I’ve been thinking about the framing of the so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral in the Book of Discipline.
Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason.
Scripture is primary, revealing the Word of God “so far as it is necessary for our salvation.” Therefore, our theological task, in both its critical and constructive aspects, focuses on disciplined study of the Bible.
To aid his study of the Bible and deepen his understanding of faith, Wesley drew on Christian tradition, in particular the Patristic writings, the ecumenical creeds, the teachings of the Reformers, and the literature of contemporary spirituality.
Thus, tradition provides both a source and a measure of authentic Christian witness, though its authority derives from its faithfulness to the biblical message.
What’s interesting about this is that it essentially reverses the role of scripture during the period of canonization. Scripture was used to teach the faith of the church, a faith one could locate in various forms of the Rule of Faith. So, in that setting, the Rule of Faith (tradition) was primary, and Scripture illumined the doctrinal claims one found in the Rule of Faith. Works that were thought useful for teaching the faith of the Church in Christian liturgy were eventually canonized. Works that did not teach of the faith of the Church did not make it into the canon.
I don’t dispute that the above statement from the Discipline captures Wesley’s perspective, but did Wesley have it right? Would it be right to say that our faith is revealed in tradition and illumined by scripture? And if Wesley didn’t have it right, can we dispense with the Quadrilateral?
David F. Watson 
Question: Suppose Wesley did get it wrong and faith is revealed in tradition and illumined by scripture. What happens to the authority of Scripture? Are we then under the rule of tradition and not the Kingdom of God as Scripture points? Tradition can be interpreted and changed to meet the varying cultures…which then of the two truly shares in the story of the Incarnation?
Sorry if my earlier post seems a bit quirky, but as I currently understand the meaning and intent behind the Quadrilateral our dispensing of it will depend upon our understanding of authority in Scripture. How does one come into an understanding of God's grace in and through Christ…the church or the Incarnation…that is to say the Word of God?
Tim, thank you for these questions and comments. I don't think this would undermine the authority of scripture. In fact, I think it would help to clarify the matter. And can't scripture also be interpreted in a variety of ways, depending in part on cultural context?
Yes, it can too…just trying to wrestle with it.
But, Tradition is inhabited by the Holy Spirit just as Scripture is. I would go so far as to say John 16 tells us the Holy Spirit will guide us (not force or immediately enlighten us) into all truth. For me, this is where the Great Tradition comes in out, but Tradition gave us Scripture and Scripture gives us Tradition. The authority of Scripture is preserved in and dependent upon Tradition.
http://unsettledchristianity.com/2013/10/a-response-sort-of-to-utsdoc-in-which-i-slam/