Wesleyan Theological Journal Volume 18, 2 — Fall — 1983 John Wesley and Natural Theology E. Elton Hendricks 7 John Wesley’s Doctrine of Justification Charles W. Brockwell Jr. 18 The Doctrine of the Trinity in Nineteenth Century American Wesleyanism 1850-1900 Sam Powell 33 Original Sin and Sanctification: A Problem for Wesleyans Vern A. Hannah 48 Marxist and Wesleyan Anthropology and the Prospects for a Marxist-Wesleyan Dialogue John C. Luik 54 The Emotional Evangelical: Blake and Wesley Barbara S. Worden 67 The Epworth Women: Susanna Wesley and her Daughters Samuel J. Rogal 80 Thomas Merton’s Concept of Sanctification Gerard Reed 90 Book Reviews 100 Editor Alex R. G. Deasley Digital texts copyright 2008 Wesley Center Online http://wesley.nnu.edu JOHN WESLEY AND NATURAL THEOLOGY by M. Elton Hendricks I Protestant theologians of the twentieth century, following in the wake of Karl Barth, have usually denied the possibility of a natural theology. A number of students of John Wesley working in this milieu have interpreted his work as having an anti-natural theology bias. Colin Williams observes that Wesley "shows his belief as to the existential irrelevance of natural theology." Harald Lindstrom says that Wesley's views "cannot be taken as a premise for a theologia naturalis. " And J. Weldon Smith claims that "Wesley completely rejects natural theology…”1 In contrast to these views, it is the thesis of this paper that Wesley's concept of Prevenient Grace is equivalent to a natural theology. This view is more in line with suggestions of Martin Schmidt and Albert Outler 2 who call Wesley's A Survey of the Wisdom of God in the Creation, or a Compendium of Natural Philosophy a natural theology. Wesley's views are equivalent to a natural theology if a "soft" rather than a "hard" definition of natural theology is assumed. The "soft" view of natural theology, as defined here, claims that man can have some but not a sufficient knowledge of God apart from revelation. This view was given its most famous expression by Aquinas in the thirteenth century when he argued that although some truths about God can be known through reason divine revelation is still necessary for man's salvation. The soft view has been the one most commonly accepted in Christian history. It is consistent with the position of Brunner in the Barth-Brunner natural theology debate of the early days of neo-orthodoxy. 3 Wesley's view agrees with the claim that while natural man can know certain things about God, such knowledge is not adequate to provide, nor a replacement for, saving faith. The hard definition of natural theology is interpreted here to mean an adequate or saving knowledge of God completely independent of revelation. This was generally the view of Deism which rejected the idea of revelation. Wesley’s idea was certainly not a natural theology in this hard, Deist sense. 4 But such sharply limited criteria for natural theology are not the normal ones. 7 Wesley did not address directly 5 the natural theology issue nor bother to refute in a thorough way the extreme position of Deism, 6 although "An Earnest Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion," and "A Further Appeal" and the letter to Dr. Middleton in which Wesley denounces skepticism regarding miracles, can be viewed as attacks on Deism. 7 The failure of Wesley to engage Deism with the same intensity that he attacked other threatening ideas may seem strange when its prominence in the eighteenth century is considered. The fact that Wesley generally ignored the Deist movement is instructive. The polemical character of many of Wesley's writings indicate that he tended to respond to those ideas that were likely to threaten the faith of the Methodist people. Even though Deism was widespread among the intellectuals of Wesley's day and thoroughly entrenched among the clergy of the Church of England, it was not a powerfully engaging set of ideas among the people responding to Wesley. 8 Wesley had no practical need to deal extensively with Deism and thus he has little to say that deals directly with the "hard" view of natural theology. As with Deism, Wesley did not devote a single treatise to the concept of Prevenient Grace, despite the fact that Prevenient Grace played a more important role in Wesley's thought than in that of any other Protestant theologian. 9 His practical orientation was such that, unless confronted by a challenge, he did not devote time or energy to an unnecessary topic. 10 Prevenient Grace was never the object of direct attack and, therefore, never the subject of an isolated, systematic treatment. Wesley speaks of it in many places, and with consistent meaning, but never extensively in any one place. When the many widespread references to Prevenient Grace are pulled together, however, they seem to constitute a "soft" natural theology. II There are two elements that characterize natural theology: (1) Universalism. The ability to know God is available to all men. To be human is to have access to this possibility. No special state of mind nor any particular religious experience is required." (2) Independence of Special Revelation. Natural theology is part of a general knowledge that does not depend on any special revelation or saving faith. It is a kind of knowledge that can be found outside of "all that is special to a particular community." 12 Natural theology recognizes that the ability to know God is part of the giveness of the human condition. Wesley, in the fashion of the eighteenth century, saw Creation as evidence for the existence and work of God. His Survey of the Wisdom of God in Creation 13 is an example of contemporary science being marshalled into the service of theology. Wesley saw God's handiwork in all of Creation. Such an approach to theology, however, has been given very little attention in the twentieth century by most Protestant theologians. Emil Brunner is something of an exception. He has been a spokesman for the "soft" view of natural theology believing that such a theology is a part of the general revelation or the revelation in Creation. Wesley's view is consistent with that of Brunner who observes that the God who created the world is recognizable in the creation. "The artist is known by all his works" 14 says Brunner, and Wesley declares "The world around us is a mighty volume wherewith God hath declared himself" 15 or "nature is the art of God." 16 8 For Wesley 17 and Brunner the revelation of God in creation cannot be grasped adequately except in the light of the revelation of God in Christ. It can never stand alone. God reveals ". Himself through His work in creation, hence He leaves no man without a witness [although] . sinful man is not capable of grasping what God shows him in His work without turning it into something else." 18 Natural theology for Brunner means a real, but inadequate view of God. It is in this sense that Wesley's Prevenient Grace can be understood as a soft natural theology. Knowledge of God is available to all men, but such natural religion is not sufficient for their salvation. 19 III To understand Wesley's Prevenient Grace as a type of natural theology, it is necessary to understand his view of Original Sin. Wesley's view is basically that of the Reformation, leavened with the English-Enlightenment, plus the Roman Catholic element of the High Church Anglican tradition. Wesley was, as he says, "within a hair's breadth" of Calvinism." 20 Original Sin has corrupted man, and the image of God has been lost. In his treatise on Original Sin, 21 Wesley gathered an abundant catalog of evidence to demonstrate man's sinful nature. And in one sermon 22 he suggested that Original Sin is one of the fundamental distinctions between heathenism and Christianity. Wesley accepts basically the Calvinistic concept of human depravity. Depravity, however, pushed too far, threatens the idea of Free Will which was dear to Wesley. Prevenient Grace was the means by which Wesley maintained a concept of "total depravity" without losing his hold on the idea of Free Will. In the Lutheran and Calvinist views, total depravity with an irresistible logic leads to election and to its corollary, reprobation. Free Will is eliminated. The Arminian Wesley avoided this unpleasant conclusion by asserting an essentially Catholic view which regarded sin as a disease to be healed in contrast to the more orthodox Protestant view in which Original Sin is understood to have destroyed any trace of the imago Dei. 23 Wesley claims for "natural man" the same depth of depravity characteristic of Calvinism. But for Wesley what is lost in Original Sin-the capacity to know and to respond to God-is restored to all men, without any action or response on their part, by God's Prevenient Grace. This restoration has the two characteristics of natural theology: it is universal, and precedes any religious faith. Man as restored by God's Prevenient Grace has some knowledge of God and the ability to respond to His love. It is interesting to find Brunner when he discusses "preserving grace" using language that is strongly reminiscent of Wesley. "The manner in which God is present to His fallen creatures is His preserving grace. Preserving grace does not abolish sin, but abolishes the worst consequences of sin." 24 This sounds remarkably similar to Wesley's idea that God has counteracted the consequences of Original Sin and "restored the capacity for attending to God" 25 and his view that Prevenient Grace has been given to "balance the corruption of nature." While preserving and prevenient grace are not identical, they are sufficiently similar that in the above passage from Brunner, prevenient could be read for preserving without loss.