other, to defend the other’s reputation
and not to speak about difference of opinion in
a way that caused friction. Agreement was reached,
after ‘some mild and friendly debate’
on an understanding of justification. The next
day predestination and perfection were on the
agenda. Again there was a general spirit of agreement,
particularly mentioning that both sides agreed,
on the predestination question, not to use ‘such
terms as naturally tend to revive the controversy.’
There was further harmony in agreeing that terms
like ‘sinless’ and the ‘inbeing
of sin’ should be dropped and all Christians
should be exhorted to ‘press on to perfection
in the holy law of love.’ 22
While
this meeting of the four Methodist leaders seemed
very promising in the agreements reached, it is
difficult to gauge what good came from it. John
Wesley made no record of it in his Journal
and this might be the best indicator that the
outcome was disappointing. Charles Wesley made
a brief mention of the gathering in his Journal,
saying that it ‘came to nought, I think
through their flying off.’ 23
If this is an accurate observation on the conference,
then certainly Charles Wesley felt that if Whitefield
and Harris had been willing to stay longer in
discussion, much more might have been achieved.
Having convened the 1743 gathering in London and
this meeting in Bristol six years later, John
Wesley might well have felt he had done his utmost
to bring about reconciliation. While the Bristol
gathering seems to have concluded in good will
and with mutual affection, it did not really bring
the parties together in doctrinal harmony over
the disputed matters of predestination and Christian
perfection.
The
history of Methodism shows only too clearly that
the theological divisions continued to be subjects
of polemic for the decades to come. John Wesley
had certainly displayed a truly catholic spirit
and both Whitefield and Harris seem to have responded
in kind. But it must be said that so much more
could (and should) have come from these gatherings
of the evangelical leaders. Perhaps what was needed
was an acknowledgement by Wesley and Whitefield
that their publicised wrangling ten years earlier
had had melancholy consequences. If both men had
acted with less haste in vindicating their own
positions, later hostilities might have been avoided.
If only John Wesley had not gone to the printers
with his trenchant sermon, Free Grace!
And if only George Whitefield had directed his
Letter to Wesley in private, rather than
publishing it! All of us who truly long for open,
honest, heart-felt and Spirit-inspired fellowship
and co-operation among evangelicals in the twenty-first
century, must learn from what happened in the
eighteenth-century. The catholic spirit certainly
means that we will not attack and criticise one
another openly, nor will we have any part in allowing
unfounded rumours and innuendo to make us suspicious
of one another. But the catholic spirit also means
that, whatever convictions we hold personally
on the questions of predestination, perfection
theories, gifts of the Spirit, women in ministry,
and such like, we will pray for, support and work
with all those who believe and proclaim the great
doctrines of historic orthodox Christianity.
By
the late 1740s, John Wesley found himself taking
care of a rapidly growing number of people who
had joined his Societies in their search for salvation.
To help them in that quest and confirm those already
in the way of salvation, Wesley instituted Class
meetings, Band meetings, Love feasts, Quarterly
meetings and other such means of grace. Full time
travelling preachers were recruited, assistants
and local leaders were appointed and a circuit
system was set up. John Wesley also began to compose,
extract from other works, edit and publish many
writings for the instruction of his preachers
and the edification of his people. These publications
ranged from popular evangelistic tracts like,
A Word to a Swearer, A Word to a
Drunkard, to reasoned apologetics like, An
Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion. In
1749 he began a very ambitious publishing project.
This was his Christian Library, fifty
dudecimo volumes, subtitled, ‘Extracts from
and Abridgements of the Choicest Pieces of Practical
Divinity which have been Published in the English
Tongue.’ Believing that ‘reading Christians
will be knowing Christians,’ 24
he edited extracts that began in the first century
with Clement of Rome and extended to works written
in the eighteenth century.
Wesley
concentrated on what he called ‘practical
divinity;’ those writings that were meant
to confirm the Christian faith and build up believers
in holy living. In his own words, this Library
would constitute ‘Christianity reduced to
practice.’ 25
I have endeavoured to extract such a collection
of English Divinity, as (I believe), is all
true, all agreeable to the oracles of God: as
is all practical, unmixed with controversy of
any kind; and all intelligible to plain men:
such as is not superficial, but going down to
the depth, and describing the height of Christianity.
And yet not mystical, not obscure to any of
those who are experienced in the ways of God….
I take no author for better, for worse; (as
indeed I dare not call any man Rabbi) but endeavour
to follow each so far as he follows Christ.
26
This
Christian Library, a huge literary undertaking
for a busy, travelling preacher, is a very good
guide to John Wesley’s understanding of
both Christian truth and Christian practice. The
Library demonstrates how Wesley’s
hermeneutic, in a typical Anglican way, was constituted
by Scripture, tradition and reason. But there
was a fourth dimension to this approach to Christian
theology and practice – and that was experience.
Wesley was sure that the ‘experience’
of sins forgiven and the indwelling Christ were
privileges granted to Christians in every age.
The Library was intended not only as an instructor
in Christian truth but also a means of confirming
Christian practice and encouraging what Wesley
often summarised as true Christian experience
– the ‘faith that works by love’
(Gal.5:6).
John
Wesley’s Christian Library was
yet another illustration of his deep commitment
to the catholic spirit. When the contents of the
Library are examined carefully, it gives
a remarkable insight into the scope and depth
of Wesley’s Christian sympathies. The extracts
represent the Apostolic Fathers, Continental authors,
Anglican and Puritan writers and some anonymous
devotional writings. The Fathers are represented
by Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius and Macarius.
Wesley’s appreciation of the 4th century
Macarius is typical of his penchant for practical
Christian instruction.
Whatever he insists upon is essential, is durable,
is necessary. What he continually labours to
cultivate in himself and others is, the real
life of God in the heart and soul, that kingdom
of God, which consists in righteousness, and
peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. He is ever
quickening and stirring up in his audience,
endeavouring to kindle in them a steady zeal,
an earnest desire, an inflamed ambition, to
recover that Divine image we were made in; to
be made conformable to Christ our Head; to be
daily sensible more and more…. [of] such
a victorious faith as overcomes the world, and
working by love, is ever fulfilling the whole
law of God. 27
If Wesley’s inclusion of the writings of
Macarius in his Library does not provoke
much surprise, it is different with the writings
of two medieval Roman Catholic writers. They were
Antoinette Bourignon (1616-80), a Spanish Quietist,
and Miguel de Molinos (1640-97), also a Spanish
Quietist. While John Wesley took a vigorous stand
against Roman Catholic doctrines such as transubstantiation,
purgatory, indulgences, papal infallibility and
all forms of Maryolatry, yet he was willing to
recognise that some Catholic writers were helpful
in promoting practical Christianity. Although
he was later castigated by Richard Hill and Augustus
Toplady for promoting popery, Wesley defended
his use of these writers. Whatever the deficiencies
in their understanding of some Christian doctrines,
they had deep, personal acquaintance with Christ
through His Spirit. Both were exponents of a kind
of meditative spirituality that placed great emphasis
on waiting on God, and little of what could be
described as distinctive Roman dogma was found
in their pages. Wesley also made it plain that
when he selected an extract from any particular
book, it did not mean that he agreed with everything
else in that volume, much less what that author
might have written elsewhere. In compiling the
Christian Library, Wesley made it plain
that he was an editor, not an author. Wesley’s
attitude to these Catholic Mystics is well summarised
in the preface he wrote in his extensively edited
Life of Madam Guyon. She was a French
Catholic Mystic and a self-confessed disciple
of the writings of Molinos.
The following contains all that is scriptural
and rational; all that tends to the genuine
love of God and our neighbour. In the mean time,
most of what I judge to be contrary to Scripture
and reason is omitted…. The grand source
of all her mistakes was this; the not being
guided by the written word. She did not take
the Scripture for the rule of her actions; at
most it was but the secondary rule. Inward impressions,
which she called inspirations, were her primary
rule. The written word was not a lantern to
her feet, a light in all her paths…. Yet
with all this dross, how much pure gold is mixed!
So God did wink at involuntary ignorance….
28
There are excellent things in most of the Mystic
writers. As almost all of them lived in the
Romish Church, they were lights whom the gracious
providence of God raised up to shine in a dark
place. 29
Given John Wesley’s well-known predilection
for Anglican authors, especially those of the
Restoration period, 1660-1700, the inclusion of
extracts from their writings would be expected
in his Christian Library. 30
And they are there; including Thomas Ken, Jeremy
Taylor, Simon Patrick, William Cave, John Tillotson,
William Beveridge, and many more. But there are
just as many Puritan authors represented in his
Library and the list of names is impressive,
including Richard Sibbes, Thomas Goodwin, Richard
Alleine, Richard Baxter, Edmund Calamy, John Flavel,
John Howe, etc. Indications of the high esteem
in which John Wesley held these and other Puritan
writers can be found scattered throughout all
his publications, and in the Library
he gave specific reasons for including them. He
was not blind to what he believed to be both their
literary and theological imperfections, but their
practical value more than compensated for these
weaknesses.
They are exceeding verbose, and full of circumlocutions
and repetitions. But I persuade myself, most
of these defects are removed in the following
sheets…. But it should not be concealed,
there are other blemishes in the greater part
of the Puritan writers. They drag in controversy
on every occasion, nay, without any occasion
or pretence at all. Another is, that they generally
give a low and imperfect view of sanctification
or holiness…. But abundance recompence
is made for all their blemishes, by the excellencies
which may be observed in them…. Their
judgement is generally deep and strong, their
sentiments just and clear, and their tracts
on every head full and comprehensive….
More particularly they do indeed exalt Christ.
They set him forth in all his offices….
And next to God himself, they honour his Word.
They are men mighty in the Scriptures, equal
to any of those who went before them, and far
superior to most that have followed them….
They are continually tearing up the very roots
of Antinomianism…. But the peculiar excellency
of these writers seems to be, the building us
up in our most holy faith. 31
Among the Puritan writers from whom Wesley extracted
material for his Library were some whose high
Calvinism he had little sympathy with. But here
he followed the same principle as when he made
extracts from medieval Catholic writers; an extract
did not necessarily mean Wesley’s agreement
with other parts of the writing. In both these
examples, Wesley was putting the catholic spirit
into practice. If the writer exalted Christ and,
in particular, promoted practical holiness, then
his or her attachment to doctrines not acceptable
to Wesley was no bar to his using the ‘good
grain.’ With reference to the English Puritans,
Wesley’s use of the writings of John Owen
clearly demonstrates that for him the catholic
spirit took precedence over personal opinions.
Owen was unquestionably the most dogmatic Calvinist
of the English Puritans and his book, The
Death of Death, was the most extensively
argued presentation of the doctrine of limited
atonement that could be found. He was, not unnaturally,
a vigorous exponent of the doctrine of absolute
predestination and did not shy away from the doctrine
that consequently flows from it – reprobation.
To John Wesley, any concept of the doctrine of
reprobation was utterly irreconcilable with his
understanding of the love of God. He vehemently
rejected the doctrine of unconditional election
because ‘it necessarily implies unconditional
reprobation. Find out any election which does
not imply reprobation, and I will gladly agree
to it.’ 32
Although
Owen was the acknowledged defender of high Calvinist
doctrines, yet Wesley included extracts from Owen’s
writings in his Library. When he used
the Catholic Mystics, he carefully avoided any
extracts that promoted Catholic doctrine or Mysticism.
Likewise with his use of Owen. From the many volumes
of the Puritan’s works, Wesley avoided all
controversial matter, and selected what was calculated
to glorify Christ and incite the Christian to
holy living. He made use of four of Owen’s
publications. They were his Mortification
of Sin in Believers, Of Temptation, the
Nature and Power of it, A Declaration
of the Glorious Mystery of the Person of Christ,
God and Man, and, Of Communion with God
the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. In these
writings the Christian met with ‘practical
divinity.’ Wesley could recommend these
works of Owen to every Christian seeking instruction
in Scriptural truth and guidance on the holy life.
Wesley’s catholic spirit prompted him to
include extracts from the writings of this magisterial
Calvinist theologian, but extracts that carefully
avoided what Wesley considered to be unhelpful,
and often confusing, theological speculation.
Two
more examples of John Wesley’s catholic
spirit are worth noting briefly. In 1749 he published,
A Letter to a Roman Catholic. It acknowledged
that Protestants and Roman Catholics held many
prejudices about each other but it was not opinions
on either side, or a particular mode of worship,
that made a man a true Christian. All those who
call themselves Protestants but in practice are
‘common swearers, drunkards, whoremongers,
liars…. in a word, all who live in open
sin,’ are really heathens. The true Protestant
worships God in spirit and truth, loves God and
his neighbour and walks in holiness. Wesley then
challenges his Roman Catholic reader. Can he find
fault with this description of a Christian? Is
he following Christ in like manner? Is his whole
life a sacrifice to God and is he delivered from
both outward and inner sin? This alone is ‘the
old religion, true, primitive Christianity.’
33
Wesley
then proceeded to offer a remarkable eirenicon
of Christian good will to Roman Catholics.
Are we not thus far agreed…. If God still
loveth us, we ought also to love one another….
Let the points wherein we differ stand aside;
here are enough wherein we agree, enough to
be the ground of every Christian temper, and
of every Christian action. O brethren, let us
not fall out by the way! I hope to see you in
heaven. And if I practise the religion above
described, you dare not say I shall go to hell.
Then if we cannot as yet think alike in all
things, at least we may love alike. Herein we
cannot possibly do amiss. For of one point none
can doubt a moment. ‘God is love, and
he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and
God in him.’ 34
John
Wesley was seeking what common ground he could
find between Roman Catholics and himself. He was
making a very important distinction between Roman
Catholic dogma, which he repudiated, and Roman
Catholic people whom he loved for Christ’s
sake. Their dogmas were ‘a heap of erroneous
opinions delivered by tradition from their fathers.’
35
The true gospel of salvation by faith had effectively
driven popery out of England and that gospel alone
could keep it out. 36
Wesley openly declared that he ‘detested
and abhorred the fundamental doctrines of the
Church of Rome,’ 37
but his attitude to Roman Catholic people was
one of good will, concern for their bodies and
souls, and a ready acknowledgement that in character
and conduct many of them gave indisputable evidence
of being true Christians. 38
Here again there is testimony of how John Wesley
endeavoured to distinguish between opinions and
true faith. He was as forthright as any eighteenth-century
English Protestant in exposing what he believed
to be the numerous and dangerous errors of Roman
Catholicism but his love for his neighbour warmly
and genuinely embraced Roman Catholics. Throughout
his ministry he strongly maintained that there
is a very important distinction between essential
Christian doctrine and personal opinions. There
can be no compromise on vital doctrines but opinions
are another matter. He spelt it out in a letter
to John Newton in 1765. ‘You have admirably
well expressed what I mean by an opinion contradistinguished
from an essential doctrine. Whatever is “compatible
with a love to Christ and a work of grace”
I term an opinion.’ 39
Our
final look at how John Wesley demonstrated the
true catholic spirit is concerned with his hopes
for a practical working unity among England’s
evangelical clergy. Following a friendly meeting
in March 1761 with Henry Venn, Vicar of Huddersfield,
Wesley took positive steps towards bringing about
a fraternal union among evangelical ministers.
Writing to George Downing, an Essex rector, he
spoke about how he had laboured for many years
‘to unite, not scatter, the messengers of
God.’ Now he voiced the hope that all those
who embraced essential Christian doctrines might
come together in the kind of harmonious unity
that would greatly enhance the work of God.
I think it great pity that the few clergymen
in England who preach the three grand scriptural
doctrines – Original Sin, Justification
by Faith, and Holiness consequent thereon –
should have any jealousies or misunderstandings
between them. What advantage must this give
to the common enemy! What an hindrance is it
to the great work wherein they are all engaged!
How desirable is it that there should be the
most open, avowed intercourse between them!
40
Three
years later John Wesley took this plan for unity
among the evangelical clergy a step further. He
wrote a letter to almost fifty of the leading
evangelical clergy in the Church of England, including
George Whitefield, William Romaine, John Newton,
Walter Shirley, Henry Venn and John Berridge.
The plea was for a coming together of all those
who were ‘fellow labourers in His gospel.’
Wesley reasoned: ‘Ought not those who are
united to one common Head, and employed by Him
in one common work, be united to each other?’
After naming those he wished to unite, Wesley
added that this proposal included any other clergy
who agreed on the doctrines of original sin, justification
by faith, and holiness of heart and life. 41
Wesley
then set out the kind of union he had in mind.
It was not a unity of opinions, or expressions
or outward order; rather a unity of good will
and mutual support. Hindrances would be removed
when ministers did not judge or envy each other,
were not displeased with others who had greater
success than they had, and did not gossip about
the faults, mistakes and infirmities of their
brethren. But Wesley was concerned that this evangelical
fraternity would be marked, not only by its avoidance
of critical and judgmental attitudes, but positively
by the way it manifested the fruits of the Spirit.
These brethren would love, think well of and honour
each other. They would speak respectfully of one
another, defend each other’s characters,
and help one another in every possible way. It
would require an earnest effort on the part of
all concerned to desire this unity, and it would
require the grace and power of God working through
them to accomplish it.
All nature is against it, every infirmity, every
wrong temper and fashion; love of honour and
praise, of power, of pre-eminence; anger, resentment,
pride, long-contracted habit, and prejudice
lurking in ten thousand forms. The devil and
all his angels are against it…. All the
world, all that know not God, are against it….
But surely ‘with God all things are possible.’
42
John Wesley was deeply disappointed that most
of the clergy to whom he wrote did not even bother
to reply to him. Just as he done in earlier years
in trying to bring the Methodist and Moravian
preachers together, now he was attempting to unite
the evangelical clergy in the Church of England.
He longed for a unity of purpose and vision among
his brethren that would strengthen their united
efforts in evangelism and in building up the work
of God. His vision and hope and prayer was that
the catholic spirit might characterise all those
who truly loved God and their neighbours. As he
repeatedly said: ‘If we cannot think alike,
then at least let us love alike.’ If that
catholic spirit was needed among the people of
God in Britain in the eighteenth century, it is
needed no less in this twenty-first century. And
it is fitting that this attempt to demonstrate
what John Wesley meant by the catholic spirit
should conclude with words by his brother Charles,
words expressing that what unites us in Christ
is far more important than our denominational
labels or our theological slogans.
Sweetly now we all agree
Touched with softest sympathy
Kindly for each other care
Every member feel its share.
Love,
like death, hath all destroyed
Rendered all distinctions void
Names, and sects, and parties fall
Thou, O Christ, art all in all. 43
NB
This essay first appeared in Ecumenism and
History: Studies in Honour of John H.Y. Briggs
(Paternoster, 2002). Still available; see www.paternoster-publishing.com.
Revd
Dr Herbert McGonigle
Principal and Senior Lecturer in Historical Theology
and Wesley Studies
Nazarene Theological College
Manchester
England
HMcGonigle@nazarene.ac.uk
top
References
1.
The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John
Wesley. Editor-in-Chief Frank Baker (Oxford and
Nashville, 1975-), Vol. 2, p.76. Hereafter cited
as J. Wesley, Works[BE].
2.
Ibid. p. 77.
3. 2 Kings
10:15
4. J Wesley,
Works[BE}, Vol. 2, p.82.
5. The origins
and characteristics of the Fetter Lane Society
are very fully discussed in C. Podmore, The Moravian
Church in England, 1728-1760. (Oxford, 1998),
pp. 29-71.
6. In his 1742
apologetic, The Character of a Methodist, Wesley
wrote: ‘As to all opinions which do not
strike at the root of Christianity, we “think
and let think.” ’ Works[BE], Vol.
9, p. 34.
7. In his Journal
for Sunday, 28 August, 1748, Wesley records his
visit to Shackerley in Lancashire. ‘Abundance
of people were gathered before six, many of whom
were disciples of Dr. Taylor, laughing at Original
Sin, and, consequently, at the whole frame of
scriptural Christianity.’ J. Wesley, Works[BE],
Vol.20, pp. 245, 246.
8. The Letters
of the Rev. John Wesley. 8 Vols. Edited by J.
Telford (London, 1931), Vol. 4, p. 48. Hereafter
cited as J. Wesley, Letters.
9. J Wesley,
Letters, Vol. 4, p. 67.
10. J Wesley,
Works[BE], Vol. 9, p. 70.
11. J Wesley,
Letters, Vol. 4, p. 297.
12. J Wesley,
Works[BE], Vol. 1, p. 105.
13. J Wesley,
Works[BE], Vol. 25, p. 616.
14. Anthony
Horneck (1641-97) came to England from Bacharach
in Germany 1661. In about 1678 he began to organise
meetings for young men in and around London in
order that they ‘might apply themselves
to good discourse and to things wherein they might
edify one another.’ J. S. Simon, John Wesley
and the Religious Societies (London, 1921), p.
10.
15. J Wesley,
Letters, Vol. 1, p. 351.
16. J Wesley,
Works[BE], Vol. 18, p. 250.
17. The Wesleys
brothers and their followers began to meet at
the Foundery, a building which they purchased
in the Moorfields district of London. The Foundery
became the headquarters for the Wesleys’
work for almost forty years. The Journal of the
Rev. John Wesley. (London, 1938), 8 Vols. Edited
by N. Curnock. Vol. 2, pp. 316-319. Hereafter
cited as J Wesley, Journal.
18. D. Benham,
Memoirs of James Hutton. (London, 1856), p. 112.
19. Arnold
Dallimore suggests that a very friendly letter
from Harris to John Wesley in May 1743 may well
have prompted Wesley’s decision to call
a conference. A. Dallimore, George Whitefield
(Edinburgh, 1980), Vol. 2, p. 145.
20. J Wesley,
Works[BE], Vol. 19, p. 332.
21. J Wesley,
Works[BE], Vol. 26, p. 327.
22. Proceedings
of the Wesley Historical Society. Vol. 5 (Burnley,
1905), pp. 108-110.
23. The Journal
of the Rev Charles Wesley (London, 1849), Vol.
2, p. 63.
24. J Wesley,
Letters, Vol. 6, p. 201.
25. J Wesley,
Christian Library, Vol. 2, p. 3.
26. Ibid.
Vol. 1, p. ix.
27. Ibid.
Vol. 1, p. 71. Patristic scholarship is now fairly
unanimous that these Homilies, traditionally attributed
to the 4th century Egyptian monk, Macarius, were
almost certainly written by a disciple of Gregory
of Nyssa.
28. J Wesley,
Works, Vol. 14, pp. 276, 277.
29. Ibid.
Vol. 13, p. 25.
30. In 1789
Wesley wrote of the strong Anglican influences
under which he grew up in Epworth, and indeed
remained with him throughout his life. ‘From
a child, I was taught to love and reverence the
Scriptures, the oracles of God; and, next to these,
to esteem the primitive Fathers, the writers of
the first three centuries. Next after the primitive
church, I esteemed our own, the Church of England,
as the most scriptural national Church in the
world.’ Works, Vol. 13, p. 272.
31. J Wesley,
Christian Library, Vol. 4, pp, 106, 107.
32. J Wesley,
Works, Vol. 10, p. 211.
33. J Wesley,
Works, Vol. 10, p. 85.
34. Ibid.
p. 85.
35. Ibid.
Vol. 6, p. 199.
36. J Wesley,
Works[BE], Vol. 1, p. 129.
37. J Wesley,
Works, Vol. 1, p. 456.
38. J Wesley,
Works, Vol. 3, p. 312.
39. John
Wesley, Letters, Vol. 4, p. 297.
40. J Wesley,
Letters, Vol. 4, p. 146.
41. J Wesley,
Works[BE], Vol. 21, p.456.
42. Ibid.,
pp. 457, 458.
43. The Poetical
Works of John and Charles Wesley (London, 1872),
13 Vols. Vol. 1, p. 362.
|
|