OF WESLEY’S ARMINIANISM
Luke L. Keefer, Jr.
Source: Wesleyan Theological Journal
essential elements in any aspect of John Wesley is a little like catching a
greased pig. For a man of plain words, Wesley is elusive without intending to be
so. He lived so long and wrote so much that one must have massive persistence to
pursue him through successive decades and endless volumes. This is the fourth
time for me to go after Wesley’s Arminianism in a concerted fashion. It is
like chasing a receding horizon. Considerable territory is covered, but one is
conscious of how much needs to be done. Most recently I have focused on the
volumes of the Arminian Magazine that Wesley personally edited before his death.
The characteristics that are shared in this paper are derived from his entire
written corpus, but what is most immediate are the impressions that have newly
emerged from or been strengthened by these fourteen volumes.
Arminianism is Anglicized and Personalized
clearly links himself to the seventeenth century Remonstrants. The title of the
Arminian Magazine is one evidence of this. But how well did he know Arminius and
the early Remonstrants who popularized the movement? I have yet to pinpoint when
Wesley read any of Arminius’ writings. The clear implication of his short
treatise “The Question, ‘What is an Arminian?’ Answered by a Lover of Free
is that he had personally read somewhat in Arminius. For he defends Arminius so
particularly on the issues of original sin and justification by faith, that one
feels he must have had some grounds for his trust in Arminius’ orthodoxy on
More to the point is his challenge near the end of the treatise: “And how can
any man know what Arminius held, who has never read one page of his writings?”
Wesley stands self-condemned if this were his own case.
extant diaries, however, give us no hint about the time or the extensiveness of
his personal reading of Arminius. Possibly the diaries from the outbreak of the
Calvinistic controversy in 1770 through the first number of the Arminian
Magazine in 1778 contain the needed evidence. But they are among the missing
volumes of Wesley’s life. His preface to the first volume of the magazine
laments the virtual ignorance people commonly have of Arminius, owing to the
fact that no good biography on his life was available.
The first article of the fledgling magazine, therefore, is Wesley’s attempt to
provide a short life of Arminius. It is an extract of the funeral oration
delivered by Peter Bertius.
Part of this sketch refers to Arminius’ “Declaration of Sentiments” and
his debates with Junius and the English Puritan, William Perkins, on the
question of predestination.
Probably Wesley was simply following Bertius in these references. By themselves
they are no proof that he had personally read these treatises of Arminius.
was a compulsive extractor of those writings he felt most profitable on a given
subject. Why then did he never extract anything by Arminius, not even in the
fourteen volumes of the magazine named after him? Nor have I yet encountered in
Wesley’s writings a direct quotation from Arminius. What we have are general
statements about Arminius’ life and thought. The strong suspicion is that
Arminius’ works were rare in
Wesley knew of Arminius came to him through two basic sources.
he knew something of Arminius through Remonstrant spokesmen. In the year Wesley
was ordained a deacon at
second source of Arminian theology was the
factors combine here to make this a significant insight as to the particular
cast of his Arminianism. James the First had sent representatives of the English
church to the Synod of Dort. They were a moderating force on the synod both in
spirit and theology. Nonetheless, they joined in the council’s rejection of
the Remonstrant position. Not long after the Synod, however, both James I and
the leading English bishops did a radical about-face. Scandalized at the
persecuting spirit of the synod’s proceedings, and now convinced that Arminius
was more correct than the Calvinists, they moved the English church decisively
in an Arminian direction.
religious factors lay at the heart of this about-face. Archbishop Laud was a
convinced latitudinarian in ecclesiastical polity, the very opposite of
restrictive Calvinism. More to the point was the desire of the
was quite aware of these facts, for the version just presented is taken from his
own Ecclesiastical History, published in 1781 as an English extract of von
Mosheim’s work on the history of the Christian Church.
Steeped as he was in the Caroline divines, when this Anglican Arminianism had
triumphed over aggressive Calvinism, he was conscious of his own sympathy with
Arminianism because it was harmonious with the testimony of the early Church.
Furthermore, he shared the deep revulsion that the Carolinian divines had for
the Puritan involvement in the English Civil War, when the spirit of
points to the conclusion that Wesley’s Arminianism was mediated to him by
means of the Anglican Church. Basic ideas of Arminius were passed along, but
they had taken on a distinctive English accent. The Methodists would call
themselves Arminians, but they were more the cousins of Arminius than they were
his direct descendants.
we must resist the temptation to define Wesley merely as the product of his
sources. His own creative thought in the development of his theology, as well as
his reflections upon the course of the Methodist Revival, had as much to do with
his brand of Arminianism as did the English context of his religious formation.
We can acknowledge that Wesley’s context predisposed him to Arminianism; but
we should never concede that it predestined him to it!
attempt to label Wesley has had to acknowledge that in certain respects he
doesn’t fit the mold. Thus he has been painted as a Catholic, Anglican,
Pietist, Calvinist, Lutheran, Puritan, Moravian, etc. depending upon the author
in question. Every attempt has ended with its “sic
et non,” alike in some respects and different in others. His Arminianism
is no different. From the point of his studies for ordination, when the
seventeenth article of the
fundamental perception of God as holy and loving, rather than primarily
sovereign as in Calvinism, gave him a different perception on grace. It was
without limit, both in terms of those who could be reached by it and in terms of
how far it could penetrate into the human heart in its triumph over sin.
His particular development of prevenient grace allowed him to walk a narrow
ledge between Calvinism and Pelagianism in regard to sin, free will, and the
nature of saving faith. His keen attention to the psychology of religious
experience made him nearly a singular religious thinker in his time. He grasped,
then, what it has taken the rest of the Christian world nearly two more
centuries to acknowledge fully. Dogmatic theology cannot be done in isolation,
for the Word of the living God always confronts real people in specific human
contexts. The truth of a doctrinal proposition was to be tested, he believed, at
least in part, by its correspondence with Christian experience. When Wesley
objected to the effects of Calvinist preaching upon both sinners and saints, he
was doing more than questioning its pragmatic influence; he was challenging the
very truthfulness of the doctrines involved.
should be said on these points, but enough has been mentioned to indicate that
Wesley contributed theological insights to Arminian thought as well as derived
them from the heritage. He stands as a leading figure in the ongoing debate
between Arminianism and Calvinism. He did more than cast his vote of “aye”
for the Arminian understanding of the Christian faith. He took his turn in the
debate, speaking as an Englishman and persuading others by his particular
arguments. Those who truly heard the debate sensed that in Wesley Arminianism
was Anglicized and personalized.
Arminianism Is Integrative Rather than Systematized
Paul K. Jewett’s book, Election and Predestination, he expresses the
conviction that Calvinism enjoys the advantage of the best theologians of the
ages being on its side.
While he finds Wesley to be more to his liking than Arminius, he fails to see in
Wesley a real threat to Calvinistic logic. “Wesley’s rejection of
predestination,” he writes, “was—fortunately—more emotional than
critical. Not given to the rigors of thought of which dogmatics is made, he
never pursued the implications of his Arminian view of salvation.”
If we can get past the injudicious lack of scholarly objectivity in Jewett’s
statements, we will discover an important element, a half-truth, that
illustrates a characteristic aspect of Wesley’s Arminianism.
charge against Wesley is an old libel. It is that Wesley is not a systematic
theologian, and here many of Wesley’s friends are as likely to agree as are
his foes. But we must not quit the field at this stage of the contest. There are
many turns in this game before the final score is known.
theologies often involve a first principle, a theological prime mover from which
all other Christian truths get their start. For Luther the key issue is
justification by faith. It casts its shadow over all areas of his thought.
Calvin is an even better example of a systematics person. Here God’s
sovereignty is the starting point, and all other doctrines fall in step to the
beat of this drum. One will search in vain for such a controlling principle in
Wesley. Neither Arminianism nor Christian perfection, to cite some prime
candidates, function this way for Wesley.
far Jewett’s charge still stands. But if systematic theology is the best form
of Christian thought, then the Bible is an inferior product by comparison. And
Moses, David, Isaiah, Paul, John, and Jesus, also, stand condemned as sub-par
thinkers. For the Bible is an integrative book, seeing issues wholistically,
dealing with them naturally as the occasion demands. Wesley, who aimed to be a
man of this book above all else, is in the same mold.
is not to say that the Biblical writers could not think systematically when the
occasion demanded. They could demonstrate the interrelation of truths and pick
their way through complex issues to reasonable answers. But that is not the only
way to present truth, and most of life is not so rigidly systematized. The Bible
sets, therefore, the true pattern for theological discourse when it addresses
the human condition as it is. So we need not quail under the charge of
Wesley’s lack of a system. He keeps some very good company in sacred history.
It matters not that he presents his theology in sermons, letters, conference
minutes, hymns, and tracts for the times. If his theology is Biblical, logical,
understandable, and helpful, is it any less valuable because it is not titled
The Institutes of the Christian Religion and cannot be reduced to a five point
is my hunch that theological preferences are determined more by psychological
disposition than we often like to admit. There are systematizers by nature who
must reduce every issue to a paradigm, a syllogism, or a category. Nothing so
annoys them as ambiguity or complementary truths. It upsets their whole mental
universe. Give them their system and all of life falls in place.
other fifty percent of the human race thinks just as accurately, but it thinks
differently. These people see things wholistically, impressed by how matters are
in the course of things. Their orientation is toward practices rather than
theoretics, and they are more synthetic than analytic in thought.
I suspect that many great Christian systematizers belong to the first group. And
many others belong to the second. In terms of the brain research of recent
decades, it is time now to challenge the nonsense that systematizers are better
thinkers than are the integrative thinkers. Jewett will not likely approve of
the move, but it is time for the Christian world to invite to more worthy places
those whom the systematizers have consigned to the lowest seats at the feast.
is instructive to see how Wesley approaches Arminianism integratively. In
general, his Arminianism is implicit rather than explicit. He goes about his
task as a Christian, assuming the truth of the Arminian understanding. He feels
an obligation to every person he encounters. His evangelistic preaching is full
of hope, even for the worst of sinners. His nurture of believers is motivated by
the fear that having begun the Christian race they will not persevere until the
end. For the most part, he does not attempt to develop a full-blown Arminian
theology, at least not in print. Rather, he addresses the practical issue of the
topic that the particular situation demanded.
writings against Calvinism can be grouped in four periods. During these times
his Arminianism is given a somewhat more explicit expression. The first period
could be called the “initial Calvinistic controversy.” It began in 1739 and
ran through his rift with Whitefield in the 1740’s. Wesley had barely
discovered his vocation as an evangelist before predestinarian ideas, strong in
sermon on “Free Grace,”
the decade of the 1750’s, Wesley published two new pieces on the subject. They
were “Serious Thoughts Upon the Perseverance of the Saints” (1751) and
“Predestination Calmly Considered” (1752).
As the titles themselves suggest, the mood now was a calmer one. The Wesleys and
Whitefield had covered their differences for the sake of revival harmony. The
treatises seem to be directed more to the teaching need of the Methodist
Societies than toward outside adversaries,
though the first of these involved Wesley in a brief pamphlet battle with Dr.
Gill on the subject of the perseverance of the saints. His final response to Dr.
Gill was a twelve page pamphlet, composed entirely of selections from the
“Hymns on God’s Everlasting Love.”
Such was the confidence of Wesley in these hymns as statements of theology!
third period, generally confined to the 1760’s, was a particular conflict over
the meaning of “imputed righteousness.”
It started innocently enough with Wesley’s exchanges with James Hervey, his
fourth period began in 1770 and continued to the end of Wesley’s life. Two
events made 1770 a fateful year: George Whitefield’s death and the Minutes of
the Methodist Conference, declaring how Wesley’s Societies had heretofore
leaned too near Calvinism. The issue now was the antinomian effect Calvinism
could have among the Methodists. A pamphlet war resulted, with Wesley’s new
adversaries being Augustus Toplady and the Hill brothers, Richard and Rowland.
temper of these new, younger opponents convinced Wesley that there was no peace
to be found with the Calvinistic party. After several exchanges with them in
controversial treatises, he decided on a different course. On one hand, his
friend, John Fletcher, issued his Checks to Antinomianism. Here was the Arminian
cause set forth systematically and with good Christian spirit. Wesley
enthusiastically endorsed it as the response of his party to Calvinism. On the
other hand, Wesley decided to begin publishing a periodical called the Arminian
Magazine. Begun in 1778, it was to be his sustained effort to refute Calvinism
and support universal redemption. Indeed, he published nothing on this topic in
the last fourteen years of his life apart from the articles in the magazine.
composes very little that is new for the magazine apart from sermons that are
included from time to time, most of which do not directly relate to the subject.
He reprinted many of his earlier publications, both his own compositions and
extracted treatises on the subject. To this he added new extracts, some
stretched out through the various numbers of the magazine for a year or more.
Most of these were by English authors, though he included a long excerpt of
Sabastian Castellio against predestination.
Some were fairly heavy going, requiring not only a thorough grasp of Scripture,
church history, and theology, but also an ability to follow the methods of
argumentation current in the European universities from the sixteenth to the
eighteenth centuries. These more weighty articles prompted letters of protest to
which Wesley replied in letters and prefaces to subsequent volumes of the
one wades through the articles in volume after volume of the magazine, he is
impressed that there is nothing new under the sun. The most familiar arguments
on both sides of the question are stated and examined. The relevant passages of
Scripture, plus some that cannot be so characterized, are cited and explained,
not only once, but several times over. It is clear Dr. Jewett had expended no
energy in the Arminian Magazine. For if Wesley did not have the time to write
systematic theology, he certainly had the mind to understand it and to perceive
what sources set forth his sentiments with the greatest force. And time did seem
to be the issue for Wesley. Systematic theologians are rarely to be found among
those who preach on a daily basis, while also tending to pastoral duties for
literally thousands of souls.
Arminian Magazine is a veritable body of divinity on the controverted points
between Calvinists and Arminians. It is not reduced to confessional statements,
nor is it presented in discrete chapters under particular headings. But it is
there, nonetheless, most of it being in composition and length such as simple
readers could take in. It was for such an audience Wesley intended the magazine
as he did most of his publications. One who wishes to write for the popular
audience must excel in practical divinity, theology so integrated with the
concerns and the language of the masses that it can communicate with them. What,
in the final analysis, we might ask Dr. Jewett reflects the largeness of one’s
mind? Is it the ability to write learned tomes for the students of systematics?
Or is it the ability to express the most sublime truths of theology in ways that
the masses will understand? However one might be disposed to judge the issue of
mental ability, one might be forgiven the impression that Wesley has chosen the
Arminianism Is Pastorally Motivated
substance and style of Wesley’s Arminianism is closely linked to his
ministerial motivations. Thus, there is a natural relationship between the
second and third characteristics, which have a mutual impact upon one another.
statement in Wesley’s letter of July 30, 1773, to Mrs. Woodhouse, helps to
introduce us to the issue.
point they aim at is this—to make Calvinists. Our point is to make Christians.
They endeavour to convert men to the dear Decrees; we to convert them to God.
is as much a half truth about the Calvinists as Jewett’s remarks were about
Wesley. For Calvinists then, as now, had as their purpose the making of
Christians. But the half truth contains an insight into a difference in style
between the two systems and, consequently, their motivations in ministry.
Sensing this difference helps us identify another of the characteristics of
one’s approach to Christianity is highly motivated by systematics, then the
exposition of that dogmatic formulation holds a primary role in communication. A
Calvinistic preacher or writer is readily recognized, for his dogmatic structure
is inextricably linked with his presentation of the gospel. Such communication
can be compared to looking at a human skeleton. The entire bone system is
immediately open to view. All the parts are clearly seen, their points of
connection, and the entire configuration. Herein lies its appeal to certain
thinkers and its compelling power as a system of Christian truth.
Arminianism is quite different. It is like looking at a human body, where the
skeletal system is assumed but not immediately obvious. In fact, one would be
hard put to demonstrate the existence of some bones of the body in a living
person. The other parts of the human system disguise the skeletal system. Yet
that skeletal system is present, fulfilling its function in relation to all the
other bodily systems. This is the key issue. It is only one system along with
all the other systems of the body, important in its own right and capable of
particular investigation, but not fundamental in any sense that the others are
not also co-fundamental. This is the important issue that Wesley’s half-truth
did not often preach on the topics in dispute between the Calvinists and the
Arminians. At the height of the last controversy he admitted he should preach on
it more frequently, saying that heretofore he scarce preached on it once in
every fifty sermons.
He cautioned his ministers at this time against getting caught up in the issue
and preaching against Calvinism too frequently. Opposing false doctrine was not
to occupy too much of their time or thoughts. They were to keep to the key
issue: “Christ dying for us and living in us.”
Calvinism was to be resisted calmly, not by controversial sermons, but by
“visiting the people from house to house, dispersing the little tracts as it
were with both hands.”
pastoral approach was motivated by the fact that he considered Calvinism to be
an opinion and not a fundamental doctrine of Scripture. His letter to John
makes this very point. Both Calvinists and Arminians were leading people to true
Christian faith. Thus, their doctrinal views must not have touched the
fundamental issues of Christianity. He admitted that thirty years earlier he and
Charles had felt differently about Calvinism. Experience had made them wiser.
They still thought these opinions were wrong, but they were not the fundamental
kind of wrong that merited all one’s opposition, especially in public. The
more secluded pastoral settings were more suited to guarding against them.
place of dogmatic theology in preaching was one of the key issues in the final
Calvinistic controversy of Wesley’s life. Augustus Toplady had translated and
published Zanchius’ treatise on the doctrine of absolute predestination. It
defined the key terms of the Calvinistic system and closed with arguments why
this doctrine should be preached publicly to both sinners and saints. The
reasoning was that these doctrines were fundamental to the entire gospel and
that the gospel would be distorted if these items were not included.
Rev. John Erskine of
felt insisting upon differing opinions interfered with the real business of
converting men’s souls. His approach made Arminianism a penultimate issue and
not the ultimate one. Calvinistic dogmatics had made its systematic theology
identical with the gospel. At least in Wesley’s day, it had found no way to
effectively distinguish them. Thus, making people Christian was synonymous with
making them think Calvinistically. For Wesley the issue was to make people
Christians, hopefully in the Arminian persuasion, but not necessarily so. Thus,
what is often called a matter of Wesley’s evangelical pragmatism is really
motivated by this more fundamental reason.
aspect of this pastoral conditioning of Wesley’s Arminianism was its care of
souls. Wesley states the issue in one of his letters to Mary Bishop.
grievously are they mistaken (as are well-nigh the whole body of modern
Calvinists) who imagine that as soon as children are born they need take no more
care of them! We do not find it so. The chief care then begins.
was the Arminian branch of the Methodist revival that developed the Methodist
discipline and the small group structures for nurture. Whitefield and the
Calvinistic Methodists did not see the same necessity for them. Consequently, as
Wesley observed early on and Whitefield lamented later, many of Whitefield’s
converts were as a rope of sand. Again, on the surface it looks like a merely
pragmatic difference in ministerial style. Underlying the two approaches,
however, was a vital difference in theology over the perseverance of the saints.
The practice of both groups was a reflection of their doctrinal convictions.
could say with some justification that the first Calvinistic controversy at
Arminian Magazine is a vivid testimony to Wesley’s pastoral Arminianism. One
is immediately struck by the material that comprises the various numbers of the
magazine. In his most concerted attempt to explain and enforce Arminian
theology, by far the greater part of the magazine does not relate directly to
the doctrinal issues in question. This becomes even more pronounced after one
gets past the first two volumes. But even in the first two volumes there is much
that does not relate to the Calvinism-Arminianism debate.
preface to the first volume, however, has notified us of this fact. He indicates
that each number of the magazine will have four parts. The first part will be
“a defence of that grand Christian doctrine, ‘God willeth all men to be
saved.’” The second part will be the exemplary life of some Christian,
regardless of his denominational association. The third part will be of letters
which contain the “experience of pious persons.” Poetry would fill the
Early on much of the poetry came from the “Hymns on God’s Everlasting
Love.” Later, poetry of all kinds became more prominent. Thus, only half of
the early numbers address the issue of Arminian thought. The proportional space
given to doctrinal defense diminishes in time, until it makes up barely
twenty-five percent of the magazine. Wesley himself was sensible of this drift.
In the preface to the seventh volume, he says the magazine’s sub-title was
misleading. In the first six volumes it read, “Consisting of Extracts and
Treatises on Universal Redemption.” He would change that by adding the word
“chiefly,” so henceforth it would read, “consisting chiefly,” etc.
observes, however, that the later volumes were only a confirmation of his
primary concern throughout. True, his first number reflected his determination
that a sufficiently vigorous response should be given to the Calvinism of his
But there, already, at least half the magazine was concerned with “practical,
heart Christianity.” That this practical Christianity was his supreme interest
is quite clear in his preface to the third volume of the magazine.
the following, some pages will always be bestowed (as was originally designed)
in proving the grand doctrine of universal redemption, and clearing it of all
objections. But this will not take up so large a compass as it has done in some
of the preceding numbers. I do not intend that the controversial part of any
future number shall exceed sixteen pages. By this means there will be more room
for what is more to my taste, and I believe more for the profit of the serious
reader; I mean such Lives as contain the height and depth of genuine,
scriptural, rational religion.
the truth of his letter to Mrs. Woodhouse is verified. Making Christians is the
central concern; promoting Arminianism is secondary to it.
final example of this pastoral orientation is seen in his visits to Holland.
Twice after he began the Arminian Magazine, he went to Holland
for several weeks at a time. One might have expected that he was after Dutch
materials of the Remonstrant cause for the magazine. This, however, was not the
case. Rather, his time was wholly given to visiting small groups of pious people
who had learned of him through his writings. Christian perfection was often the
focus of his comments, but his journals make not one reference to Arminianism,
even though his diaries indicate that he was preparing copy for the Arminian
Magazine during these trips. Even his visits to Leiden, where Arminians had taught theology in the university, seemed not to have
stirred any historical interest in the dramatic events of the preceding century.
What an eloquent testimony to his pastorally motivated Arminianism!
the style of his theology motivate his pastoral orientation? Or did his pastoral
context fashion his style of theology? Both are likely true, for their mutual
influence was characteristic of Wesley. Seeing the relationship between the two
is essential to understanding Wesley’s Arminianism.
the Calvinism nor the Arminianism of our day parallels that of eighteenth
The Works of John Wesley. 14 vols. (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1958–59), X, 358–361.
John Wesley, ed., The Arminian Magazine:
Consisting of Extracts and Original Treatises on Universal Redemption, 14
Ibid., I, 9–17.
Ibid., I, 13 and 15.
This fact is well stated in Carl Bangs’
Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury
Press, 1985), pp. 18–19.
V. H. H. Green, The Young Mr. Wesley (New York:
St. Martin’s Press Inc., 1961), p. 306.
Nehemiah Curnock, ed., The Journal of the Rev.
John Wesley, A.M. 8 vols. (London: Charles H. Kelly, 1909–16), II, 473.
Onva K. Boshears, Jr., John Wesley, The Bookman; A
Study of His
One can quickly verify this by scanning the tables
of contents in the various volumes of the magazine under Wesley’s
editorship. Or one can get the picture even more speedily by reading through
Green’s summary of the contents of the various volumes. Richard Green, The
Works of John and Charles Wesley, A Bibliography: Containing an Exact
Account of all the Publications Issued by The Brothers Wesley Arranged in
Chronological Order (London: C. H. Kelly, 1896), pp. 196–8, 200–1,
204–5, 212–13, 218–19, 22l–2, 224–5, 227–8, 232–3, 234–5,
238–9, 241–2, 245, 248.
Arminian Magazine, I, v.
John Wesley, A Concise Ecclesiastical History,
From the Birth of Christ to the Beginning of the Present Century, 4 vols. (
See his letter to his mother. John Telford, ed.,
The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., 8 vols., (London: The Epworth
Press, 1931), I, 22–23.
Both Deschner and Lindstrom agree, though from
different perspectives, that Wesley’s own theology gives a particular cast
to his Arminianism when applied to the subject of salvation. John Deschner,
Wesley’s christology: An Interpretation (Dallas: Southern Methodist
University Press, 1960), pp.18–23; Harold Lindstrom, Wesley and
Sanctification (London: The Epworth Press, 1950), pp. 19–104.
Paul K. Jewett, Election and Predestination (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985), pp. 3, 62, 66.
Ibid., p. 17.
Works, VII, 373–386.
G. Osborn, ed., The Poetical Works of John and
Charles Wesley, 13 vols., (London: Wesleyan-Methodist Conference Office,
1869), III, 3–106.
Green, Works of John and Charles Wesley, p. 18.
Ibid., pp. 16, 18, 19. Two of these treatises were
included in early volumes of the Arminian Magazine. II, 105–119; V,
 Green, Works of John and Charles Wesley, pp. 74, 76.
Ibid., pp. 76–77.
Osborn, Poetical Works, III, xx; Green, Works of
John and Charles Wesley, p. 87.
“Thoughts on the Imputed Righteousness of
Christ” (1762), “A Treatise on Justification: Extracted from Mr. John
Goodwin” (1765), “An Answer to all that is Material in Letters Just
Published, Under the Name of the Reverend Mr. Hervey” (1765), “The Lord
our Righteousness: A Sermon Preached at the Chapel in West Street” (1765),
and “Some Remarks on a Defense of the Preface to the Edinburgh Edition of
Aspasio Vindicated” (1766). Green, Works of John and Charles Wesley. DD.
120. 128–129. 133–134.
For the titles in question, see Green’s
bibliography. Ibid., pp. 147–148, 154–156, 160, 166–168, 170,
Arminian Magazine, vols. IV and V. The series of
excerpts extends through twenty-one numbers of the magazine for these two
Letters, VI, 34.
Ibid, VI, 295. Note also his letter May 14, 1765,
to John Newton. He says he preaches eight hundred sermons a year and
probably not more than eight a year on Calvinistic subjects. Of the fifty
sermons then in print only one explicitly opposed Calvinism. Ibid. IV. 297.
Ibid., VIII, 69.
Ibid., VII, 136.
Ibid., IV, 297–300.
Works, XIV, 190–198.
Letters, IV, 294–296.
Ibid., V, 344.
Arminian Magazine, I, vi–vii.
Ibid., VII, ii.
Ibid., II, vii–viii.
Ibid., III, v.
Journal, VI, 415, f.n.l.; 416–430; VII,