SOURCE: Heitzenrater, Richard P. “John Wesley and the Historian's Task.” In Mirror and Memory: Reflections on Early Methodism, pp. 205-18. Nashville, Tenn.: Kingswood Books, 1989.

[In the following essay, originally presented as a lecture in 1988, Heitzenrater describes different aspects present within the study of Wesley's work and offers an overview on present-day scholarly thought.]

Many people recognized John Wesley as a significant man in his own day,¹ even referring to him as “one of the most extraordinary characters this or any age ever produced.”² During the following two centuries, this evaluation was reinforced in part by the sheer volume of writing about the man. Since Wesley's death, nearly two thousand books have been written about him.³ His place of prominence in eighteenth-century European history has long since been assured. By this time, one would think that everything worth saying about Wesley had already been said. And yet, more books than ever continue to pour off the printing presses; the nature of his significance continues to be carefully scrutinized, and with good reason.

The writers who have analyzed Wesley over the years have exhibited a curious mixture of approaches in their use of his writings as a source for their studies. There are those, on the one hand, who assume that Wesley himself provided the first and the last word of any consequence. After all, it was he who had said, “As no other person can be so well acquainted with Methodism, so called, as I am, I judge it my duty to leave behind me, for the information of all candid men, as clear an account of it as I can.”⁴ Therefore, Wesley's own words need only to be repeated, inaccuracies and contradictions notwithstanding.⁵ Let the great man speak for himself and his movement. On the other hand, most historians presume that Wesley can not be fully understood without a broader knowledge of his historical context and sources as well as an accurate understanding of his writings. The first approach tends to put Wesley on a pedestal, simply displaying the famous man; the second tends to put Wesley under a microscope, examining him carefully.

The trend in Wesley studies in recent years has been to move away from the “pedestal” approach (which characterized the first 150 years of work) and toward the “microscope” approach. Nevertheless, both approaches are still evident today, often waging a quiet “battle of the books” on the shelves of many unsuspecting owners. The differences in these two types of magnification often result in some confusion to the person who is simply looking for a “good book” on Wesley. The problem becomes somewhat more understandable, however, if we look at some basic distinctions that can be made between various levels of research and writing.

LEVELS OF STUDY

The material that is currently available on Wesley can be placed into four general categories or levels of study. These represent four basic levels of research and writing that comprise the process of discovering and disseminating knowledge based on historical investigation. These levels of study are common to all fields of historical inquiry. In this essay, we will illustrate how they apply to Wesley studies.

The first level of research might be called primary studies. The basic task of this level is to provide reliable texts of primary resources, the essential foundation for the historian's task. This process requires the discovery, collection, comparison, and critical investigation of documents (published and unpublished) that are contemporary with the subject under study. This level of research also attempts to present the documents in the light of the events and thought patterns of their own time, which is the historical matrix within which the documents must be understood.

The second level is comprised of specialist studies that analyze and interpret particular topics. These works investigate the specific political, scientific, literary, theological, social, economic, or cultural aspects of the topic under examination. This process may operate with different angles of focus, examining a single idea, event, or structure, or perhaps studying a whole group or class of things. The main characteristic of this level of work is the scholarly analysis and interpretation of a selected topic—one must look carefully and critically at the background, the historiography, the documents, the context, and the implications of the specialized topic under consideration. Such studies at this second level depend very heavily upon the results of adequate primary research at the first level.

The third level of work consists of comprehensive studies that summarize and synthesize the studies done at the second level. These comprehensive works attempt to survey eras, movements, or individuals in such a fashion as to provide a thorough analysis of the subject. Works of this sort often present an interpretation that, with wide acceptance, claims to be the “standard” view. Challenging such a viewpoint once it has become widely accepted as a “standard” view is sometimes difficult, the more so as time passes. A competing interpretation must adopt a different interpretive stance that relies upon a new insight derived from newly discovered primary research materials or revised views of specialist studies. Therefore, new research and writing at the first and second levels can and should result in new interpretations and revisions of “standard” viewpoints at this third level of work.

The fourth level in this process is made up of the popular studies, works written for the general public. These works usually rely heavily upon the comprehensive studies of level three, some parts of which are summarized, simplified, edited, and produced in such a fashion as to appeal to a wide audience. (Some people would say they are easy to identify because they usually have larger size print and often have pictures.) These works play an important part in the broad dissemination of ideas. Quite often, the main considerations of the writers at this level are didactic (to teach), hagiographic (to honor), or aesthetic (to appreciate). But scholarly adequacy, essential to the work of levels one and two, and important in level three, is (unfortunately) often overlooked or set aside in the production of work in level four.

These four levels of study are all going on at the same time. Ideally, they should all build upon the foundation of primary studies, each level then building upon the best work of the others as we have listed them. From a scholarly point of view, the problem for the last two centuries in Wesley studies has been that no adequate base of primary research has been present to undergird the work of the other levels. There has never been a solidly reliable text of Wesley's writings available to scholars. One explanation for this situation can be found in the history of historical scholarship in general. It was not until well into the nineteenth century that modern critical [analytical] historical studies became prevalent in European scholarship with the work of Leopold von Ranke and other careful historians. Even then, their idea (that it was necessary both to go back to the primary sources and to analyze them critically) was not easily or readily accepted by some writers, especially when religious ideas or traditions were a part of the subject to be examined. This hesitance to accept critical scholarship in the realm of religious ideas is evident also in the study of sacred scriptures, where such work has only gradually been accepted during the last century (and not without a great deal of controversy).

The lack of a critical base upon which to build an adequate program of Wesley studies, thus explained but not excused, has had predictable results. Many comprehensive and popular studies (that is, at levels three and four) of Wesley's life and thought have been produced that are not founded upon adequate historical research at the primary and specialist levels of study.

It would be easy to disparage the works of many nineteenth-century Wesleyan writers in this regard, perhaps too easy from our modern critical perspective. We must recognize that only recently have two important developments taken place. First, more and more persons who are interested in Wesley studies have begun to see the value of (rather than fear the “danger” of) critical historical methods in helping to discern the significance of Wesley's life and thought. Second, the scholarly world (including specialists in non-religious fields) has begun to recognize the value of Wesley studies as a respectable sub-field of the academic study of religion, politics, literature, and several other fields. As a result, a noticeable renaissance of Wesley studies has occurred in the last two or three decades, fostered in part by a rising historical consciousness associated with various anniversary celebrations, such as those in American Methodism from 1966 to 1984. The question that arises at this point is whether or not the solid work that has begun in this field can maintain its momentum and whether its results can be felt in all four levels of study mentioned above.

It is not our purpose here to list or review the recent works that have been published in Wesley studies.⁶ Rather, we will look at the present state of affairs in the four levels of study, noting in particular the agenda that lies before us in order to best satisfy the needs of those who are interested in a better understanding of the past.

PRIMARY STUDIES

Of first importance in the study of the Wesleys (John and Charles in particular) is a complete and reliable text of their writings. It is a revealing comment on the present state of Wesley studies to note, as we did, that the standards of modern critical scholarship are only beginning to be applied to the publication of the Wesleys' works. For the better part of two centuries, writers have had to rely on less than adequate editions of the Wesleys' writings as a basis for their work.

The early commentators on John Wesley's life and thought relied heavily upon the first edition of his Works published by the printer William Pine in Bristol, England, in the 1770s. That edition was filled with typographical errors, an accumulation of unwarranted editorial insertions and deletions, a host of hasty corrections, and even major omissions of material due to the printer's oversight (two years of the Journal were inadvertently omitted). That collection perpetuated many errors made in previous printings. In 1745, for example, a whole line was inadvertently omitted from a crucial passage in his Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion. This mistake deleted the reference to “faith” as one of the three essential factors Wesley felt was necessary for justification; it was never reinserted in any subsequent edition (until the new edition in 1976).⁷ In preparing his works for the collected set in the 1770s, and in correcting them as they came off the press, Wesley himself does not seem to have checked the text against the earlier editions. Therefore, in some cases, when Wesley attempted to correct obvious errors in the printer's proofs, his on-the-spot correction often resulted in a wording that only complicated the problem rather than restored the original text.⁸

Subsequent editions of Wesley's writings were based upon this inadequate “Pine” edition. The second and third editions (ed. by Joseph Benson and Thomas Jackson in the early nineteenth century) did improve somewhat upon the previous edition; they still, however, included no manuscript sources and provided no annotations or comparative textual analyses. They also mistook some works to be original with Wesley that were not and continued the practice of using later editions of Wesley's writings without comparing them with earlier or first editions. They thus perpetuated many typographical and editorial corruptions that had crept into the text.

Jackson's edition, which reached its final form in the “fourth” edition of 1872, was the last “complete” collection of Wesley's works to be published and has been the basis for all the recent reproductions of Wesley's Works in fourteen volumes. However, that edition and even the so-called “standard” editions of the Journal (eight volumes, 1909-13, ed. Curnock), Letters (eight volumes, 1935-37, ed. Telford), and Sermons (two volumes, 1921-22, ed. Sugden) do not reflect the standards of critical textual or historical work expected by the present generation. Nor do they contain much of the manuscript material that has become available only recently and that sheds important light on the development of the early Wesleyan movement. It is rather astounding to realize that the first ten years of Wesley's private diary, which should be ready for publication in another three or four years, will be coming out for the first time in the two-hundred and fifty years since it was written!

There is also a lack of Wesley writings in translation. As far as I am aware, his complete works are not available in any non-English publication. Most writings that are presently in translated form are usually edited selections and abridgments (often based on early inadequate editions) and therefore do not begin to meet the basic expectations of modern textual and historical scholarship.

As a first major step in correcting this situation, the new thirty-five-volume edition of Wesley's works now in production will overcome the lack of a reliable text of Wesley writings in English.⁹ This edition is carefully annotated and incorporates the best scholarship available in a number of disciplines to help the reader understand the sources and context of the material. The new edition includes introductory material to provide the background of the work and citations that locate the sources of Wesley's quotations (or more often, misquotations). Footnotes also shed further light upon many of the ideas, events, or individuals mentioned in the text. Manuscript material is included when appropriate to illuminate the published texts, and lists of variant readings reflect each particular item's changes during its publishing history. The new edition will also include the previously unpublished Wesley diaries, a storehouse of information about the private Mr. Wesley. One of the most important scholarly tools in the whole project will be the two-volume bibliography of the writings of Wesley. It will provide a definitive listing of descriptive information relative to the various Wesley publications.

Over the next several years, this project, called the “Wesley Works Editorial Project,” will produce a thirty-five-volume critical edition of Wesley's writings, a core of foundational materials necessary for first-rate specialist studies on Wesley's life and thought.

In the meantime, the writings of the rest of the Wesley family remain in a relative state of obscurity and chaos. Of particular concern are Charles Wesley's works, both his prose and poetry. Charles was, in many ways, the co-founder and co-leader of the Methodist movement in the eighteenth century. The only major attempt to collect the poetical works of the Wesleys is a thirteen-volume work in the mid-nineteenth century, which has serious limitations as a source for careful scholarship. Several other smaller anthologies of Charles's poetry have been published over the years, but most of them simply present a selection of favorite Wesleyan hymns. Two recent works have begun to set the stage for a fuller treatment of Charles's poetry.¹⁰ A great deal of work remains, however; much of the poetry is largely untouched at this basic level of primary textual studies.

Similar textual work remains to be done on the prose works of Charles Wesley. The basic edition of his Journal and Letters published in 1849 omitted those portions of the journal that Charles had written in shorthand (some of the most interesting entries). A new edition of the journal that incorporated those sections was begun in this century by John Telford, but only one of the proposed three volumes was ever completed.¹¹ A new collected edition of Charles Wesley's letters is also desired, the rather meager collection of 1849 being the only one ever published. The sermons of Charles Wesley are also in a state of disarray. The only edition every published, in 1816, was based on sermons in Charles's handwriting, but we now know that they are mostly (if not entirely) sermons written by John Wesley and subsequently copied by Charles, the manuscripts then published posthumously as Charles's by his widow.¹² A group of sermons that were written by Charles in shorthand (and are apparently of his creation) have only recently been published.¹³ A critical edition of these sermons, along with a new edition of Charles's letters and journal, could provide the public the valuable core of his prose works. Next summer, two hundred years after the death of Charles, a convocation of interested scholars will mark the beginning efforts of a Charles Wesley's Works Project, which hopefully will begin to rectify this situation.

Much work therefore remains to be done at the level of primary studies in order to provide complete, reliable, and annotated texts, not only of John Wesley's works, but also of Charles Wesley's works, edited in such a fashion as to reveal both the sources of their thought and the context of their activities. Such foundational primary studies as these are necessary as an adequate base for the second level of work, the specialist studies.

SPECIALIST STUDIES

For many years after Wesley's death, “Wesley studies” consisted solely of biographies. These were generally by Methodists and for Methodists; the triumphalist tone was inevitable. The first appearance of more specialized topical studies occurred in the latter part of the nineteenth century, when several writers (primarily Anglican and Methodist) began to examine Wesley's relations with the Church of England. Studies of Wesley's theology, in some instances comparing Wesley with other Protestants, such as Calvin, Swedenborg, and Whitefield, began to appear before the end of the century. The early twentieth century brought more studies of special aspects of Wesley's life and thought—evangelism, romance, philanthropy, socialism, science, patriotism, ethics, etc. The tendency of these studies, however, was simply to describe a special facet of Wesley's biography, selected from his own writings and isolated from the larger background and context of his times. These works exhibit a partisan preoccupation on the part of Methodists with their founder and show little interest in the sources of Wesley's own thought and action, much less the broader historical context in which Wesley was writing and acting.

A few theological studies in the second quarter of the twentieth century began to call for and exhibit a wider approach. Maximin Piette's study, Réaction de John Wesley dans l'Evolution du Protestantisme (1925), and George Croft Cell's book, The Rediscovery of John Wesley (1935), opened up new areas of investigation, not only specific doctrines within Wesley's thought, but also the relationship of these ideas to traditional Reformation theology. In the last half century, many works have helped illuminate major themes in Wesley's life and thought. In keeping with the growing ecumenical tendencies in religious thought, the more recent theological studies have by and large begun to free Wesley from his Methodist closet. In addition, Wesley has been discovered by writers from a variety of disciplines, such as political science, literature, music, science, psychology, medicine, and philosophy.

The result has been a growing body of books and articles that demonstrate the wide variety of Wesley's own interests and involvements. Many of these works are done by scholars with competence in their own special academic field of inquiry but with only a limited acquaintance with Wesley. The major problem at this point is that the available Wesley resources at the textual and contextual level often do not give adequate support for the scholar's task. It is precisely at this point that the incomplete nature of the work at the primary level begins to effect subsequent endeavors at every other level.

Take, for example, the study of Wesley and medicine. Basic to that endeavor would be an understanding of the background and development of Wesley's popular little publication, Primitive Physick. It is one thing to say that it is a quaint collection of home remedies and folk medicine. It is quite another thing to document the origins of these prescriptions and the process by which Wesley came to include them in his collection. That information is still largely elusive at this point, awaiting the sharp eye of some patient researcher. A further requisite for such a study would be a good understanding of the status of medical theory and practice in the eighteenth century, a field of study that is itself just beginning to emerge.

Another good example of the work that remains to be done at this level can be seen in the prerequisites necessary to write an adequate study of Wesley's theology. No one has ever done a study that not only considers the various topics essential to an understanding of Wesley's theology, but also examines the chronological development of each of these topics as expressed in the full collection of Wesley's own writings. His theology should also be analyzed in the light of his sources (as seen in an analysis of his reading patterns over the years), the various controversies in which he participated, as well as the larger historical context within which Wesley was acting and thinking—the developments in politics, science, music, theology, economics, philosophy, technology, biblical studies, transportation, and other areas that would contribute to a better understanding of the living matrix of Wesley's life. By such means, one could examine Wesley's theology more thoroughly, thereby beginning to comprehend the richness of its background, the complexities of its development, and the urgencies of its rhetoric.

Many valuable specialist studies have already been completed that could contribute to a further sharpening of work at this level. There are still many other areas that need further careful investigation besides specific aspects of his theology—such as the place of women in the Wesleyan organization, the nature of Wesley's work among the poor, the character of the political and economic philosophy that guided his thought and actions, and his approach to the major scientific questions of his day. Any good study of Wesley in these areas must exhibit the principles of good historical investigation. It would consider the whole of Wesley (early and late periods as well as the middle), would consider the change as well as the continuity in his development, would take seriously the criticisms of anti-Wesleyan views as part of the whole picture, would recognize the incongruities and analyze the resulting tensions, and would look for the precursors and precedents of his thoughts and actions.

Much work remains to be done in many areas of contextual studies that provide necessary support for Wesley studies. Such a predicament should not, however, discourage the student of Wesley from making effective use of the supporting material that is presently available.

COMPREHENSIVE STUDIES

The two previous sections have repeatedly illustrated the point that there is much yet to be done at the first two levels of Wesley studies. We have just barely begun to approach Wesley with the appropriate critical tools and the breadth of outlook that are necessary to build a solid foundation and sturdy framework to house our endeavor; adequate work at these two levels is a necessary prerequisite to the production of biographies and historical surveys that measure up to modern critical standards. The same criteria that are indispensable at the first two levels of study are also essential to the production of adequate comprehensive studies.

The biography has been the most common form of surveying the Wesleyan story. In spite of the prolific production of such works, a definitive biography of Wesley has never been written and perhaps could not yet be written. However, some good biographies have been produced; several well-written, credible works have presented enlightening portraits of Wesley. Even a quick survey of the literature, however, will reveal that none of the biographies presently available provides a full narrative of Wesley's life in its many-faceted complexity. They do not take into account, for instance, the full range of his theological development that furnished not only the ideological context for his own spiritual pilgrimage but also the doctrinal agenda for his revival movement (a typical aversion of most current biographical writers). Neither do they fully notice the broad scope of his many energetic activities that made up the curriculum of a long and productive life (including his involvement in politics, medicine, prisons, poetry, and economics, as well as the quirks of his personal relationships with women which seem to be a particular fascination of many present authors). These and a host of other areas require treatment within any fully comprehensive look at the man.

Historical surveys of the Wesleyan movement in the eighteenth century generally display many of the same shortcomings as the biographies. There are not as many histories as there are biographies, to be sure—one would be hard-pressed to find in a bookstore these days any narrative history of Wesley and his movement, in any language. Such a situation may simply represent the current state of Wesley studies in general. The older, out-of-print works seem insufficient and yet the basic material is not quite fully in hand yet for definitive new works. However, the revisionist work of the specialist studies is beginning to provide a growing body of new material, and as that information builds up, it calls for a new synthesis to be reflected in subsequent surveys of the Wesleyan movement. The demands of critical scholarship obviously apply at least as much to these historical endeavors as to the biographies. The tendency of writers in this century to rely on the twice-told tales (often-repeated stories that come to be accepted as true simply by repetition) passed on in the books of the nineteenth-century simply demonstrates how much work remains to be done at this level.

POPULAR STUDIES

The work of the first three levels is essentially scholarly. But much of what is written about Wesley is intentionally non-scholarly, designed to reach a non-academic audience. While the area of popular studies is only one of four points for our consideration here, the material in this category probably makes up at least half the total bulk of current publications about Wesley. This category would include Sunday school literature, devotional publications, novels, newspaper and magazine articles, and works about Wesley that attempt to reach a wide popular audience.

The self-consciously non-academic approach of some of this literature reminds me of the speaker who starts a speech by saying, “Now I'm not really a scholar or expert in the field, but …” and then launches out upon a discourse that represents a very firmly held personal interpretation of some controversial issue. Disclaiming academic credentials does not, however, excuse a person from being responsible in making truth-claims. Unfortunately, many popular studies tend to keep repeating the old stereotypes long after the specialists have made important new discoveries and insights that have begun to cause revisions at the third level, of comprehensive studies.

The production of popular works does not necessitate compromising the academic integrity of the topic in order to make it attractive or interesting to a particular audience. A striking example of this is a children's book in the “Ladybird” series in England, a biography of Wesley that is simple, well-written, illustrated, and uses the latest research on the life and thought of Wesley and his times.¹⁴ The fact that a book is written with a literary flair, or that it has illustrations, or that it is designed for a specific group should not exempt it from the normal expectations of accuracy and integrity.

We are still in the infancy of our knowledge of how to use pictorial illustrations relative to Wesley and Methodist studies. Graphic (and iconographic) materials have been used so indiscriminately for so long that one almost presumes that “pictures” lower the academic integrity of a work. There is no reason why that should necessarily be the case. Appropriate illustrations, if selected carefully and produced well, can provide very helpful insights that complement the written or spoken word. At this point, the tendency seems to be for (1) the books with good pictures and fluid writing to be lacking in historical scholarship, and (2) the works that represent the best in scholarship to be more difficult to read and without good illustrations. With new technologies and new information, however, and a willingness to use all available resources, the best of scholarship, writing, and the graphic arts might be brought together more frequently.

THE PURPOSE AND FUTURE OF WESLEY STUDIES

The seeming divergence between scholarly and popular approaches to Wesley studies might be seen by some as a reflection of the different character and methods of the academy and the church. Such an explanation, while plausible, need not be understood as defining an essentially divergent goal of the church and the academy with regard to the Wesleyan heritage. Both the church and the academy are grounded in a concern for truth. In the academy, the search for truth through a critical investigation of the past defines the character of historical inquiry. The historian's task is to understand the past on its own terms before interpreting or appropriating its meaning for the present. In the church, the critical temper is also essential to the continuing practice of “an historically authentic Christian tradition.”¹⁵ The ongoing practice of a viable tradition depends upon critical reflection to maintain its vitality and integrity. Historical inquiry in the academy and in the church is important to the future of careful and meaningful studies of the Wesleyan heritage.

Within the last several years, major international conferences have given special opportunities for investigating and reflecting upon the Wesleyan tradition. Six years ago, the American Academy of Religion incorporated a Wesleyan Studies working group as one of its officially recognized study areas. The Oxford Institute of Methodist Theological Studies, a meeting every five years at Oxford University, has spent its last two sessions (1982 and 1987) looking in particular at “The Future of Wesleyan Theology.” A special consultation on “Methodism and Ministry” at Drew University in April 1983, and the another on “Wesleyan Theology and the Next Century” at Emory University in August 1983, were held with the expressed purpose of examining critically various elements within the Wesleyan tradition. The World Methodist Historical Society meets every five years on a global scale and sponsors regional meetings at more frequent intervals.

Participants at these events have included members of the church and the academy, preachers and teachers, clergy and laity, men and women, of all races and ethnic groups, and from around the globe. These participants represented a variety of academic disciplines and religious perspectives. On such an interdisciplinary and ecumenical base, the level of interest in Wesley that was sparked on those occasions has encouraged many to think that a new day has dawned in Wesley studies. The working groups on those occasions approached the Wesleyan tradition from all sides, approaching a host of new issues from a variety of new directions, including many insightful perspectives from non-English-speaking cultures.¹⁶ They seriously reexamined the possible Wesleyan resources that might inform human self-understanding as we move into the twenty-first century on an ever-shrinking globe.

With the recognition that much basic work presently remains incomplete at every level of Wesley studies (as we have seen), the participants of the conferences were eager to move forward using the highest standards of critical scholarship presently available, aware at the same time of the need to be more openly cautious in making broad generalizations and to be more modest in stating final conclusions. Many participants expressed the strong feeling that Wesley is an important resource for religious self-understanding today. They also sensed that Wesley, rightly understood and creatively appropriated, could lend a vision of the potentialities of human existence that could continue to reform and renew individuals and institutions in our world.

These conferences have been an important step in the process of implementing a new approach to Wesley studies. They were especially significant, in each case both as a symbol and as an opportunity, for the manner in which they allowed the church and the academy to work together as partners in the process of rediscovering Wesley. The goal of Wesley studies properly conceived, then, as seen in these recent developments, is not to recapture or perpetuate a sectarian “Wesleyan” self-consciousness, but rather to understand and appropriate the Wesleyan heritage in ways that will guide and invigorate our conscientious attempts to think and live as vital and authentic human beings in our own day in our own way.

To the question, Why study Wesley? What is the underlying purpose of examining the Wesleyan heritage? we propose an ancient answer: we seek knowledge, and, not being born with it, we seek it in the past.¹⁷ Thucydides, the ancient Greek historian, said that he wrote his great work for those “who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the interpretation of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not reflect it.”¹⁸ This point of view may lead to the narrow and negative sense that if we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat its mistakes. The more positive sense of Thucydides seems, however, to suggest a more useful perspective on our goals for looking at history and a more promising goal of studying the Wesleyan heritage—an attempt to understand who we are as human beings, as we try to live with authenticity in the present and to move with identity and purpose into the future to create a better world for all of us.

Notes

1. This essay was presented as one of the Wesley Memorial Lectures in the Centre for Research on Christian Culture of Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan, in October 1988. Portions of the text had previously appeared in “Wesley Studies in the Church and the Academy,” Perkins Journal 37 (Spring 1984): 1-6, and “The Present State of Wesley Studies,” Methodist History 22 (July 1984):221-33.

2. Gentleman's Magazine 61 (March 1791):284.

3. See Betty M. Jarboe, John and Charles Wesley; A Bibliography (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1987); see esp. items no. 35-1934.

4. John Wesley, Short History of the People Called Methodists (1781). This comment echoes an attitude that Wesley had already expressed several times in works that survey or analyze the Wesleyan movement—that he was the most appropriate person (perhaps the only one fully qualified) to give a full and accurate account of his life and his movement (e.g., in The Character of a Methodist (1742)—“… it being generally believed that I was able to give the clearest account of these things,” Works, 9:32; in the preface to his Journal (1740)—“… it being my only concern herein nakedly to ‘declare the thing as it is,’” Works, 18:122; in his sermon “On Laying the Foundation of the New Chapel” (1777)—“There is no other person, if I decline the task, who can supply my place—who has a perfect knowledge of the work in question [Methodism], from the beginning of it to this day,” Works, 3:580. Wesley's accounts, curiously enough, exhibit in their details many inaccuracies and incongruities that one would not expect.

5. E.g., “Yet, after all, his own Journal and Letters will always remain the best, almost the only needful, authority for the life of Wesley.” C. T. Winchester, The Life of John Wesley (New York: Macmillan, 1919), p. viii.

6. For recent surveys of the literature and a list of bibliographies, see Frank Baker, “Unfolding John Wesley: A Survey of Twenty Years' Studies in Wesley's Thought,” in Quarterly Review 1 (1980): 44-58; and Richard Heitzenrater, “Wesley in Retrospect,” in The Elusive Mr. Wesley (Nashville: Abingdon, 1984), 2: 163-214.

7. The Appeals to Men of Reason and Religion, ed. by Gerald R. Cragg, in Works, 11:117.

8. For details of these problems, see Frank Baker, “The Oxford Edition of Wesley's Works and Its Text,” in The Place of Wesley in the Christian Tradition, ed. by Kenneth E. Rowe (Metuchen, N. J.: Scarecrow, 1980), pp. 124-26.

9. This project was begun in 1960, the first four volumes published as The Oxford Edition of the Works of John Wesley (Vol. 11, The Appeals; Vols. 25 and 26, Letters; Vol. 7, Collection of Hymns). The last volume to be published by Oxford University Press appeared in February 1984. Subsequent volumes are being published by Abingdon Press under the series title, The Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley. Six volumes have appeared since 1984: four volumes of Sermons, ed. by Albert C. Outler, and the first volume of Journal and Diaries, ed. by W. Reginald Ward and Richard P. Heitzenrater, and The Methodist Societies, ed. by Rupert Davies. Prof. Heitzenrater, of Southern Methodist University, is General Editor of the project, and James E. Kirby, also of Southern Methodist University, is president of its Board of Directors.

10. One exceptionally valuable work that provides a model for work to be done in this area is Frank Baker's Representative Verse of Charles Wesley (London: Epworth Press, 1958). Just now appearing is a three-volume work, The Unpublished Poetry of Charles Wesley, edited by S. T. Kimbrough and Oliver A. Beckerlegge (Nashville: Abingdon, 1988).

11. London: Cully [1910]; reprinted by the Methodist Reprint Society, Taylors, S. C., 1977.

12. Richard P. Heitzenrater, “John Wesley's Early Sermons,” Proceedings WHS 37 (February 1970): 112-13; see p. 153 above.

13. Thomas R. Albin and Oliver A. Beckerlegge, Charles Wesley's Earliest Evangelical Sermons (Ilford: WHS Publications, 1987).

14. John Vickers, John Wesley, Founder of Methodism (Loughborough, 1977).

15. Ray C. Petry, “The Critical Temper and the Practice of Tradition,” in The Duke Divinity School Review 30 (Spring 1965): 96.

16. Papers and discussions focused on such areas as biblical authority, feminist theology, salvation and justice, evangelism, liberation theology, spirituality, faith development, black and ethnic religion, ecumenism, social ethics, worship, religious affections, process theology, and the sacraments. See especially Albert C. Outler, “A New Future for Wesley Studies: An Agenda for ‘Phase III,’” and the Wesley Studies Working Group report in Douglas M. Meeks, ed., The Future of Wesleyan Theology (Nashville: Abingdon, 1986), pp. 34-66; and Theodore Runyon, ed., Wesleyan Theology Today (Nashville: Abingdon, 1985).

17. See Confucius, The Confucian Analects, bk. 7:19: “I am not one who was born in the possession of knowledge; I am one who is fond of antiquity, and earnest in seeking it there.”

18. The History of the Peloponnesian War, Bk. I, §22.