vols. (London: Wesleyan Methodist Book Room, n.d.; reprinted Grand
Notes to Pages 113-16 9:
The "communism" in view here is not, of course, that of State ownership, still less that of state tyranny, whether in Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, or other forms. This Pentecostal communism corresponds to what Marx (in the following century) called "primitive communism," except that here it is not a case of original innocence but of regenerated love. See my "Was the Founder of Methodism a Communist?" The United Methodist Reporter (Oct.
21, 1988); and "Wesley's Preferential Option for the Poor," Quarterly Review 9/3 (Fall 1989): 10-19. Although the terms primitive communism and pentecostal communism are technically correct,
I have yielded to commun(al)ism as a concession to the sensibilities of anxious readers.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, new edition in 2 10. vols. (London: Wesleyan Methodist Book Room, n.d.; reprinted Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981); hereafter cited as Notes. This edition has no page numbers. As a consequence, the references here are to the chapter and verse of the NT text.
E. H. Sugden, in his notes to the sermon on "Scriptural Christianity," goes out of his way to contest Wesley's own view. Sugden's comment on Wesley's hal use of the example of Acts 2 and 4 is as follows: "It is to be observed in regard to the communion of the Church at Jerusalem, (1) that it was not compulsory. From Acts vy, itis clear that both before and after the sale of his possessions, it was open to Ananias to do as he thought best with it; (2) that the realization of all their capital for immediate distribution was an economical mistake, however praiseworthy its motive; for in a very few years it became necessary for St. Paul to seek contributions all over the world for the poor saints at Jerusalem." See Sugden, The Standard Sermons of John Wesley, 2 vols. (London: Epworth Press, 1961), 1:97-98).
Here Sugden passes over in silence Wesley's own interpretation of Acts 5 and, moreover, leads the reader to suppose that this reference to Acts was an isolated aberration on Wesley's part. The condescending reference to a "praiseworthy motive" for the practice of the pentecostal community leaves out of account the fact that this motive was no other than the Holy
Spirit. Finally the supposition that there was a connection between this practice and the subsequent collection for the poor in Jerusalem is not only without any textual support, but also trivializes the theological importance of that collection in Paul's own perspective.
Wesley does occasionally refer to property in connection with the idea of 12. civil liberty (see XI:41-2, 81, 87, 92, 95, 137). However, while Wesley argues forcefully for liberty of conscience and especially freedom of religion, he does not make an independent case for civil liberty but rather accepts the definiton of Blackstone (X1I:95), who emphasizes the freedom from arbitrary loss of life, freedom, and property. What is at stake here is that one should be protected from robbery, murder, or imprisonment, whether on the part of the State or of any other force. Wesley maintains that this is the liberty that the people of England have and of which the slaves are deprived (X1:81). The references to this civil liberty all occur in Wesley's political essays on the theme of liberty and the American rebellion
(see Thoughts Upon Liberty, A Calm Address to Our American Colonies, Some Observations on Liberty, and A Calm Address to the I nhabitants of England). The right to property is by no means an absolute right. It is merely the right not to be deprived arbitrarily of property. For Wesley, this, of course, permits taxation by the State in accordance with the constitution (X1:89).
These references to the civil liberty of property do not come into conflict