Was John Wesley Inclusive?

Abstract

Over the last forty years British Methodism has moved increasingly toward becoming an inclusive Church. Indeed, today, the concept of inclusion may accurately be described as a hallmark of British Methodism. However, while the Methodist Conference has formally identified principles governing its practice in this area there has been limited discussion as to how far these developments cohere with the church’s doctrinal standards which are officially related to John Wesley’s writings. This paper explores the continuity and discontinuity between Wesley’s theology and the commitment to inclusion characteristic of his spiritual descendants. In particular, it probes Wesley’s actual practice in relation to the admission and expulsion of members and evaluates whether or not his conception of holiness really serves as a warrant for the conception of inclusion, practically operative in contemporary British Methodism. In exploring these questions the paper explores whether or not John Wesley really was as Inclusive as contemporary British Methodists imagine.

1. Introduction

British Methodism has worked for many years to become an inclusive church. While this trajectory has often reflected developments within the wider society, there are a number of instances in which Conference resolutions have preceded government Acts. Thus, prior to the Sex Discrimination Act (1975), the Race Relations Act (1976) and the Equalities Act (2010), British Methodism (BM) sought to challenge discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, sexuality or disability (British Methodist Church 2021). In its adoption of this strategy, it is unsurprising that the people called Methodists would invoke the name of John Wesley to support the current direction of travel.

The quest for the historical Wesley has a long tradition within various forms of Methodism. However, the “ways in which the Wesley’s” have influenced developments in contemporary forms of Methodism such as within the United States, Britain or elsewhere, have received limited attention (Robbins 2013, p. 199; Vickers 2013, p. 116). Exceptions to this are Spann’s insightful analysis of both the liberal and conservative employment of Wesley within American Methodist history (Spann 2005, p. 204) and Wellings’ analysis of the evangelical tradition in British Methodism (Wellings 2013, p. 323). However, a comprehensive genealogy of contemporary BM’s emphasis on inclusion remains to be written. While the scope of this essay is limited, it will begin this work by exploring the extent to which Wesley’s own theology and ministry is commensurate with the prevailing theology of inclusion operative within contemporary BM. However, before proceeding further it is essential to highlight the authoritative doctrinal status accorded to Wesley’s writings in BM.

Aside from his pervasive moral and spiritual authority a constitutional role is given to certain Wesleyan texts in BM’s official doctrinal standards:

The doctrines of the evangelical faith which Methodism has held from the beginning and still holds are based upon the divine revelation recorded in the Holy Scriptures. The Methodist Church acknowledges this revelation as the supreme rule of faith and practice. These evangelical doctrines to which the preachers of the Methodist Church are pledged are contained in Wesley’s Notes on the New Testament and the first four volumes of his sermons.

(British Methodist Church 2026)

The above illustrates the canonical status of John Wesley’s writings in BM’s official doctrinal standards. While Wesley has often been overlooked by BM theologians (Pratt Morris-Chapman 2021, p. 5), the normative role of John Wesley’s writings within the Deed of Union, the constitution of BM renders an analysis of his thoughts on inclusion necessary. In sum, given the current direction of travel, BM has a constitutional requirement to explore the question of how far Wesley can be considered inclusive.

In the world in which he was formed, John Wesley might be considered an “enlightened exemplar” (Reddie 2024, p. 283). He was a man ahead of his time, and a great number of instances establish his great capacity for inclusion. Most obvious is his willingness to venture to the outer reaches of the nation for the sake of the gospel. Though he could “scarcely” reconcile himself to “preaching in the fields” he forced himself to enter uncomfortable situations in order to connect with those on the fringe of society (Wesley 1739). Wesley clearly believed that all people should be able to flourish and reach their full potential. His support for “labour collectives, free clinics and small business loan schemes” illustrates his concern for the marginalized and his belief in their agency through collective “community self-help” (Danker 2023, p. 243). Moreover, his encouragement of a wide range of people to become preachers also demonstrates his openness to people from diverse educational backgrounds (Lenton 2009, p. 8). While Langdoc argues that “Wesley unequivocally maintained women’s subordination to men” his tentative support for female preachers was ground-breaking (Langdoc 2023, p. 263). Furthermore, although the celebration of women in ministry was curtailed following his death, Wesley had accepted (after some persuasion) that they should be allowed to exercise an “extraordinary call” so as to become itinerant preachers engaged in a “public preaching ministry” (Holmes 2017, p. 136). Even more striking was Wesley’s particular concern to defend those who were prosecuted under laws targeting homosexuality (Forsaith 2020, pp. 65–66). Rowland rightly emphasises the way in which this demonstrates Wesley’s solidarity with those pushed to the outer margins of society and, moreover, the way in which Wesley lived out this concern practically (Rowland 2024, p. 92). Last but not least, Wesley is particularly famous for his condemnation of the slave trade at a time when human trafficking was deemed acceptable by many other church leaders (Pratt Morris-Chapman 2019, p. 37). However, while this may not be in doubt, Natalya Cherry’s work illustrates the way in which anti-slavery was not necessarily synonymous with anti-racism during this period (Cherry 2023, p. 76). Indeed, while there have been portrayals that elevate Wesley as an anti-racist figure (Brendlinger 2006; Kithinji 2023) there is convincing evidence to suggest that Wesley was a racist (Field 2023, p. 64; Pratt Morris-Chapman 2026, p. 53). If true, this would complicate the inclusive reading of Wesley contained within contemporary British Methodist discourse.

The canonical status of John Wesley’s writings within BM indicates the importance of an investigation into the continuity and discontinuity between Wesley’s theology and the commitment to inclusion within contemporary BM (British Methodist Church 2026). Thus, the remainder of this article will explore Wesley’s actual practice in relation to the admission and expulsion of members and evaluate whether or not his conception of holiness really serves as a warrant for the inclusive orientation shaping contemporary BM. However, before proceeding, it is helpful to render explicit the theology of inclusion currently operative within BM.

2. The Theology of Inclusion Within Contemporary British Methodism

The tendency to invoke Wesley’s name as a justification for becoming a “fully inclusive” church is reflected in a plethora of conference reports. Moreover, it is also a strategy employed by a number of BM theologians. Indeed, a number of theological voices within contemporary British Methodism cite Wesley in order to support an inclusive vision of the church (British Methodist Church 1999b, 2003, 2021; Price-Tebbutt 2016, 2018; Youngson 2018). A paradigmatic example of this tendency is a report upon the subject of marriage and relationships, God in Love Unites Us, which closes with:

John Wesley’s challenge to be “of one heart, though we are not of one opinion” … We invite you, the Methodist people, to receive this report with that same spirit, … we seek to encourage all Methodists to love each other, despite holding differing opinions in matters of relationships and sexuality.

(British Methodist Church 2019)

Here Wesley’s Sermon on the Catholic Spirit (Wesley 1750) is utilised to support the inclusion of all. In a similar vein, the Strategy for Justice, Dignity and Worth invokes the “Wesleyan doctrine of perfect love” in order to encourage “relationships that go beyond toleration into a deeper appreciation of how God is working in the other person” (British Methodist Church 2021). This report deserves close attention, as it outlines the vision of BM to become a fully inclusive Methodist Church.

In the Strategy for Justice, Dignity and Worth (British Methodist Church 2021) the Conference outlined its hopes for the future. Extracts from the report illustrate the contours of this ecclesial vision. For example, the report speaks about the formation of an “inclusive culture” which ensures that “diversity is reflected in all aspects of leadership.” It stresses the need for the creation of a safe space shaped by “justice and grace” and an openness to “learning” from all. Moreover, it emphasises the need for Methodism to be “inclusive and respectful,” for the church to be a place in which “power is shared” and where all are enabled and equipped “to love” and to “serve” (British Methodist Church 2021).

At the end of the report, under the heading “Theological Underpinning,” an appendix offers a retrospective theological justification for this particular conception of inclusion. It states that, because human beings are “created in the image of God” the “intrinsic worth of every human being is to be upheld.” A notable divergence from Wesley at this juncture is the absence of original sin (Cherry 2022, pp. 3–4). Interestingly, the report does speak about Jesus’ death and resurrection as “the supreme act of inclusion” (British Methodist Church 2021). The doctrine of God pronounced herein also emphasises the concept of inclusion:

To speak of God as a loving communion of three co-equal ‘persons’ suggests that the church should be a community of mutual support and love in which there is no superiority or inferiority.

(British Methodist Church 1999a, 2021)

This conception of the Trinity is linked to British Methodism’s “Connexional” ecclesiology which is identified here in terms of “all Christians” being “essentially linked to one another” through “mutuality and interdependence” (British Methodist Church 2021).

While the appendix introduces the theme of salvation prior to any discussion of the wounds (ancestral or not) from which we are to be restored, it tentatively explores this concept toward the very end of the document. Here sin is defined relationally in terms of dis-connexion and exclusion:

Human sinfulness has not diminished with the passage of time. The life of the Church is eroded by it; its symptoms and results include fractured relationships, (both personal and communal), unwitting exclusivisms, and discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, disability, age, wealth or sexuality.

(British Methodist Church 2021)

At this juncture, Methodism’s Arminian heritage is creatively linked with the concept of inclusion:

The Methodist Church, drawing on its Arminian heritage, emphasises the universality of God’s grace, freely offered to all peoples irrespective of their condition. Within Methodism all are welcome in the broadest sense. The emphasis is on God’s grace for all, without any exceptions; and transformational possibilities in personal and relational life for all, beyond what can be expected or predicted. It is an invitation to which all are invited to respond. Hospitality, openness and welcome to all are at the heart of what it means to be a Methodist.

(British Methodist Church 2021)

In summary, it might be argued that the principal ideas implicit within this interpretation of our faith might be rendered in the following schema: (a) God is love, and in the Holy Trinity we behold the eternal communion (connexion) of divine love; (b) God created all human beings in God’s image; (c) there was a dis-connexion between God and human beings; (d) Jesus birth, death and resurrection makes re-connexion with God and all other human beings possible; (e) we must all be in connexion again through Christ; (f) the church must reflect the connexional unity of the Godhead; (g) the church must welcome all into connexion with itself. Having illustrated some of the theological principles intended to justify the inclusive vision of contemporary BM, it is helpful to compare these with John Wesley’s theological orientation.

3. John Wesley’s Theological Orientation

In his work on the Roots of Methodism, William Blackburn Fitzgerald (1856–1931) famously articulated what have been described as the “Four All’s” of Methodism (Fitzgerald 1903, pp. 173–76). This descriptive summary of the contours of John Wesley’s theology is highly apposite. Here Original Sin, Salvation by Faith, Assurance and Sanctification are presented as defining features within the landscape offering a window into the heart of John Wesley’s theology. At the outset it is apparent that a notable difference between contemporary BM and Wesley is his emphasis on original sin. A helpful summary of his position is found in his sermon by the same name:

Ye know that the great end of religion is, to renew our hearts in the image of God, to repair that total loss of righteousness and true holiness which we sustained by the sin of our first parent.

(Wesley 1759)

Here Wesley emphasises that a religion which fails to address the problem of original sin is nothing but a “poor farce,” a “mere mockery of God.” However, while Wesley emphasised this feature of the canonical heritage, a leitmotif within his theology is the insistence that all people can be saved (Outler 1985, p. 10).

Wesley’s acclamation that all people could be saved was formulated in opposition to extreme forms of Calvinism (Toplady 1769). Wesley’s opposition to this position can be seen in his sermon on predestination:

What is it, then, that we learn from this whole account It is this, and no more:—(1) God knows all believers; (2) wills that they should be saved from sin; (3) to that end, justifies them, (4) sanctifies and (5) takes them to glory.

(Wesley 1773)

However, this position has an overlooked corollary: if God did not predestine particular people to salvation, then neither did the Almighty guarantee that those who had been converted would automatically be saved (Cragg 1964, p. 124). Put simply, in rejecting predestination, Wesley affirmed the “defectibility of faith” in that “a person might possess saving faith and yet subsequently lose it” (Bebbington 2000, pp. 51–52; Wesley 1741).

Wesley’s rejection of Calvinism goes some way to explain why he was eager to ensure that those who had made a commitment to Christ were carefully supported so as to ensure they did not fall away:

I was more convinced than ever, that the preaching like an Apostle, without joining together those that are awakened, and training them up in the ways of God, is only begetting children for the murderer. How much preaching has there been for these twenty years all over Pembrokeshire! But no regular societies, no discipline, no order or connexion; and the consequence is, that nine in ten of the once-awakened are now faster asleep than ever”.

(Wesley 1938, vol. 3, p. 44)

This extract from Wesley’s Journal illustrates how concerned Wesley was that the awakened remain connected with each other in order to ensure that they continued to grow in faith and did not fall away. Put simply, for Wesley, faith was incompatible with sin. As a result, he felt it was essential, if people were to grow in holiness, to be watched over in love (Bebbington 2000, pp. 51–52; Wesley 1777).

At this juncture it is worth noting two key differences between Wesley’s theological emphases and contemporary BM. Wesley believed that, (a) as a result of original sin, (b) all human beings need to be saved, (c) all human beings can be delivered from sin through Christ, (d) human beings can lose their salvation and (e) it is important for the church to actively support disciples by watching over them so as to ensure they do not fall away but continue to grow in Christ.

Wesley’s emphasis on original sin differs markedly from contemporary BM theological discourse. Wesley’s critique of Taylor’s (1740) rejection of original sin illustrates his own position:

If you, who are most unwilling to acknowledge the fall of man, would but look into yourself daily, and observe all the sinful and irregular turns of your own heart; how propense you are to folly, in greater or less instances; how soon appetite and passion oppose reason and conscience; how frequently you fall short of the demand of the perfect law of God; how thoughtless and forgetful you are of your Creator; how cold and languishing your affection to Him; how little delight you have in virtue, or in communion with God: Could you think you are such an innocent and holy creature as God at first created you? and that you have been such even from your childhood? Surely a more accurate observation of your own heart must convince you, that you yourself are degenerated from the first rectitude of your nature.

(Wesley 1757, pp. 334–35)

While it is true that his views evolved over time (Cherry 2022, p. 4), Wesley’s understanding is fundamentally different from Conference reports, such as the report “Strategy for Justice”, which makes little mention of sin (British Methodist Church 2021).1 The same tendency is found in other BM theological voices which describe the inception of sin in relational terms (Youngson 2018, pp. 1, 3; Rowland 2024, pp. 174–75). Thus, while these sources rightly emphasise the supreme inclusive work of Christ, they neglect the prior question as to why redemption is even necessary (British Methodist Church 2021). In contrast, in his Sermon on the New Birth (1760), Wesley states emphatically that “the foundation of the new birth” is the “entire corruption of our nature” (Wesley 1760). Likewise in his Sermon on Original Sin he states:

Keep to the plain, old faith, “once delivered to the saints,” and delivered by the Spirit of God to our hearts. Know your disease! Know your cure! Ye were born in sin: Therefore, “ye must be born again,”.

(Wesley 1759)

The above suggests a considerable divergence between Wesley and his descendants on this point. Indeed, a number of commentators argue that “for Wesley” the Bible teaches original sin as “integral to the order of salvation” (Green 2020, p. 57; Patriquin 2021, p. 309; Collins 2007, p. 65).

In addition to the above, while official Conference reports utilise John Wesley’s Arminianism to justify an inclusive theological orientation (British Methodist Church 2021), there is little or no attention to the implied consequence that, if we are not predestined for heaven, we can lose our salvation. As will be seen, it is precisely this Arminian principle which leads Wesley to form a network (connexion) of tightly controlled groups (societies, class meetings and bands) which are to become an engine room for spiritual accountability and holiness.

4. Exclusive Characteristics Within John Wesley’s Methodist Movement

Methodism was a renewal movement that emphasized “human flourishing.” However, Wesley believed this “flourishing” could only be achieved “through a structure of disciplined spirituality” (Danker 2023, p. 243). For this reason he was particularly concerned that “true” Christians be connected together to watch one another and prevent anyone from falling away from salvation (Heitzenrater 1997, pp. 23–24) Those seeking to participate were issued with membership tickets which enabled Wesley to “maintain the integrity” of the movement and remove those who were not serious in their pursuit of holiness (Henderson 1997, pp. 143–44). The expulsion of members was common. Sometimes several at a time. Wesley desired holiness, not a large membership (Miles 2010, p. 214; Wesley 1776). This illustrates the way in which inclusion within the Methodist network was determined by Wesley who admitted and expelled members depending upon how serious they were in their pursuit of holiness.

Wesley used the term “Connexion” to refer to this voluntary association of people. This network included preachers, societies, their members, society leaders, class leaders—who oversaw smaller groups of ten to twelve people—and band leaders, who guided even smaller and more intensive bands devoted to deep accountability and confession. Wesley connected and disconnected with these in accordance with his objective of spreading scriptural holiness throughout the land (Beck 1991, p. 49). This is evident in Wesley’s use of the term connexion.

The strong emphasis on the pursuit of holiness, as being inextricable to inclusion within the Methodist movement is captured by Eli:

Discipleship demanded real commitment, and because a lack of commitment could be disruptive and hinder development, Wesley’s groups adopted both selective admission and trial membership. Class membership was always a prerequisite for continuing membership in Methodist society. Class members were, in terms of rules or criteria, to do no harm, to avoid evil in every kind, and to do good of every possible sort, to all persons. They were also to attend upon all the ordinances of God.

(George 1993, pp. 68–69)

This selective admission policy is also reflected in Wesley’s references to the term connexion in his journals (Jackson 1872, vol. 11, p. 402). For example, his first reference to this term is a summary of a Sermon preached during a visit to Germany in the summer of 1738 (Watson 2014, pp. 73–74). Here he observes that there is “no connexion between God and the ungodly. There is no tie to unite them. They are altogether separate from each other. They have nothing in common.” This reference is notable in that it reflects the way in which Wesley often used the term during his lifetime. Essentially, Wesley tried to ensure that those who sought to “flee the wrath to come” (Jackson 1872, vol. 4, p. 290), those who sought to be part of the Methodist connexion, were truly seeking to live holy lives (as he understood it). This point is captured in another reference to the term “connexion”, in August 1744, which relates to a Thomas Williams with whom he parted because of “gross slanders” (Jackson 1872, vol. 1, p. 476):

Monday, 23, when I set out for Bristol, I flattered myself that the work was done; but, upon my return, I found I had done just nothing; so that on Thursday, AUGUST 2, I was constrained to declare in the society, that Thomas Williams was no longer in connexion with us.

(Jackson 1872, vol. 1, p. 468)

This illustrates how John Wesley was in an intentional relationship with his preachers, whom he described as being in connexion with him and subject to his authority. Thus, the term is used positively by Wesley to connect new converts together into a network of societies served by lay preachers under Wesley’s leadership (Jackson 1872, vol. 3, p. 255). The term is also used negatively to denote those with whom Wesley had separated. This last point should not be understated. Indeed, of the many references to the term “connexion” in Wesley’s journal, the vast majority are used in this negative sense (Jackson 1872, vol. 2, p. 253).

The term society relates particularly to the eighteenth-century context in which Methodism emerged. At this time there were a number of voluntary societies created in response to social, moral and religious problems (Rack 1973, 1987, p. 582). The emphasis placed upon morality, “fleeing the wrath to come,” within early Methodism coheres with this trend (Macquiban 2002, p. 131). The tightly controlled nature of the early Methodist societies is captured in the following extract from the 1744 Conference in Bristol:

Q. 18. How shall we prevent improper Persons from insinuating themselves into the Society? A. 1. Give [Membership] Tickets to none till they are recommended by a Leader, with whom they have met three Months on Trial; 2. Give Notes to none but those who are recommended by one you know, or till they have met three or four Times in a Class; 3. Give them the Rules the first Time they meet.

(Wesley and Wesley 1770, p. 15; Rogal 2006)

Concerning the smaller accountability groups called “Bands,” the Conference also stated that:

Q. 20. Should we insist every where on the Band Rules ? Particularly, that relating to Ruffles? A. By all Means. This is no Time to give any Encouragement to Superfluity of Apparel. Therefore give no Band-Tickets to any in England, Scotland, or Ireland, till they have left them off. In order to this, 1. Read in every Society the “Thoughts concerning Dress.” 2. In visiting the Classes, be very mild, but very strict. 3. Allow no exempt Case, not even of a married Woman: Better one suffer than many.

(Wesley and Wesley 1770, pp. 15–16)

The above emphasises the way in which early Methodism maintained strict boundaries around who was permitted to participate in its societies and bands (Wesley 1743). This indicates that, while accepting all who wanted to “flee the wrath to come,” Wesley strongly encouraged the expulsion of anyone who failed to maintain this focus. This is not to suggest, however, that Wesley sought to create an “inward looking community” disinterested in the needs of wider society (George 1993, p. 65).

Wesley was deeply concerned for the society in which he lived. His utmost desire was that, through the transformation of the Methodist people, the social order itself might be transformed. Eli rightly notes the way in which a pervasive individualistic interpretation of the Methodist movement has led a number of scholars to overlook the fact that the formation of individuals took place within community, within bands and societies. It was within these small groups that characters were transformed in order to become transformers within society. He writes:

This community strived to influence society by means of its characteristics, for these demonstrated its rootedness in Christ. It was to be ‘seasoned’ with grace, so that grace moved through this community to all others. As model and exemplar, the community’s mission would be to communicate Christian perspectives and values, providing an orientation towards the priorities of the kingdom of God. Wesley’s understanding of Christian community as a light demands an anchorage in concrete actions that are both visible and social, available for all to see and to benefit from. The community was to demonstrate the reality of alternative priorities and possibilities.

(George 1993, p. 70)

Members of these communities of holiness were therefore called to engage with the social order, to let their faith be manifest within the world (George 1993, pp. 22–26, 64). That being said, Wesley understood the dangers that a “lack of commitment” could bring and placed considerable emphasis on ensuring that members continued to evidence spiritual growth, removing those who did not (George 1993, pp. 68–69). These points are reflected in his understanding of participation at the Lord’s Supper.

5. John Wesley and the Open Table

The practice of admitting everyone to the Lord’s Table has become commonplace within BM (Shim 2013, p. 24). The following citation from Youngson illustrates the rationale behind this approach:

Today, as we welcome children to the Lord’s table…we do not have secret ceremonies where only the inner circle [those] holy enough are allowed to join in…The minister is no more or less holy than anyone else.”.

(Youngson 2018, p. 3)

A similar theme is present within the Strategy for Justice, Dignity and Solidarity which states that “all people are made in the image of God,” and as a result the Methodist church upholds that “all are equally welcome at the table of Jesus Christ, and that the Holy Spirit breathes life into each one of us” (British Methodist Church 2021). What is interesting here is that John Wesley’s name is often used to justify this inclusive eucharistic policy. For example, the Conference Report entitled “His Presence Makes the Feast” states that:

The present and almost universal Methodist custom of inviting to the Lord’s Table ‘all those who love the Lord Jesus Christ’ (the so-called ‘open table’) is a phenomenon that developed in the twentieth century. The primary motive behind this practice is the belief that none should be prevented from finding and receiving the love and nourishment which Christ offers at his table. It enshrines Wesley’s concept of the Lord’s Supper as a ‘converting ordinance’ open to all ‘seekers’ and avoids deciding at each celebration who are ‘members’ and who are not.

(British Methodist Church 2003, p. 20)

It is all too easy for contemporary British Methodists to read John Wesley’s eucharistic practice through the lens of the Methodist Worship book (British Methodist Church 1999b), which deliberately sought to challenge the add-on culture that had formed a historic part of BM. However, while it is true that the large majority of 21st-century BMs consider it highly inappropriate for the church to police who, and who is not, permitted to receive communion, Wesley’s own position was far more complicated (British Methodist Church 2003).

At the outset it should be stated that, until Wesley’s death, communion services were not supposed to be held in Methodist premises. That being said, as an ordained priest, Wesley certainly did exercise a ministry of word and sacrament and it is clear that his eucharistic theology developed over time. He was initially influenced considerably by the practice of the early church which, at a certain point in the service, dismissed catechumens, seekers and various others prior to the celebration of the eucharist. The transmission of this early Christian practice to Wesley was shaped by writers such as Cave (1840, p. 162), Fleury (1843, p. 131), Horneck (1724, pp. 482–83) and non-jurors (Hammond 2016, pp. 33–39, 126). An example of the latter is Thomas Deacon whose publication of the Clementine Eucharistic Liturgy opened with the declaration “That none but the Faithful are to be present at this Office” (Deacon 1734, p. 74). Wesley’s acceptance of this ancient practice can be seen in the “list of grievances” brought against him in August 1737, prior to his running away from Georgia.

While many suggest that Wesley’s views softened over time, Wainwright firmly challenges the idea that Wesley can be used to justify current practices: “there is no active support in Wesley for the weird and sentimental practice of parts of late Methodism in regularly welcoming the unbaptised to the Lord’s Table” (Wainwright 1987, p. 85; White 1983, p. 129; Staples 1991, p. 263). Despite these protestations, it is evident that Wesley saw the eucharist as a converting ordinance. His journal for 1740 illustrates his position in this regard:

(1) That the Lord’s Supper was ordained by God to be a means of conveying to men either preventing, or justifying, or sanctifying grace, according to their several necessities. (2) That the persons for whom it was ordained are all those who know and feel that they want the grace of God, either to restrain them from sin, or to show their sins forgiven, or to renew their souls in the image of God. (3) That inasmuch as we come to His table, not to give Him anything, but to receive whatsoever He sees best for us, there is no previous preparation indispensably necessary, but a desire to receive whatsoever He pleases to give. And (4) That no fitness is required at the time of communicating, but a sense of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness; everyone who knows he is fit for hell being just fit to come to Christ in this as well as all other ways of His appointment.

(Wesley 1938, vol. 2, pp. 361–62)

The above appears to contradict Wainwright’s position in that, here, Wesley implies that “no previous preparation” is needed. Indeed, the citation above led to criticism from the Bishop of London, Edmund Gibson (1669–1748) who felt that Methodists were being encouraged to “join in Communion” in a manner that was “very irregular, and contrary to the Directions laid down in the Rubrick” (Gibson 1744, p. 4). In a letter responding to the Bishop’s concerns, Wesley firmly rejected that he should be interpreted as suggesting that “no previous preparation” for communion is necessary and that anyone could communicate without “a sincere trust in God.” Moreover, Wesley also rejected the Bishop’s reading of his statement that “no fitness is required at the time of communicating” (Wesley 1747). Wesley argued that we must approach the communion table with “a sense of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness; every one who knows he is fit for hell being just fit to come to Christ in this as well as in all other ways of His appointment.” Moreover, he responded that, even if they have a “sense of our utter sinfulness and helplessness”, they must also have “earnest desires of universal holiness” (Wesley 1747).

The idea that Wesley believed everyone should be admitted to communion is also challenged in his Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion. Here Wesley challenges priests to refuse Holy Communion to certain individuals and attributes the nation’s woes to their failure to separate the “Holy and the Profane, him that feareth God, and him that feareth him not” (Wesley 1745, p. 52). Wesley’s support for excluding certain individuals from the Lord’s supper is also evident in the minutes of the 1747 Conference held in London:

Q. 5. How shall we keep off unwary [unworthy] communicants ? A. By being exactly careful whom we admit into the Society; and 2. By giving notes to none but those who come to us on the days appointed in each quarter. Q. 6. How shall we thoroughly purge the Bands ? A. In visiting the classes meet those who are in the Bands every morning before the rest, and examine them as strictly as you can both as to their heart and life. 2. Meet the married men and married women apart, the first Wednesday and Sunday after each visitation: the single men and single women apart on the second Wednesday and Sunday.

(Wesleyan Historical Society 1896, p. 49)

The above illustrates the idea that admission to the Lord’s table should be inextricably linked to admission to a society. Thus, even if Wesley has been interpreted as having a low bar for receiving communion, the above illustrates how membership of the Methodist movement was rigorously controlled.2

6. Conclusions

This juxtaposition of contemporary BM and John Wesley’s theology and ministry is revealing. Taken together, the evidence suggests that while Wesley was inclusive, in that he wanted all people to pursue scriptural holiness, it is also clear that he regularly expelled members whom he judged to have failed in this endeavour. The above illustrates that a central difference in this regard relates to alternative conceptions of sin and holiness within contemporary BM. Here a relational understanding of sin leads contemporary BM to understand holiness as the inclusion of all people (Rowland 2024, pp. 174–76). This dovetails with an inclusive interpretation of Arminianism in which all people, through the reconciling work of Christ, will be saved if they relate well with each other. This can be contrasted with Wesley, who interpreted Arminianism to mean that, because we can fall away, we need to ensure that people continue to live according to scriptural holiness in order for them to “flee the wrath to come”.