John Wesley As an Apologist for 'Methodism':, with Special Reference
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TO ‘MEN OF REASON AND RELIGION’: JOHN WESLEY AS AN APOLOGIST FOR ‘METHODISM’, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO HIS DEBATES WITH JOSIAH TUCKER, THOMAS CHURCH, AND ‘JOHN SMITH’ A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Master of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities 2010 PIERRE ALAIN BANZA This research was carried out at Nazarene Theological College, Manchester 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract: ………………………………………………………………………………… 4 Declaration and Copyright Statement: ………………………………………………... 5 Proofreading acknowledgement: ………………………………………………………. 6 Dedication: ………………………………………………………………………………. 7 Acknowledgements: …………………………………………………………………….. 8 Introduction: ……………………………………………………………………………. 11 Chapter 1. Objections of Josiah Tucker: ……………………………………………… 23 1. Justification by faith: ………………………………………………………. 26 1.1. Of the assurance[s] of justification: ………………………………… 26 1.2. Of the conditions of justification: …………………………………… 31 1.3. Of the effects of justification: ………………………………………. 34 2. Sinless Perfection: …………………………………………………………. 40 Chapter 2. Objections of Thomas Church: …………………………………………… 49 1. Background to the debate and the contextual meaning of enthusiasm: …… 50 2. The Relationship between the Teaching of Wesley and the Moravians: ….. 57 2.1. Universal Salvation: ………………………………………………… 58 2.2. Justification ‘without a clean heart’: ….…………………………….. 62 2.3. Thomas Church’s attack on Enthusiasm and Wesley’s defence: ……. 65 3. The meaning of Justification by Faith: ……………………………………... 69 4. Wesley’s reference to ‘Church Communion’ in the context of Article XIII of the Church of England: ………………………………………………… 74 4.1. Dispute between Church and Wesley over Article XIII: …………….. 75 4.2. Church’s first attack, in his Remarks, and Wesley’s response: ……… 77 3 4.3. Church’s second attack, in his Farther Remarks, and Wesley’s Response: …………………………………………………………….. 82 Chapter 3. Objections of ‘John Smith’: ………………………………………………. 85 1. Salvation by faith: …………………………………………………………….. 86 2. Witness of the Spirit: ………………………………………………………….. 90 3. Submission to and Interpretation of the Articles: ……………………………... 99 4. The debate between John Wesley and ‘John Smith’ regarding miracles: …… 109 Chapter 4. Comparison between the attacks of Tucker, Church and Smith, and Wesley’s responses: ……………………………………………......................... 115 1. Similarities: …………………………………………………………………... 115 1.1. Wesley’s alleged inconsistencies: ...…………………………………….. 115 1.2. Issues regarding Salvation by faith: …………………………………….. 120 1.3. The Articles of the Church of England: ………………………………… 124 1.4. Miracles: …………………………………..…………………………….. 127 2. Contrasts: ………………………………………..……………………………. 129 2.1 Witness of the Spirit: ………………………...…………………………... 129 2.2. Church’s critiques of Wesley on the Lord’s Supper and Stoical Insensibility: …………………………………..…………………………., 131 2.2.1. The Lord’s Supper as a ‘Converting Ordinance’: ………………….., 131 2.2.2. Stoical Insensibility: ………………………………….…………….. 134 Conclusion: ……………………………………………………………….………. ……. 137 Appendix A: ……………………………………………………………….……………. 144 Bibliography: .................................................................................................................... 145 Word count (text and footnotes): 50,629 4 ABSTRACT Apologetic has been an ongoing activity in the Church since the apostolic times. The eighteenth century witnessed one of the most famous apologists in Christian history: John Wesley. Wesley, a subscribed minister in the Church of England, defended himself against criticism from his fellow churchmen when they charged him with differing from the ‘common interpretation’ of the Thirty-Nine Articles. This thesis examines critiques of John Wesley and Methodism, and how Wesley dealt with them. It concentrates on the debates between John Wesley and three of his major opponents; namely, Josiah Tucker, Thomas Church, and ‘John Smith’. The defensive position in which Wesley found himself in following criticism from fellow clergymen shaped his methodology throughout his ministry when defending Christianity in general and ‘Methodism’ in particular; consequently, placing apologetic at the centre of his writings. When defending ‘Methodism’ against those who attacked it as an enthusiastic aberration, this thesis demonstrates that Wesley customarily appealed to the formularies of the Church of England: The Articles, the Homilies and the Common Book of Prayer. To those who attacked his doctrine of salvation by faith alone, Wesley responded by appealing to the formularies, and demonstrated that his interpretation of the formularies was in accordance with the Church Fathers, and with the compilers of the formularies. By excluding good works as conditions of justification and rejecting the charge of ‘enthusiasm to the highest degree’, Wesley showed that his doctrines, including salvation by faith alone were grounded in Scripture and took reason into account in their elaboration. Despite some hesitations in defining his doctrine of perfection, Wesley showed that he did not teach sinless perfection. When defending his connections with the Moravians, Wesley demonstrated that he rejected some Moravian tenets that did not meet his consent. Wesley contended that ‘Methodism’ contributed to Church renewal and robust Christian faith in individuals. When dealing with the ‘perceptible inspiration’ or the ‘witness of the Spirit’. Wesley based his arguments on Scripture and his interpretation of the formularies. Wesley insisted that the Holy Spirit inwardly convinces the recipient that their sins are forgiven and that they are a child of God. According to Wesley, the Holy Ghost witnesses to the believer directly. When facing those who believed that miracles had ceased with the apostles, and who argued that God gave the apostles an ‘implicit faith’ which allowed them to work miracles with the aim of establishing the church at that precise time, and God had withdrawn the gift after the fulfillment of the mission, Wesley rejected any possibility of an ‘implicit faith’ and insisted that God still worked miracles in the eighteenth century. All the correspondence between Wesley and his first three major opponents in the early life of ‘Methodism’ is critically examined in this thesis. Wesley’s hesitations when building up his doctrines are also highlighted. This thesis instructs us that when facing adversity Wesley in the defence of ‘Methodism’, frequently adapted his methodology to meet new circumstances. 5 DECLARATION No portion of the work referred to in the thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning. COPYRIGHT STATEMENT (1) Copyright in text of this thesis rests with the Author. Copies (by any process) either in full, or of extracts, may be made only in accordance with instructions given by the Author and lodged in the John Rylands University of Manchester or the Library of Nazarene Theological College. Details may be obtained from the Librarian. This page must form part of any such copies made. Further copies (by any process) of copies made in accordance with such instructions may not be made without the permission (in writing) of the Author. (2) The ownership of any intellectual property rights which may be described in this thesis is vested in The University of Manchester, subject to any prior agreement to the contrary, and may not be made available for use by third parties without the written permission of the University, which will prescribe the terms and conditions of any such agreement. (3) Further information on the conditions under which disclosures and exploration may take place is available from the Dean of Nazarene Theological College. 6 PROOFREADING ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I acknowledge that Mr. Bill Graham has helped with proofreading this thesis. 7 DEDICATION I lovingly dedicate this thesis to Bill Graham and Lorraine Graham for their dedicated lives to God, for special attention to my family, careful proofreading of this thesis and, as lay-churchmen, for your passion in Wesleyan theology; and to Rev. Dr John Seaman, and Linda Seaman whose passion for good theology in our local churches and special care upon my family made my dream become true. 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Mrs Marie Chantal Yehiri Banza (Annie), my wife, a caring mother, with an attentive mind. Chris Gloria Yehiri, Emilia Ange Manuella Moussounda, Joy-Gracia Lenaza and Leigh Keshia Pride Olivia Banza, for missing precious time with their Daddy when they needed him the most. My Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, who gave his life for my family and me and sustains the universe by his word of power.. ┼ Banza Jean Felix and Moussounda Henriette, my parents, for teaching me the necessity of going to church from my childhood. Rev. Dr David McCulloch, whose quiet and effective leadership and love taught me along the way. The Rev. Dr Herbert B. McGonigle, my primary supervisor, who guided my first steps in this exciting topic. Dr Kent Brower, who kept his door and heart open for me and unlocked ties. Dr Geordan Hammond, my later main supervisor, who worked quickly and thoroughly, reading my thesis section by section, and making accurate suggestions. Dr Peter Rae, my later secondary supervisor, who has been always near me in difficulties from the very beginning of my studies to the end of this thesis. Rev Karl Stanfield, my pastor, and Ingrid Stanfield, whose pastoral care helped me achieve this work. John Packard and Vera Packard for your wisdom when advising me, and your personal support. Mr Nathaniel