[To view the footnotes on this page, scroll down to the bottom of the page. Clicking on the hyperlinked footnotes will take you off site to the notes in the original article location.]
Introduction
John Wesley was the greatest Arminian theologian in church history. In many respects, while his writings do not surpass the philosophical sophistication and depth of James Arminius, nevertheless, having come after Arminius, John Wesley stood in a position to correct shortcomings in previous Arminian theological systems and to improve upon the system as a whole. This then is the key to Wesley’s genius. He kept the best of the past, while learning the lessons of history by seeing and knowing where previous thinkers and movements went wrong and proceeding to fix those mistakes.
John Wesley integrated a puritan ethic into his theology, yet he did not adhere to their Calvinism. While he adopted a Pietist spirituality into his theology, he did not disregard the proper use of the Sacraments as the Moravians had done. Yet on the flip side, by integrating a Pietist spirituality into his theology, Wesley did not fall into the cold and dead ceremonialism of semi-popery that befell the Anglo-Catholic movement a century after Wesley. But being a faithful Anglican, John Wesley did not fall into the opposite extreme of non-sacramental Zwinglianism as is commonly found among the Baptists, Pentecostals, non-denominational churches and even the American Holiness denominations.
Then there is John Wesley’s Arminianism. An Arminianism rooted in both the original Dutch Arminianism of the Remonstrants (the direct successors of Arminius) and the Arminianism already present in the Church of England since the seventeenth century. While a full exposition of the history of Arminianism in the Church of England is beyond the scope of this article and would require an entire book-long treatment to adequately treat the issue with justice, there are important points to highlight in the establishment of Wesley’s roots in Arminian theology.
English and Dutch Arminianism
To begin with, English Arminianism and Dutch Arminianism share a common origin: Philipp Melanchthon and the Lutheran Philippists (especially through Neils Hemmingsen, who is the missing key to the puzzle). To elaborate further on this now forgotten historical fact is beyond the scope of this essay and would require another essay in itself![1] Suffice it here to say, that the reason why the two strands of Arminianism share so much in common, despite developing independently from one another, is due to their shared origin in the Father of Protestant Synergism, Philip Melanchthon. Their common source of origin and influence explains why the two strands were so similar, and when they were made aware of one another’s existence, they allied with one another and mutually influenced one another.
Just as Neils Hemmingsen is the key to a proper understanding of the relationship between Dutch and English Arminianism, so too is Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), an Early Dutch Arminian or Remonstrant. Grotius was a polymath known for his defense of the Just War Theory, his writings on human rights and Natural Law, his promulgation of a new theory of the Atonement known as the Governmental Theory, and his Arminianism. Whereas Neils Hemmingsen represents a common source of origin for the theological influence upon the fathers of Dutch and English Arminianism (James Arminius, and Peter Baro respectively), Grotius represents a bridge that connected the Dutch and English strands of Arminianism.
Grotius traveled to England and met with Bishops in the Church of England, such as John Overall (1606) and Lancelot Andrewes (1613). Bishop Andrewes, a key figure in the translation of the Bible into English known as the King James Version (1611), was greatly impressed by his meeting with Grotius. Bishop Andrewes even went so far as to consider Grotius an expert, or an authority, on the doctrine of Predestination.[2] Is it any wonder then, that Bishop Andrewes protégé, Henry Hammond, thought the world of Grotius!
Bishop John Overall was likewise impressed by Grotius and even kept up correspondence with him. Thus, in a letter dated “London, July 27, 1616,” Bishop Overall writes to Grotius:
“You say, you fear that your application to me may be a hindrance or trouble to me, or else that our friendly correspondence in these perilous times, may give an occasion to slander, but believe me, who solemnly assure you, most worthy Grotius, that nothing can be more welcome to me than your Letters; and that I fear no slander of any mortal man, with respect to this your affair of Predestination and Divine Grace, a cause so just, so holy and so reasonable: for in this matter, it is a very small thing with me, that I should be judged of men’s judgement. Wherefore I rejoice to learn from your Letter, that the State of your church grows by degrees more calm, and that the moderate, nay I might say the better and truer, opinion concerning Predestination, gets ground among you daily. God grant it may do so, yet more and more! But such books are published every day by those who, despising the doctrines of the Fathers, follow none but their own private spirit in matters of faith, that we can scarce hope to see an end of this phrensy so soon.”[3]
Bishop Overall then states, prior to concluding his letter to Grotius, that he (Bishop Overall) is sending over “…a treatise by our Thompson, which you say is printing…”[4] Bishop Overall notes that there are many faults in Grotius’ copy of Thompson’s work due to the negligence of the transcriber, thus Bishop Overall is sending a corrected and more accurate copy for Grotius to “collate with the other.”[5]
Richard “Dutch” Thompson was a Dutch born English theologian and a vocal proponent of Arminianism in England during the early seventeenth century. He was a member of the First Westminster Company that contributed to the translation of portions (namely from the Old Testament) of the King James Bible—the same First Westminster Company that was overseen by Bishop Lancelot Andrewes.
What Bishop Overall is probably referring to in his letter to Grotius is this: Angli Diatriba De Amissione Et Intercisione Gratiae, Et Justificationis (Leiden, NL: Patius, 1616) by Richard Thompson. 1.) This is Richard “Dutch” Thompson’s main treatise of Grace and Justification and therefore pertains to the topic matter at hand, 2.) The date correctly corresponds to the same year as the letter (1616), and 3.) The letter implies that Thompson’s book was being published in the Netherlands, and the publication of this work is listed as Leiden. Thus, not only did Bishop Overall and Hugo Grotius correspond with one another, they even collaborated with one another in defense of a common cause, a mutual agreement on the five disputed points raging among the Dutch Calvinists and Dutch Arminians.
In another letter to Hugo Grotius, dated “London, 20 June 1617,” Bishop Overall writes:
“Your Letter, with your Piece concerning the State’s Orders about Ecclesiastical matters, and the copies of Thompson’s book, are come safe to hand: For all which I return you my thanks, especially for your book, which I immediately pursued with no less than greediness.[6] But as much as I was pleased with the book, so much was I troubled at reading your letter; for from thence I learned that your disputes about Predestination are again imbittered, and through the furious turmoiling (sic) of some hot-headed men, are continually breaking out into the schisms, just as if the preservation of the Catholic Faith depended wholly upon these positions, which are nothing but Theological speculation.”[7]
Finally, in yet another letter dated the 13th of August 1617, Bishop Overall states that, “the Answer of the Remonstrants to the Zeeland letter, I have received and read with pleasure.”[8] John Overall, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, England continues the letter to Grotius telling the Dutch Arminian that he is so “amazed and grieved” that there are so many people (i.e., the Contra-Remonstrants or Dutch Calvinists) who reject the “pious and moderate opinions” of the Remonstrant camp. Bishop Overall attributes this to the corrupting influence of the fatalism of Stoicism.[9] Bishop Overall concludes by telling Grotius that “I shall return to London in the beginning of October, and if I can promote your cause, which I constantly recommend to God in my prayers, I shall not neglect.”[10]
Ellis and Womack
In 1660, long after the death of Bishop Overall (d. 1619), John Ellis, a theologian in the Church of England published Ecclesiae Anglicanae Defensio, which was later translated into English in 1700, A Defense of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.[11] Both in the Latin original, and in the English translation, Ellis included an appendix that contained a brief history of the Lamberth Articles, (a Calvinistic creed written by William Whitiker in 1595, that was ultimately rejected by the Church of England), along with the judgements and opinions of Bishops Lancelot Andrewes and John Overall concerning the Lambeth Articles. This very same book by Ellis, which contained an Arminian interpretation of the Thirty-Nine Articles, along with an appendix that contained the writings of Bishops Andrewes and Overall -the same two bishops who rejected the Lambeth Articles and had later met and championed the Dutch Arminian Hugo Grotius- is the exact same book that was a required reading at the University of Oxford while John and Charles Wesley were students there.[12]
According to James Nichols, Bishop Laurence Womack was the first writer in the English language to self-identify as an Arminian.[13] In Bishop Womack’s, The Examination of Tilenus Before the Triers, in Order to his Intended Settlement in the Office of a Public Preacher, in the Commonwealth of Utopia: Whereunto are Annexed the Tenents of the Remonstrants, touching those Five Articles Voted, Stated, and Imposed, but not Disputed, at the Synod of Dort, together with a Short Essay, by way of Annotations, upon the Fundamental Theses of Mr. Thomas Parker (1658), the self-proclaimed Arminian gives an accurate portrayal of what the Remonstrants, or Early Dutch Arminians, actually taught concerning the five disputed points, and explicitly defends them.[14]
In the preface to this work, Bishop Womack directly quotes James Arminius, Johann Vossius, and Hugo Grotius demonstrating firsthand knowledge of their works.[15] In the preface to his Calvinist Cabin Unlocked, on the topic of internal controversies over the meaning of the Synod of Dort from within Calvinistic circles, Bishop Womack states that he has proof of his assertions “from some intelligence which came very lately to my hands from a Foreigner; who tells us of a most bitter contention betwixt Voetius and Maresius about the sense of that Synod.”[16] Bishop Womack identifies the foreigner who has delivered this intelligence to his hands: Arnold Poelenburg—a Dutch Arminian and professor at the Remonstrant Seminary.[17] Later, in the same preface, Bishop Womack quotes from Poelenburg on three separate occasions demonstrating knowledge of Poelenburg’s writings.[18] Thus, not only was Bishop Womack in correspondence with a prominent theologian among the Dutch Arminians, but he also knew of their writings as well. This is critically important to note since this same Bishop Laurence Womack who knew of the writings of Arminius, Vossius, Grotius and Poelenburg, who corresponded with Poelenburg, who was the first person in the English language to explicitly identify himself as an Arminian and who explicitly defended the Remonstrants and their theology in his writings, is the exact same Bishop Laurence Womack whose Examination of Tilenus was republished in the Arminian Magazine by the Rev. John Wesley![19]
Thus, it is clear, for John Wesley the term Arminianism was not merely a term of negation (i.e., a polemical tool simply used to denote opposition to Calvinism). Instead, the Arminian label was a positive set of theological positions enthusiastically embraced by John Wesley. For Bishop Womack openly defended the doctrinal positions of the Opinions of the Remonstrants given at the Synod of Dort (1618), and it was precisely these positive defenses of Arminianism (i.e., not mere rejections of the Calvinistic opinions on Predestination and related matters) that John Wesley himself republished. While it is true that for certain High Churchmen the Arminian label was nothing more than a label denoting merely a rejection of Calvinism, such a shallow definition of Arminianism was not applicable to John Wesley. John Wesley was not merely an Anti-Calvinist but a true and genuine Arminian.
Henry Hammond
It is equally important to note that Bishop Womack was not alone in explicitly defending the Remonstrants.[20] The prominent Episcopal Arminian, Henry Hammond, engaged in a debate with the Puritan and staunch Calvinist, John Owen, over the exegetical writings of the Early Dutch Arminian, Hugo Grotius. Thus, Hammond explicitly defends Grotius against charges of Pelagianism and Socinianism in his, A Second Defence Of the Learned Hugo Grotius, Or A vindication of the Digression concerning him, from some fresh Exceptions.[21] Hammond continued his defense the following year in his, A Continuation of the Defence of Hugo Grotius, in Answer to the Review of his Annotations whereto is subjoined a Reply to some passages of the Reviewer in his late Book of Schisme, concerning his charge of Corruptions in the Primitive Church, and some other particulars.[22] Concerning the debate between the Remonstrants (Dutch Arminians) and the Contra-Remonstrants (Dutch Calvinists), Henry Hammond skillfully states:
“It is sufficiently known what contests there were, and at length how profests (sic) the divisions betwixt the Remonstrant and Contra-Remonstrant; and it is confessed, that [Hugo Grotius] maintained (all his time) the Remonstrant’s party, vindicating it from all charge, whether of PELAGIANISM or SEMI-PELAGIANISM, which was by the opposers objected to it, and pressing the favorers of the doctrine of Irrespective Decrees with the odious consequences of making God the Author and Favorer of sin, and frequently expressing his sense of the evil influences that some of those doctrine were experimented to have on men’s lives. And by these means it is not strange, that he should fall under great displeasure from those who, having espoused the opinion of Irrespective Decrees, did not only publish it as THE TRUTH, and TRUTH of God’s Free Grace and his Eternal Election, and consequently retained no ordinary patience for or charity to opposers. But then, still, this is no medium to infer that charge. The doctrines which he thus maintained, were neither branches nor characters of Popery, but asserted by some of the first and most learned and pious Reformers. Witness the writings of [Neils Hemmingsen] in his Opuscula, most of which are on these subjects. Whereas, on the contrary side, [Ulrich Zwingli] and others, who maintained the rigid way of Irrespective Decrees, and infused them into some of this nation of ours, are truly said, by an excellent writer of ours, Dr. [Thomas] Jackson, to have had it first from some ancient Romish Schoolmen, and so to have had as much, or more, of that guilt adherent to them, as can be charged on their opposers. So that from hence, to found (sic) the jealously, to affirm him a Papist because he was not a Contra-remonstrant, is but the old method of speaking all that is ill of those who differ from our opinions in anything; as the Dutchman in his rage calls his horse an ARMINIAN, because he doth not go as he would have him.”[23]
However, Henry Hammond’s Arminianism was found in its fullest display in the treatise, Discourse of God’s Grace and Decrees, which was originally written as a series of letters to Bishop Robert Sanderson, in Hammond’s (eventually successful) attempt to convert Bishop Sanderson from Calvinism to Arminianism.[24] Hammond’s writings on Arminianism can also be found diffused across his other writings, especially worthy of note are his A Practical Catechism and his Of Fundamentals.[25]
Edward Stillingfleet
Bishop Edward Stillingfleet also ran to the defense of Grotius. For when Grotius attacked Faustus Socinus’s Moral Influence view of the atonement in his book A Defence of the Catholic Faith Concerning the Satisfaction of Christ Against Faustus Socinus, Socinus’s disciple and chief successor, Johannes Crellius, responded in his master’s defense with, Ad librum Hugonis Grotii quem de satisfactione Christi adversus Faustum Socinum Senensem scripsit Responsio; this in turn led Bishop Stillingfleet to defend Grotius from Crellius in his Two Discourse Concerning the Doctrine of Christ’s Satisfaction; or, the true Reason of his Sufferings: Wherein the Socinian and Antinomian Controversies are truly Stated and Explained. With an Answer to Mr. Lobb’s Appeal, and to several Letters from the Dissenting Parties in London.[26] Bishop Stillingfleet even (correctly) distinguishes the views of prominent Remonstrants (i.e., Dutch Arminians) such as Stephen Curcellaeus, Philip van Limborch, Simon Episcopius, and even Conrad Vorstius(!), from that of Socinianism.
“Curcellaeus, whom they often mention with respect, saith, the Justice of God requires, that he should inflict the Punishments he hath threatened on Contumacious Sinners. And Limborch (whom they sometimes appeal to) saith, That the Justice of God doth not permit the Impunity of Refractory and Impenitent Contemners of his Grace. Because, saith he, God by his declared Will hath tied himself up from the Exercise of his Absolute Power; and his Laws would be trampled upon, and his Majesty slighted; nor would God’s hatred of Sin ever be fully discovered. And therefore the Day of Wrath is called by St. Paul, The Revelation of the Righteous Judgment of God. Episcopius saith, That although in such Punishments, which depend only on the Will of the Law-Maker, he doth not think, that God in Justice is obliged to make good his Threatenings; as he is to perform his Promises; (but that in such Cases God is not bound in Justice to execute all that the Law threatens; but when he thinks fit to punish, then his Justice requires him not to punish beyond the Commination) yet in the Case of obstinate and incurable Offenders, he doth not deny, that the Justice of God requires the Rigour of the Law to be executed upon them. And he adds, That the Day of Judgement will fully manifest the Justice of God in the Threatnings he hath made to Impenitent Sinners. Even Vorstius, who was supposed to be too much inclined to the Socinian Doctrine, owns it to be a part of God’s Justice to punish wicked and impenitent Persons; that his Patience and Goodness may not be always contemned with Impunity. And afterward, That although God doth no Injury to the Offender, if he doth not execute his Threatnings; yet out of regard to the Justice of his Word, he doth not recede from what he hath declared: But all Threatnings under the Gospel are Conditional; and none are damned by it, but such as continue in Impenitency and Unbelief. And in his Explication he saith, That where God hath absolutely declared his Will to punish in such a manner, he cannot forgive without Injustice.”[27]
Thus, the same book that Bishop Overall read with “no less then greediness,” Bishop Stillingfleet openly defended with his own book on the Atonement.
Plaifere and Leslie
Another name in the story of pre-Wesley Anglican Arminianism, is John Plaifere, professor of divinity at Cambridge University, and an early defender of English Arminianism. Plaifere’s Appello Evangelium For the True Doctrine of Divine Predestination Concorded with the Orthodox Doctrine of God’s Free Grace and Man’s Free Will, was republished by John Wesley in the Arminian Magazine in 1778. Plaifere represents a Molinist perspective as was common in early variants of Arminianism, both in England and in the Netherlands.
Charles Leslie (not to be confused with John Wesley’s brother Charles Wesley) was a non-juror (i.e., someone who refused to swear an oath to the new King of England, William of Orange, after the Glorious Revolution of 1688) and a theologian in the Church of Ireland. While Leslie was mostly known for his prolific polemics against Quakerism, (and I would add, albeit to a lesser extent, his polemics against Socinianism) Leslie likewise opposed Calvinism. Leslie’s Arminian writings were republished by Wesley in the Arminian Magazine (1778). Thus, Wesley, the staunch British monarchist who supported King George III against the revolting colonies in America, nevertheless republished a work of an Irishman who did not support the Crown. It is clear that while there may be internal political differences within the Arminian camp (and any and all theological camps for that matter!) this does not negate a shared theological position or the coherence of a theological camp such as Arminianism. Divergences in political positions do not necessitate divergences in theological positions, much less does it negate the existence of a coherent theological tradition.
Richard Baxter
However, no story on early English Arminianism, as it relates to Wesley and the Methodists, would be complete without John Goodwin, Richard Baxter, and Daniel Whitby. To begin with Baxter (1615-1691), an English non-conformist, Puritan minister, and exceedingly prolific author, one must first note that Baxter was not properly an Arminian. Rather, Richard Baxter was a Puritan writer who had read Remonstrant literature and sided with them on some of the disputed points, all the while maintaining Calvinistic positions on other points. Richard Baxter’s theology, known as Baxterianism, marks one of the earliest forms of Calminianism, an incoherent hybrid between Arminianism and Calvinism that sought a middle ground between the two waring systems.
In the Minutes of 1745, Wesley and his early Methodists utilized Richard Baxter’s Aphorisms Concerning Justification in order to understand the doctrine of Justification by Faith.[28] Thus:
“Q. 4 Shall we read over together Mr. Baxter’s “Aphorisms concerning Justification?” A. By all means. Which were accordingly read. And it was desired that each person present would in the afternoon consult the scriptures cited therein, and bring what objections might occur the next morning.”[29]
The footnote in the Bicentennial Edition of John Wesley’s Works does not do justice on this issue. For it merely states, “(Baxter’s) views on justification were suspect to the stricter Calvinists, and ‘Baxterianism’ became a bogeyman to them throughout the eighteenth century and beyond. To the Arminian Wesley, he was naturally more attractive, and in later Conferences (Baxter’s) system of pastoral care was also commended.”[30] While this footnote is true, there is more to the story. As already noted, Baxterianism was an early form of Calminianism. Thus, it is not surprising that Wesley turned to Baxter since Baxter affirmed the Arminian understanding of the nature of Justification along with other doctrinal issues. It was only natural that the Arminian Wesley would be attracted to Richard Baxter, the Puritan with Arminian sympathies.
Richard Baxter’s Aphorisms of Justification set off a firestorm when it was originally published. It solicitated a host of responses which led Baxter to write several defenses, and elaborations on his understanding of Justification. One of those works was The Scripture Gospel Defended, and Christ, Grace, and Free Justification Vindicated Against the Libertines.[31] In this work, Baxter states:
“It was the Army and Sectarian Antinomians (more fitly called Libertines) who first called me in the year 1645 and 1646 to study better than I had done the Doctrine of the Covenants and Laws of God, of Redemption and Justification: I fetched my first resolving thoughts from no Book but the Bible, especially Mat. 5 and 6, and 25. (Hugo) Grotius (of Satisfaction) next gave me more light… John Goodwin was then, and before, publishing his Judgement of Justification, and Mr. Walker, and Mr. Roborough wrote against him, with great disparity of light and strength. But because (John Goodwin) turned to the Arminians, prejudice cried down his Doctrine of Justification…”[32]
It is interesting to note that Baxter, by his own admission, states that after his own reading of the Bible in receiving his views on Justification and related matters, says the book that next formed him in his views was The Satisfaction of Christ by Hugo Grotius – one of the original Early Dutch Arminians and bridge between England and the Netherlands. Baxter likewise bemoans the fact that John Goodwin’s views on Justification were denounced simply because Goodwin had received his views from the Arminians. It should also be mentioned that Richard Baxter likewise sided with the Arminians on the extent of Christ atonement and affirmed that God’s covenants are conditional, and not unconditional.[33] Baxter fiercely opposed Antinomianism and strongly stressed the importance of holiness – another commonality and influence upon Wesley.
John Goodwin
While Richard Baxter was a Puritan who sympathized with the Early Dutch Arminians and even sided with them on some issues, it was Baxter’s colleague and older contemporary, John Goodwin (1594-1665) who was fully Arminian. It is to Goodwin that the strange and rare oxymoron title of “Arminian Puritan” goes to. Unlike Baxter who maintained that God’s covenants are conditional, but that Predestination was unconditional, Goodwin by contrast held that both were conditional.
John Goodwin was an immense influence upon John Wesley’s Arminianism. Not only did Wesley republish Goodwin’s treatise on Justification, but Wesley also defended it.[34]
“But you have published John Goodwin’s Treatise on Justification. I have so. But I have not undertaken to defend every expression which occurs therein. Therefore, none has a right to palm them upon the world as mine. And yet I desire no one will condemn that treatise before he has read it over; and that seriously and carefully, for it can hardly be understood by a slight or cursory reading. And let whoever has carefully read it declare whether (Goodwin) has not proved every article he asserts, not only by plain express Scripture, but by the authority of the most eminent Reformers. If Mr. (Erskine) thinks otherwise, let him confute him. But let no man condemn what he cannot answer.”[35]
Years later, Wesley would not regret his republications of Baxter and Goodwin and stood by them and their teachings:
“I published many years ago – Mr. Baxter’s Aphorisms on Justification and John Goodwin’s tract on the subject. I have lately read them both over with all the attention I am capable of, and I still believe they contain the true Scripture doctrine concerning justification by faith. But it does not follow that I am accountable for every sentence contained in either of those treatises. ‘But does Mr. Wesley believe the doctrine therein contained or does he not?’ I do…”[36]
It is important to note that Goodwin’s influence goes beyond the doctrine of Justification; it also includes the doctrine of the Atonement. Thus, in a letter dated “London December 30, 1766,” to Walter Sellon (an early Methodist theologian, brilliant in his own right, and who has wrongfully been forgotten and neglected), John Wesley advises him to read John Goodwin.[37] Two years later, in another letter to Sellon, Wesley rejoices to hear that Sellon has undertaken Goodwin’s treatise on the Atonement, Redemption Redeemed, and advises him to answer, in defense of Goodwin, the Calvinistic Puritan John Owen’s refutation of the treatise.[38] In the following year, 1769, Walter Sellon completed and published his own treatise in defense of the Arminian view on the extent of Christ’s atonement entitled, The Doctrine of General Redemption Considered and the Arguments Against it Answered.[39]Goodwin’s Exposition of the Ninth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans was also published by John Wesley in the second volume of the Arminian Magazine (1780).
The influence of Goodwin upon early Methodism did not terminate with the death of Wesley or Sellon. The Methodist minister Thomas Jackson (1783-1873), the same Thomas Jackson responsible for the fourteen volume The Works of John Wesley, also republished a collection of Goodwin’s work (namely, on Romans 9, Justification, and on the Five Disputed Points) in 1835.[40] The following year, the Methodist minister Samuel Dunn collected extracts of Goodwin’s writings and compiled them into a systematic theology entitled Christian Theology.[41]
It is essential that Wesley scholars realize and do not overlook this important fact: a direct line of transmission can be drawn from James Arminius and the Remonstrants to Richard Baxter and John Goodwin and from Baxter and Goodwin to John Wesley and the Early Methodists. Again, Goodwin read Arminius, Wesley read Goodwin. But to circle back to the Church of England, there is one name that must be mentioned, for no study of Anglican Arminianism as it relates to Wesley would be complete without an examination of Daniel Whitby.
Daniel Whitby
Daniel Whitby (1638–1726) was the loudest and fiercest opponent to Calvinism during his day within the Church of England. His brilliantly written Six Discourses on the five disputed points (the sixth discourse being an answer to objections) drew the fury of not only English Calvinists such as the Particular Baptists John Gill, but it even elicited responses from across the Atlantic, such as Jonathan Edwards. Whereas John Wesley was known for making abridgements in his republications, Whitby was one of the few exceptions. John Wesley republished Whitby’s Discourses in its entirety in the Arminian Magazine (1785-1789).
Although it is very important to note that a republication of a work by Wesley does not constitute a full-scale endorsement of every single sentence and word found in the republication, nor every view of the author outside of the particular republication. Thus, in no way does Daniel Whitby’s Socinian/Semi-Arian views on Christology that he later fell into reflect the thinking of John or Charles Wesley. Whitby’s non-Nicene Christology is not found in the Six Discourses republished in the Arminian Magazine, nor did Wesley ever republish Whitby’s Christological works. In fact, the early British Methodist Richard Watson, one of the chief Methodist theologians after the death of Wesley, in his Theological Institutes, relies heavily upon Daniel Waterland, “the Athanasius of Anglicanism,” and one of the chief rivals who directly wrote against Whitby on Christology.
Furthermore, within the Six Discourses itself, Daniel Whitby, in the beginning of his treatise, overly exalts human reason and erroneously softens the doctrine of Original Sin. That these views are not in line with Wesley and Early Methodism is clear when one compares and contrasts Whitby and Wesley’s views on Original Sin. This is further substantiated by the fact that James Nichols, the translator of Arminius into English and himself a British Methodist within the Church of England, re-published Whitby’s Discourses with a preface disowning Whitby’s particular view on this.[42] Thus, Nichols writes:
“Every Arminian will cordially unite with (Whitby) in his general arguments, except in a few places where his opinions respecting original sin, and the operations of the Holy Spirit, are not very clearly expressed, but have in some instances the appearance of leaning too much towards Semi-Pelagianism.”[43]
Samuel Wesley Sr.
Finally, no story of the roots of Wesley’s Arminianism would be complete without a study of John and Charles’ father, Samuel Wesley Sr. (1662-1735). Often wrongly overshadowed by his son John, the Rev. Samuel Wesley Sr. was an astute theologian in his own right. It is clear from his writings that Wesley Sr. had a firm grasp and extremely accurate understanding of Remonstrant literature. When a query was submitted to the Athenian Society’s periodicals asking “What are the Opinions of the Remonstrants as to matters of faith?”[44] John Wesley’s father gave an astonishingly good explanation.
To begin, Samuel Wesley Sr. answers thusly, “The Remonstrants believing that the Christian Religion principally consists in obeying the Precepts of the Gospel, they maintain that we must particularly endeavor to shun all Errors which may divert us from Piety, and that we ought to instruct ourselves in the Doctrines of the Christian Religion, according to the relation they have to the Obedience which God requires of us.”[45] Samuel continues and explains that the Remonstrants value ethical and holy living over speculative theology, and allow for tolerance in the latter.[46]
Only after stating these things about moral living and tolerance does Samuel Wesley Sr. move on to describe the theology 21st century readers would most associate with the Early Dutch Arminians. Thus, Wesley Sr. states, “they maintain in general, that God is not the author of sin…”[47] Wesley Sr. correctly notes that the Remonstrants believe that in eating the forbidden fruit, humanity received a “temporal, and not eternal death.”[48] Since the fall, humanity is born with an inclination to sin, but this inclination is not in-of-itself sin, but the source from which sinful actions arise out of; that is, the inclination itself does not constitute sin, but when we act upon the disordered inclination we commit sin.[49] Those who resist and do not act upon their disordered inclinations are not damned.[50] On God’s Law and Covenants, Wesley Sr. states that the Remonstrants believe:
“Concerning the Covenants which God made with Abraham and Moses, they say the last was not capable of carrying the Israelites to a perfect Sanctification, which they look upon to be the reason for making the Covenant of Grace; and that ‘twas the pure Mercy of God which induced him to make this Covenant with Men, wherein at the same time he discovered his Mercy towards Sinners and his Hatred to Sin, by pardoning none but through the Sacrifice of his Son. They say, our Savior added to the Laws of Moses those which prohibit Swearing, putting away a Man’s Wife except for Adultery, and the Command of loving our Enemies; this as he was a Prophet…”[51]
In Christ’s office as Priest, Wesley Sr. recounts that the Remonstrants affirm that Jesus “in the Oblation of the Sacrifice which hath expiated our Sins, and the Intercession he now continually makes for us in Heaven;” however, the Remonstrants reject on the one hand those who believe that “Christ performed no Act of his Priestly Function upon Earth,” and on the other hand they likewise reject those who “say (Jesus) completed his Oblation upon the cross.”[52]
Concerning Christ’s Kingly Office, the Remonstrants maintain, according to Wesley Sr., Jesus, “being entered into Heaven by his own Blood, he received from God the power of converting Men, and expiating their Sins, by making them acceptable to God through the Holiness to which he guides them.”[53]
Wesley Sr. also notes that the Remonstrants believe that while God could have forgiven the sins of men and women without any atonement, God was unwilling to do so and that it was God’s will that his only Son be offered up as a sacrifice for the salvation of humanity.[54] Christ sacrifice on the Cross and the expiation of sins was not an identical payment, but an equivalent payment; for Christ did not suffer the exact same “duration and greatness” that our sins deserved.[55] “…God through his mercy was willing to accept the Sacrifice of (Jesus’) Death for the Expiation of our Sins, and upon his account has remitted that Punishment which we merited.”[56] Wesley notes that the Remonstrants reject the notion that such an account of the atonement lessens the Satisfaction for those who oppose their doctrine have “not taken their Idea of this Sacrifice from the Scripture, but some School-Divines.”[57]
On Predestination:
“They look upon Predestination to be only a Decree of God, by which of his good pleasure he has resolved from all Eternity to elect as his, to justify and save all those who should believe Jesus Christ, and till Death persevere in the Faith: and on the contrary, to look upon Unbelievers as Rebels, and to damn them if they continued in their Incredulity. This Decree they neither look upon to be Election or Reprobation, but the Foundation of both; which God executes in time, when he chooses for his People those who actually believe in Jesus Christ, and saves them when they have persevered in the Faith: and also when he beholds the Wicked as Objects of Wrath, and damns them after they are dead in their Impenitency and Wickedness. The Remonstrants believe that those who are damned, are so through their own fault, since they are not excluded from Salvation, but through their own Impenitency; maintaining they might partake of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who was offered for all Men without exception, the Fruits whereof are universally applied to all who would believe in him, without which they could enjoy nothing of it.”[58]
Concerning those who never hear the Gospel preached, the Remonstrants, says Wesley Sr., do not consign them all to hell; rather, those who use the light given them, God will either “communicate to them the benefits of our Savior’s Death, that by an extraordinary Grace he might save some of those who have not known him, not through their own fault, but because the Gospel was never preached to them; or that God would discover his Word to them by some uncommon method, as he did to Cornelius the Centurion.”[59]
The Remonstrants maintain that God’s grace is resistible; those who are not converted could have been converted and those who were in fact converted could have resisted and not been converted.[60] God’s threats and promises are not empty. God praises those who live by his divine law and is angry with those who disobey.[61]
According to Samuel Wesley Sr., the Remonstrants do not believe in sinless perfection but rather, God requires repentance, which however, does exclude habitual sinners from salvation.[62] “They think Perseverance in Piety absolutely necessary to Salvation.”[63] Yet those who are truly regenerated can in fact lose their salvation.[64]
Finally, Wesley Sr. concludes his summary of Remonstrant theology as follows:
“As to Justification, they say God regards our Obedience, although imperfect, as if it were perfect, in consideration of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. They hold we can never be assured we shall be saved, how holily soever we live; and therefore that St. Paul commanded us to work out our Salvation with fear and trembling.”[65]
In another query, Samuel Wesley Sr. is asked which is worse, Arminianism or Antinomianism?[66] Wesley begins by noting that if Arminians truly believe and teach that man can merit his own salvation by his own natural ability, without the grace of God (and Wesley Sr. specifies God’s “preventing grace”), then the Arminians are utterly wrong and very far away from the teachings of the Church of England, especially Article X of the Thirty-Nine Articles.[67]
However, Wesley Sr. immediately subjoins the following: “But the soberest of (the Remonstrants), nay all that we ever met with, absolutely deny any such thing, and protest they depend upon God’s Grace in all their good Actions, though Man’s Will must be taken in as a subordinate Agent, and we are to work out our own Salvation, without which we shall never obtain it.”[68] Yet Samuel Wesley notes that if the Arminians are disingenuous and conceal Pelagian sentiments then they must be utterly detested.[69]
However, such a serious charge must be proven against them. Yet it is unfair “to stretch Consequences, as if upon the Rack, to make them confess what was never intended: Nay, nor so much as to take advantage of every warm Expression that slips from a Man in Heat of Disputation, but appeal to his sober self.”[70]
Wesley Sr. then turns his pen to antinomianism in which nothing positive about it is said, nor any remarks absolving them from false accusations or hasty characterization -unlike his treatment of Arminianism.[71] Wesley Sr. concludes that even if the worse be true about the Arminians (i.e., they are actually Pelagians), the Arminians are nevertheless better than the Antinomians, for while Arminianism (i.e., Pelagianism) undermines the foundation of Christianity it nevertheless leaves society with well-behaved heathens, whereas Antinomianism destroys society.[72] For Samuel Wesley Sr., between Pelagianism and Antinomianism, the former is the less of two evils. Samuel concludes, “though we heartily pray God to preserve the Church from them both, since both would prove extremely pernicious unto it.”[73]
Finally, the Rev. Samuel Wesley Sr. and his colleagues at the Athenian Society gave a list of book recommendations for the study of Divinity. Not only are Episcopal Arminians and Episcopal Anti-Calvinists, such as Henry Hammond, Bishop Gilburt Burnet, Bishop Edward Stillingfleet, William Sherlock, Daniel Whitby, Jeremy Taylor, and the quasi proto-Arminian (or more accurately proto-Anti Calvinist) Richard Hooker, included in the list (some of them containing many quotations and explicit defenses of the Remonstrants), Wesley Sr. includes direct primary literature from the Dutch Arminians as well. Thus, the following Remonstrants are included in his list of recommendations for study, “H(ugo) Grotius’s Commentary on the Old and New Testament, and the rest of his Works,” “(Simon) Episcopius’s Works,” and “(Philip van) Limborch’s System of Divinity, either in Latin or English.”[74] Also included in the list is the Puritan Richard Baxter, who maintained Arminian sympathies.[75] It is clear that growing up, John and Charles Wesley would have learned what Arminian theology was from a father who, while he failed in being a poet, was an astute theologian that had a firm grasp of Arminian theology.
Before one concludes an examination of the Arminian roots of the Wesley brothers, there is an important observation that should be acknowledged. This observation concerns the Six Tracts. The Six Tracts were a collection of six theological tracts on five doctrinal topics (two tracts being on Sanctification). All six of these tracts were either works written by, or abridged by, John Wesley and they appeared in early editions of the Book of Doctrines and Discipline, the official “rule book” of Methodism. One of the Six Tracts, the one on Predestination, was an abridgement by Wesley of a treatise by a General Baptist, Henry Haggar.[76] Ironically, it was not a treatise by an Early Dutch Arminian that made it into the Book of Discipline, nor was it a treatise by an Anglican Arminian, nor was it a treatise by a Puritan, nor even a treatise by a Moravian/Lutheran Pietist that made it into the Book of Discipline but rather it was a General (i.e., Arminian) Baptist who penned a treatise that landed itself inside a Methodist official rule book for doctrine and discipline![77] Thus, it is only fitting that an examination of the Arminian roots of the Wesley brothers makes a note of acknowledgement to the General Baptists.
Henry Haggar
Henry Haggar, an English General Baptist and the same author of The Foundation of the Font Discovered, a treatise against infant baptism written partially, but directly, against Richard Baxter’s pro-paedobaptism writings, is also the author of The Order of Causes, a treatise on predestination. This work of Haggar, The Order of Causes, was republished in abridged form and under a new title by John Wesley, The Scripture Doctrine of Predestination, Election, and Reprobation (i.e., one of the Six Tracts in the Book of Discipline). Regrettably, Wesley, who was normally so good at acknowledging the work of others and giving them due credit, broke out of his normal character. John Wesley did not give Henry Haggar his due credit. There was no acknowledgement by Wesley that this work was that of another. Is it any wonder then, when Bishop Tigert of the Methodist Episcopal Church South republished the Six Tracts in 1902, he mistakenly attributed the work to John Wesley.[78] I suspect that John Wesley did not want to distract people from the substance of Haggar’s treatise on account of Haggar’s association with a very small and highly marginalized group of people: the General Baptists. Furthermore, the Anabaptists often felt the fury of Samuel Wesley Sr.’s pen in the Athenian Oracle, thus I hypothesize that growing up in a household with a father fiercely opposed to the Baptists, John may have unconsciously not have wanted to give credit to them due to his upbringing. Nevertheless, the fact remains, the General Baptists had a small role to play in the roots of John Wesley’s Arminianism and this fact should be acknowledged.
Conclusion
The Arminian roots of the Wesley family and that of the early Methodists (but apart from George Whitefield and his followers) were firmly grounded and entrenched in the Evangelical Arminian tradition. The Evangelical Arminian theology of John Wesley is clear and unmistakable. It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words, if so then three thousand words were published on behalf of the Remonstrants; for Wesley republished portraits of the three most important of all the Remonstrants in the Arminian Magazine: James Arminius, Simon Episcopius and Johannes Uytenbogaert. Likewise, in the first volume of the Arminian Magazine, John Wesley re-published the oration given at Arminius’ funeral delivered by Arminius’ friend and colleague, Peter Bertius, followed by an account of the Synod of Dort by the Remonstrant minister, Gerard Brandt. After John Wesley’s death in 1791, and at the beginning of the following year in 1792, the new editors of the Arminian Magazine published an extract from James Arminius’ Declaration of Sentiments in honor of the late John Wesley.
In closing, it is always important to remember that the Methodists are not the Remonstrants, but that they are an improvement upon and a further development of original Arminianism. Methodists are Wesleyan-Arminians, and it is important that neither the Wesleyan label nor the Arminian label, ever be dropped.
Andrew Sullivan has a B.A. in the Bible (Howard Payne University), M.A. in Theological Studies (Asbury Theological Seminary), Th.M. in Church History (Regent University), and is currently a Ph.D. Candidate in History at Liberty University.
[1] Indeed, I am already in the process of writing such an essay.
[2] Gerard Brandt, The History of the Reformation and Other Ecclesiastical Transactions in and about the Low-Countries, From the Beginning of the Eight Century, Down to the Famous Synod of Dort, inclusive. In which all the Revolutions that happen’d in Church and State, on Accounts of the Divisions between the Protestants and Papists, The Arminians and Calvinists, are fairly and fully represented, (London, UK: T. Wood, 1723) II:132. Arthur T. Russell, Memoirs of the Life and Works of the Right and Honorable and Right Rev. Father in God Lancelot Andrewes, D.D. Lord Bishop of Winchester, (Cambridge, UK: J. Palmer, 1860) 368.
[3] Brandt, The History of the Reformation, II:260-261. Note: Bishop Overall’s optimism about the state of affairs growing more calmer in the letter proved to be premature.
[4] Ibid., 261.
[5] Ibid.
[6] The book by Grotius that Bishop Overall pursued “with no les than greediness,” was Hugo Grotius work, Defensio fidei Catholicae de Satisfactione Christi, which had been published the same year. Brandt, History of the Reformation, II:314. For an English translation, see: Hugo Grotius and Frank Hugh Foster, A Defense of the Catholic Faith Concerning the Satisfaction of Christ Against Faustus Socinus, (Andover, MA: Warren F. Draper, 1889).
[7] Ibid., 313.
[8] Ibid., 314.
[9] Ibid., 314.
[10] Ibid.
[11] John Ellis, Articulorum XXXIX Ecclesiae Anglicanae Defensio, Una cum nova eorudem versione. Authore (J) O. Ellis, S.T.D. Ecclesiae Dolgellensis in Comitatu Merviniae Rectore. His Accedunt Articuli Lambethani, ua cum Rev. & Doct. Virorum… [THIS SECTION OF PAGE IS MISSING/DESTROYED] …in eos Censura, & [SECTION DESTROYED], (Amstelodam, NL: Joann Paulius, 1696). (Note: I could not find an original 1660 copy, and thus I am citing a later edition, 1696). John Ellis, A Defence of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. To which are added the Lambeth Articles: Together with the Judgement of the Bishop Andrewes, Dr. Overall, and other Eminent and Learned Men upon Them., (London, UK: H. Bonwicks, 1700). (Note: John Overall is not listed as a Bishop like Andrewes, since Overall was still a professor at Cambridge University at the time of the writing of his Opinion on Predestination and the Lambeth Articles.)
[12] “Proceedings OFTHE Wesley Historical Society Volume XLVII.” Edited by E. Alan Rose, BiblicalStudies.Org, Wesley Historical Society, 1989, biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/whs/57-2.pdf.
[13] James Nichols, Calvinism and Arminianism Compared in their Principles and Tendency or, the Doctrines of General Redemption, as Held by the Members of the Church of England, and by the Early Dutch Arminians Exhibited in their Scriptural Evidence, and in their Connection with the Civil and Religious Liberties of Mankind, (London, UK: James Nichols, 1824) vol. I pt. I: 4.
[14] This work can be found reprinted by James Nichols in his Calvinism and Arminianism Compared, I: 9-196
[15] Ibid., I:11-12.
[16] Laurence Womack, Arcana Dogmatum Anti-Remonstrantium or the Calvinists Cabinet Unlocked in an Apology for Tilenus against a pretended Vindication of the Synod of Dort. At the Povocation of Master R. Baxter, held forth in the Preface to his Grotian Religion. Together, with a few soft Drops let fall upon the Papers of Master Hickman, (London, UK: Richard Royston, 1659). Regrettably, this edition that I have access to does not have page numbers for the preface. The quotation cited above however can be found in Bishop Womack’s “A Prefatory Epistle.”
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] John Wesley, The Arminian Magazine Consisting of Extracts and Original Treatises on Universal Redemption Volume I-VII, (London, UK: R. Hawes, 1778-84).
[20] Bishops Andrewes and Overall also defended the Remonstrats.
[21]Henry Hammond, A Second Defence of the Learned Hugo Grotius, or, A Vindication of the Digression Concerning Him from Some Fresh Exceptions, (London, UK: J. Flesher,1655).
[22] Henry Hammond, A Continuation of the Defence of Hvgo Grotivs, in an Answer to the Review of His Annotations Whereto Is Subjoyned a Reply to Some Passages of the Reviewer in His Late Book of Schisme, Concerning His Charge of Corruptions in the Primitive Church, and Some Other Particulars, (London, UK: J. G., 1657).
[23] Nichols, Calvinism and Arminianism Compared, I: cxxxiii. Nichols draws the long quotation of Hammond from “a Digression which was added to (Hamond’s) Answer to the Animadversions of his Dissertations…” ibid., I: cxxxii.
[24] Henry Hammond, Χαρις και Εἰρηνη, or a Pacifick discourse of God’s Grace and Decrees in a Letter, of Full Accordance written to the Reverend, and most Learned, Robert Sanderson to which are Annexed the Extracts of Three Letters concerning God’s Prescience reconciled Liberty and Contingency, (London, UK: R. Davis, 1660).
[25] Henry Hammond, A Practical Catechism, (Oxford, UK: J. Shrimpton, 1847). Henry Hammond, “Of Fundamentals in Notions referring to Practice,” The Miscellaneous Theological Works of Henry Hammond Volume II, (Oxford, UK: John Henry Parker, 1849).
[26] Hugo Grotius, A Defence of the Catholic Faith Concerning the Satisfaction of Christ, Against Faustus Socinus, (Andover, MA: Warren F. Draper, 1889). Johannes Crellius, Ad librum Hugonis Grotii quem de satisfactione Christi adversus Faustum Socinum Senensem scripsit Responsio, (Racoviae Typis Sternacianis, 1623).Bishop Edward Stillingfleet, “Two Discourse Concerning the Doctrine of Christ’s Satisfaction; or, the true Reason of his Sufferings: Wherein the Socinian and Antinomian Controversies are truly Stated and Explained. With an Answer to Mr. Lobb’s Appeal, and to several Letters from the Dissenting Parties in London” The Works of the Eminent and Most Learned Prelate Dr. Edw. Stillingfleet, late Lord Bishop of Worchester: Together with his Life and Character, (London, UK: J. Heptinstall, 1710).
[27] Ibid., III:238.
[28] For Wesley’s abridgement of Baxter’s work, see: Wesley, Bicentennial Edition, XII: 45-88.
[29] Wesley, Works, VIII: 282
[30] Wesley, Bicentennial Edition, X:149.
[31] Richard Baxter, The Scripture Gospel Defended and Christ, Grace, and Free Justification Vindicated Against the Libertines, Who use the names of Christ, Free Grace, and Justification, to subvert the Gospel, and Christianity, and that Christ, Grace and Justification, which they in Zealous Ignorance think they plead for, to the injury of Christ, the danger of Souls, and the scandalizing of the weak, the insulting of Adversaries, and the Dividing of the Churches. Yet charitably differencing the wordy Errors of unskillful Opinionators, form their Practical Piety: and the mistaken notions of some Excellent Divines, from the gross Libertine Antinomian Errors, In Two Books. The First A breviate of Fifty Controversies about Justification; written about thirteen years past, and cast by till now, after many provocations, by Press, Pulpit and Backbiting. The second upon the sudden reviving of Antinomianism, which seemed almost extinct near thirty four years: and the re-printing of Dr. Crisp’s Sermons with Additions: with twelve Reverend Names prefixed for a decoy, when some of them abhor the Error of the Book, and know not what was in it, but yield by surprise only to declare that they believed him that told them that the additions was a true Copy., (London, UK: Tho. Parkhurst, 1690).
[32] Ibid., 2-3.
[33] Richard Baxter, Universal Redemption of Mankind, (Alanta, GA: Hargrove Publishing, 2022).
[34] John Goodwin and John Wesley, A Treatise on Justification: extracted from Mr. John Goodwin, by John Wesley. With a preface, wherein all that is material, in letters just published, under the name of the Rev. Mr. Hervey, is answered, (Bristol, UK: William Pine, 1765)
[35] Wesley, Bicentennial Edition, XIII:397.
[36] Ibid., 498,
[37] Wesley, Works, XII: 43-44.
[38] Ibid., 44. What Wesley is referring to is Redemption Redeemed by John Goodwin and The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen, respectively.
[39] Walter Sellon, The Doctrine of General Redemption Considered, and the Arguments Against it Answered, (London, UK: R. Lomas, 1769/1807).
[40] John Goodwin and Thomas Jackson, An Exposition of the Ninth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, with The Banner of Justification Displayed to which is added, EIPHNOMAXIA: The Agreement and Distance of Brethren, (London, UK: Baynes and Sons, 1835).
[41] John Goodwin and Samuel Dunn, Christian Theology, (London, UK: Thomas Tegg & Son, 1836).
[42] Daniel Whitby, Dr. Whitby on the Five Points, (Leeds, UK: James Nichols, 1817).
[43] Ibid., 7.
[44] Samuel Wesley, and et. al., The Athenian Oracle: Being an Entire Collection of All the Valuable Questions and Answers in the Old Athenian Mercuries. Intermixed with many Cases in Divinity, History, Philosophy, Mathematics, Love, Poetry, Never before Published. By John Burton To which is prefixed, The History of the Athenian Society, and an Essay upon Learning by a Member of the Athenian Society, (London, UK: J. and J. Knapton, 1728) IV:293.
[45] Ibid., IV:293.
[46] Ibid., IV: 293-294.
[47] Ibid., IV:294.
[48] Ibid.
[49] Ibid.
[50] Ibid.
[51] Ibid., 294-295.
[52] Ibid., 295.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Ibid.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Ibid.
[57] Ibid.
[58] Ibid.
[59] Ibid., 296.
[60] Ibid.
[61] Ibid.
[62] Ibid.
[63] Ibid.
[64] Ibid.
[65] Ibid.
[66] Ibid., IV:141.
[67] Ibid., IV:141-142.
[68] Ibid., IV:142.
[69] Ibid.
[70] Ibid., IV:142.
[71] Ibid.
[72] Ibid., IV:142-143.
[73] Ibid., IV:143.
[74] Ibid., IV:83-84.
[75] Ibid., IV:84.
[76] Thomas C. Oden, Doctrinal Standards in the Wesleyan Tradition, (Grand Rapids, MI: Francis Asbury Press, 1988) 49.
[77] For more on the Six Tracts, see: Andrew V. Sullivan, Harmony of the Arminian Faith: A Proposal to the Global Methodist Church” (Full Thesis), https://evangelicalarminians.org/andrew-sullivan-harmony-of-the-arminian-faith-a-proposal-to-the-global-methodist-church-full-thesis/. See page 5 of my Thesis Paper.
[78] John J. Tigert, The Doctrines of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America as Contained in the Disciplines of said Church from 1788-1808, and so Designated on their Title-Pages, (Cincinnati, OH: Jennings & Pye, 1902) I:4.
[This article was taken with permission from Mark K. Olson’s website where the original version can be found.]
