Tag Archives: Arminianism

Arminian and Baptist: A Review

by Theological Commission

Occasionally members of the Commission for Theological Integrity publish articles, essays, book reviews, and full-length books. As this occurs we hope to keep readers abreast of these developments, especially if they will be useful and informative. We see this as an extension of our work of being an effective Commission.

Recently we learned of a new review of one of Dr. Matt Pinson’s most recent books, Arminian and Baptist: Explorations in a Theological Tradition (Randall House, 2015), written by Kevin Jackson. This review appeared at the website for the Society of Evangelical Arminians (SEA).

Readers can find out more about this interesting and eclectic fellowship of self-identified Arminians here and here. The Commission (nor the National Association of Free Will Baptists) have a formal relationship with SEA. However, there are some who have been associated with both the NAFWB and SEA. They occasionally reference Free Will Baptists and Free Will Baptist authors.

Even for those who have not yet read Arminian and Baptist, this review will provide a brief overview of the chapter content. Also, the reader’s self-idenfiying as a Wesleyan Arminian (and reviewing the book from that perspective) gives something of a window into some of the distinctions between Reformed or Classical Arminianism and Wesleyan Arminianism that aren’t merely perceived, but actual.

We leave it to readers to make their own judgments about the accuracy of the Mr. Jackson’s assertions and perspective. Readers can also find other material on Pinson’s book here, here, and here.


Who’s Afraid of the Word “Synergist”?

by Matthew Pinson

A Theological Dirty Word

Recently I’ve noticed that, over the past century, Arminians have increasingly used the word “synergist” to describe themselves, rather than seeing it as a negative epithet, as most Christian theologians have. I have blogged before here about how Arminians are “not necessarily synergists,” and reprinted here some kind dissent from my friend Brian Abasciano of the Society of Evangelical Arminians. As I’ve said before, I believe Carl Bangs was absolutely right when he said that Arminius would never have described himself as a synergist [1]! Synergism has always been a theological “dirty word” associated with semi-Pelagianism.

“Synergistic” Lutherans?

I’ve been reading a lot of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Lutheran dogmaticians lately, and the fear of being labeled synergists is especially true of them. Despite the fact that we moderns neatly divvy Lutherans into “monergistic” and “synergistic” Lutherans, no good Lutheran ever wanted to be known as a synergist. This includes famous scholastic Lutherans such as Aegidius Hunnius, Johann Gerhard, and Johannes Andreas Quendstedt.

It might surprise us evangelicals who rub shoulders with Missouri Synod Lutherans that most Lutherans throughout history have believed that election is intuitu Christi meriti fide apprehendi (in view of the merit of Christ apprehended by faith). In other words, election and predestination, as described for example in Ephesians 1, are always in view of Christ and his mediatorial work, which is of course apprehended by the individual’s faith.

Most of the Lutheran scholastic theologians of the seventeenth century believed in the personal election of individuals in eternity past intuitu Christi meriti fide apprehendi. This is precisely what Arminius believed. Scholars such as the Danish Henrik Frandsen are helping us see the fluidity between Lutheran Scholasticism and the less-Calvinistic wing of Reformed Scholasticism in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century [2].

It’s no surprise that the Lutherans who opposed unconditional election in the Lutheran Predestinarian Controversy of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries weren’t fond of the label “synergist.” Their opponents called them that because of their belief that God elected individuals in eternity past in view of the merit of Christ apprehended by faith. They also believed that divine grace could be resisted even after conversion, and that one could fall completely from grace. Yet they strenuously contended that they were not synergists [3].


At any rate, I have picked up on an increasing tendency of self-described Arminians who view the term “synergism,” not as a term of opprobrium to be avoided at all cost, but as a word by which they wish to describe themselves positively.

So often, when a large chorus of Arminians begin to repeat the same thing, we Reformed Arminians start to wonder, “What’s wrong with us?” just because we’re hearing so many people echo the same thing—e.g., “Arminians are synergists,” “Election is corporate,” and so forth.

But Reformed Arminians shouldn’t really be surprised to see that our good Arminian friends are aghast and open-mouthed when we don’t want to be called names like synergist, or when we want to say that election is individual. It’s not always fun being in the minority of a movement. But, quite simply, it’s where Reformed Arminians are. So we shouldn’t be surprised when our good Arminian brothers and sisters find our views on these matters odd.

Wesley and Synergism

However, Reformed Arminians aren’t the only Arminians who have been averse to being labeled synergists. Wesleyans like John Wesley himself as well as John Fletcher of Madeley would have been concerned about such a label. I recently came across a little comment from the eminent Wesleyan theologian Kenneth Collins that confirmed my suspicions that Wesley himself wouldn’t feel comfortable being called a synergist. Collins avers:

“Wesley, as with Luther and Calvin, understood quite well that God is remarkably gracious and at times acts alone in the face of human impotence, for not only is justification not a human work but also the gift of grace is not given on the basis of a prior working. . . . The conjunctive style of Wesley’s theology is not, after all, fully or aptly expressed in the divine and human roles found in an overarching synergistic paradigm even if the stress is on divine initiative (as in the model of responsible grace). . . . On the contrary, more accurate readings suggest that a synergistic paradigm, which contains both divine and human acting, must itself be caught up in an even larger conjunction in which the Protestant emphasis on the sole activity of God, apart from all human working, is equally factored in—not simply co-operant or responsible grace. . .” [4].

W. F. Warren on Synergism and Wesleyan Theology

This was strongly confirmed in a Methodist Review article I recently came across by the famous Methodist theologian and founding president of Boston University, W. F. Warren. He argued that synergism contradicts the Wesleyan view that “no man can come unto Christ without a divine drawing; none can even call Jesus the Lord but by the Holy Spirit.” Further, he said, synergism “conflict[s] with all those representations of Scripture which trace our awakening, regeneration, and sanctification to a divine inworking.” It also militates against “the standing testimony of the Christian consciousness, which in all lands and ages bears witness to the truth of Christ’s declaration: ‘Without me ye can do nothing.’”

Warren says that, even though man is not “a passive material to be transformed and recast by simple omnipotence” and we can resist God’s grace, we “must not regard this great work as the product of a joint action of divine and human agency viewed as independent factors. God does not stand over against the natural man, and merely co-operate with him in precisely that degree in which the individual himself operates to secure salvation.”

“This is the error of synergism,” Warren warns. “It springs out of a false deistic conception of the relation of God to the creature, and of man as a moral agent. It predicates of man a natural and ethical independence which he does not possess; it ignores the fact that in God we live, and move, and have our being.” Warren describes various stripes of synergism, noting unequivocally that “All these varieties Methodism rejects as inconsistent with what the Bible teaches.”

Citing the Methodist Articles of Religion and the great Wesleyan theologian John Fletcher of Madeley for support, Warren emphasizes that “any undue stress upon the human element in the appropriation of salvation logically leads to a Pelagian anthropology, and a doctrine of salvation by the merit of good works,” and he says there are “fatal consequences” that result from the teachings of  “Calvinistic monergists on the one hand, and by Pharisaic moralists and synergists on the other” [5].

Thinking Out Loud

These musings are offered for just what they are—thinking out loud about whether we Reformed Arminians should continue feeling insulted when our Calvinist friends call us synergists. These ramblings aren’t intended as definitive. They’re just a scratching of the surface. But the more I cast about, the more it seems we Reformed Arminians who are afraid of the word “synergist” are in good company. We learned this sensibility from Jacobus Arminius and Thomas Helwys and Thomas Grantham and Carl Bangs and Leroy Forlines and Robert Picirilli—but also, it seems, from some of Lutheranism’s and Wesleyanism’s leading lights.


[1] Bangs boldly states, “Arminius was a monergist.” (Carl Bangs, “Arminius and Reformed Theology,” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1958, 166).

[2] Henrik Frandsen, Hemmingius in the Same World as Pekinsius and Arminius (Praestoe, Denmark: Grafik Werk, 2013). See also Frederick Calder, ed., Memoirs of Simon Episcopius (London: Simpkin and Marshall, 1835).

[3] For a fun read on the Lutheran Predestination Controversy from the vantage point of the non-unconditional election side of the debate, see George H Schodde, ed., The Error of Modern Missouri: Its Inception, Development and Refutation (Columbus, Oh.: Lutheran Book Concern, 1897). Much of this book was translated from the German by the Lutheran biblical scholar R. C. H. Lenski. It contains a helpful compilation of anti-Calvinist material from the vantage point of Lutheran Scholasticism.

[4] Kenneth Collins, The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace (Abingdon, 2007). 163-64.

[5] W. F. Warren, “The Methodist Doctrine of the Appropriation of Salvation,” The Methodist Review 68 (July 1886), 594-97.

Individual Election, Corporate Election, and Arminianism

by Matthew Pinson

There is a flurry of activity at present from quarters in the Arminian theological community on the doctrine of corporate election. The exponents of this view are able and must be reckoned with, both by Calvinists and Arminians who emphasize the individual, personal nature of election to salvation.

However, to hear some Arminians talk, it is almost as though corporate election is the Arminian view. So I am offering this post not so much to make an argument for the individual, personal nature of election from an Arminian vantage point, but to remind my readers that there is another view among Arminians in opposition to the corporate election view. It may be a minority view, but there is a perspective with a long and distinguished history among Arminians and other non-Calvinists: that election to salvation is personal and individual. And this is not just a Reformed Arminian view. Many biblical interpreters outside Calvinism have interpreted the election passages in a more personal-individual manner.

As food for thought, I have cut and pasted some brief statements from a few modern-day Arminian authors who espouse this perspective. First is a short summary statement by Robert Picirilli, followed by a more direct statement of the doctrine by Jack Cottrell. Lastly, I have presented some brief comments Leroy Forlines makes about individual, personal election in the context of his interpretation of Romans 9.

Continue reading Individual Election, Corporate Election, and Arminianism

Arminianism & the Rise of Secularism?

by W. Jackson Watts

Recently I’ve been lumbering through Charles Taylor’s widely discussed book, A Secular Age. Published in 2007 by Harvard’s Belknap Press, this dense, 800+ pager (with endnotes) is an expanded presentation of the material Taylor originally gave for the prestigious Gifford Lectures at the University of Edinburgh in 1999.

A Secular Age is a difficult book to read for many reasons, its length being one of many. I don’t think it is so much the professional or cultural divide of him being a bilingual, Catholic philosopher from Canada. I think it is largely because he is making his argument by telling a story, and that story brings together history, theology, philosophy, sociology, cultural analysis, and more. In that sense, it’s a very interdisciplinary story—one that must be read slowly and carefully. (Thankfully, the Gospel Coalition has called attention in several posts to James K.A. Smith’s helpful engagement with Taylor, see here, here, and here.)

One of Taylor’s remarks that caught my eye comes at the end of a lengthy episode when he is describing how the Reformation contributed to the disenchantment of the world that we commonly associate with  secularism, or modernity more specifically. Most sociologists explain disenchantment as a feature of modernity in which the former, dominant outlook of the world as being charged with spirits, demons, and moral forces (including the activity of God), eventually recedes from dominance, and ultimately disappears.

Taylor says a lot of interesting things about this transition, and how the Reformation contributed (intentionally or not) to this process of disenchantment. Yet then he provides the one reference to Arminianism that can be found in the entire book:

Of course, we could go on holding to the express belief that only God’s power makes this possible; but in fact the confidence has grown that we, people like us, successful, well-behaved people, in our well-ordered society/stratum, are beneficiaries of God’s grace—as against those depraved, disordered classes, marginal groups, Papists, or whatever…As a general proposition, of course, it remains true that the majority of humankind is destined for damnation, and that the minority of the saved are very lucky; but in practice, we are confident that we belong in this minority, and that the universe is unfolding as it should….I have described a change as it might happen among the less reflective and devout members of the community. But the sense of greater control also effected the more reflective and devout. Thus Arminianism arises after a time in all Calvinist societies, provoking as it does revivals of predestinarian orthodoxy, but then returning in force again. This development was inevitable, in view of the very success of Calvinism in changing people’s lives [1].

It’s important to note that this quotation appears in the larger context of a fairly sophisticated argument about how Protestant doctrine’s rejection or revision of sacramentalism contributed to the rise of secularism. This argument exceeds the space I have here, but I want to simple pull on the specific thread here about Arminianism and control.

It’s difficult to tell if Taylor is arguing whether this is simply a tug-of-war between two religious groups contending for market share (more of a social development), or if the issue is actually the way these two traditions address the quest for human control and autonomy. I think it’s possible that he means it in both ways, but I think the latter way is most relevant to those trying to advance an accurate understanding of Arminianism today.

Our Challenge

It has been argued that one of the reasons Calvinism receded in influence for a significant period in early American history was because of how its assertion of God’s sovereignty wasn’t congenial to the broader movements of freedom, economic opportunity, and expressive individualism in mainstream culture. This isn’t really a philosophical argument, though obviously ideas have consequences (and antecedents). This is more of a part of the story that a lot of American religious historians tell.

Conversely, it would seem that Arminianism is a much more plausible outlook to modern Christians because its assertions about God’s sovereignty and human freedom are formulated differently. Arminianism doesn’t have to compete with the same vigor for the same religious market-share because it has the cultural sensibilities of freedom-loving, but also God-loving people on its side.

I think this argument, as reasonable as it may sound to some, doesn’t really have the kind of explanatory power or scope than some people think. Let me offer one reason why I think this is the case.

It seems to reduce negative cultural change (like the slide toward secularism) more of the type of subtraction story that Taylor himself rejects.

By “subtraction story,” Taylor means the way apologists for secularism act like the move toward secularism was just a journey of being able to discard certain elements from the past, like beliefs in myth, magic, or spirits, in order to arrive at a moment of unveiling what was really there all along: nothing! Apologists for secularism think that because we’ve shed or subtracted our religious dogmas and myths, we’ve now gotten to the truth. They fail to acknowledge where they have actively substituted exclusive humanism in the place of the religious dogmas.

Similar to the argument about Arminianism, if one claims that people by default are Arminians (as sometimes I’ve heard Michael Horton and others in the Reformed crowd imply), they would have to show where some act of substitution has actually taken place. Yet they cannot; If the doctrines of grace require unpacking and explicating for those in churches from the Calvinist tradition, then it seems like those with an Arminian heritage would have had to have been exposed to confessional teachings from James Arminius for them to even be thought to be “of the Arminian heritage.” Otherwise, the “default setting,” as it were, may be some combination of beliefs about God’s existence, human freedom, Wesley’s hymns perhaps, and a certain reading of Bible. But it won’t be confessional Arminianism.

I suspect most persons in mainstream evangelicalism have found certain theologies more appealing because of how they seemed to gel with their own privately-held beliefs. But in terms of default settings, I think you have more of a little bit of this tradition, mixed in with a little bit of that tradition, situated against the backdrop of American cultural influences that all of us have been shaped by.

One of the ways Taylor’s work is helpful is because of how he doesn’t focus on secularism as some disappearance act of the church or religious influence from the state (Secularism 1), or even the decline of religious belief and practice (Secularism 2). He does discuss these, but he is decidedly focused on a third type of secularism, which has to do with the conditions of our beliefs. In other words, the important “secular question” to explore is how is it that we have come to the place where what once was the default position for most, has now become simply an option among many, and not a very good one?

Secularism calls attention to how the conditions of certain kinds of beliefs or commitments in this age are under examination. That we would be choosers of our religion in a way that we wouldn’t have been in 1500 bespeaks secularization. Secularity, in this way of understanding it, “is a matter of the whole context of understanding in which our moral, spiritual or religious experience and search takes place” [2].

I think this is a fruitful way of studying history and cultural change. It’s also a helpful way of thinking about the history of doctrine. It reminds us that (1) Some beliefs do take hold at certain times for reasons which sometimes aren’t all that theological in nature, and yet (2) If we believe that the pursuit of sound doctrine is a moral responsibility for believers, then there will always be a deliberative component to our pursuit. That is, the mind, heart, and will are involved in the adoption of sound, biblical beliefs. Though we seek diligently and humbly to understand “the material conditions of our existence,” we don’t have to be a slave to them.


[1] Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2007), 84.

[2] Taylor, 3.

Thomas Grantham: An Influence on Wesley’s View of Predestination

by Matthew Pinson

(This post first appeared on Dr. Pinson’s blog at matthewpinson.com)

Recently a friend and former student, Jesse Owens (now a Ph.D. student in historical theology at Southern Seminary) told me about a statement Herbert McGonigle had made about Wesley “raising the ghosts” of John Goodwin and Thomas Grantham. This was very interesting to me, because of a paper I wrote twenty years ago comparing the soteriology of the English General Baptist Thomas Grantham with that of the Arminian Independent Puritan John Goodwin.

In that paper I emphasized the differences between Grantham’s more Reformed-leaning Arminianism and that of Goodwin [1]. I noted that, while Grantham and Goodwin, like all Arminians, agreed on how one comes to be in a state of grace, they differed on what it means to be in a state of grace. Under the category “how one comes to be in a state of grace” are affirmations such as conditional predestination, universal atonement, and the resistibility of grace before and after conversion.

Under the category “what it means to be in a state of grace” are issues such as a penal satisfaction view of atonement (as opposed to a governmental view), the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in justification (as opposed to an anti-imputation view), and apostasy viewed as a definitive, irremediable shipwreck of saving faith (as opposed to seeing it as a possibly repeated lapsing through unconfessed sin). Despite their differences, both Grantham and Wesley were Arminians. They both differed with Calvinism on the crucial question of how one comes to be in a state of grace.

So, needless to say, Jesse’s quotation from McGonigle got my attention. So I looked into it more. The actual quotation was about the famous Calvinist (and writer of “Rock of Ages) Augustus Toplady’s A Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, in which Toplady criticized Wesley for saying that certain evangelical clergy were trying to raise John Calvin’s ghost. McGonigle mentioned that Toplady said Wesley “should remember that he raised the ghosts of John Goodwin, ‘the Arminian regicide,’ Thomas Grantham, ‘the Arminian Baptist,’ and Monsieur De Renty, ‘the French Papist’” [2].

With my curiosity piqued, I started to do some digging, and what I found was very interesting. First, I went back and looked at Toplady’s reprinting of Jerome Zanchius’s The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination Stated and Asserted, which reprinted Toplady’s letter [3]. I also noticed that Toplady, in a book entitled More Work for Mr. John Wesley, mentioned Grantham in another list of anti-predestinarians that he said Wesley was resurrecting:

“Be content, therefore, with conjuring back the Ghosts of Peter Bertius, Samuel Hoord, Gregory Lopez, John Goodwin, and Thomas Grantham. The second-hand Arguments, which you so industriously cull from these and such-like Heroes, are quite sufficient (tho’ not to prove your Doctrines, yet) to convince us both of your Zeal and your Abilitys, without your calling up ‘all the Devils in Hell’ to augment your Train” [4].

When Jesse first told me about this quotation from McGonigle, I immediately thought that Toplady was not necessarily saying that Grantham was a direct source for Wesley’s doctrine of predestination but was simply one of the sort of Arminian-type ghosts Wesley was resurrecting. Still, as I replied in an email, even Toplady’s knowledge of Grantham and use of his name shows that Grantham was a much larger figure in Toplady’s day, nearly a century after the publication of Christianismus Primitivus, Grantham’s magnum opus.

Yet this second comment from Toplady, saying that Wesley had “industriously cull[ed] from . . . these and such-like Heroes” led me to believe that Toplady had a reason for saying that Wesley had directly culled from Grantham.

So I kept up my sleuthing.

Then I found a biography of Wesley, Luke Tyerman’s Life and Times of the Rev. John Wesley, M.A., Founder of Methodism, a third edition published in 1876. Tyerman made passing mention of several of the books and pamphlets that Wesley published in 1741 (Wesley was famous for reprinting myriads of pamphlets and anthologies and extracts of books for the general public). One of those was an eight-page pamphlet, A Dialogue Between a Predestinarian and His Friend. In a footnote, Tyerman wrote,

“It was hardly honest of Wesley to publish this without a word of acknowledgment as to its author and origin. We have compared it with ‘A Dialogue between the Baptist and Presbyterian . . . By Thomas Grantham, Messenger of the Baptized Churches in Lincolnshire. London, 1681.’ . . . and have no hesitancy in saying, that Wesley’s Dialogue, abridged and altered, is taken from that of Grantham.” [5].

Then, in the Dictionary of National Biography entry on Wesley, I noticed that there was also passing reference to the Dialogue pamphlet. The DNB entry remarked simply that it was “mainly borrowed from Thomas Grantham” [6].

I kept searching and found an 1896 annotated bibliography of John and Charles Wesley’s works written by Richard Green. Green, in the entry on A Dialogue Between a Predestinarian and His Friend mentioned that Joseph Gurney in 1778 had said that the pamphlet was “taken without acknowledgment” from Grantham’s pamphlet. But, according to Green, John Heylin had stated, “I have compared the two, and find that the charge is altogether groundless” [7].

Obviously, my curiosity was further awakened. So I went and compared the two works myself. What I discovered was that, while Gurney and Tyerman overestimated the degree of dependence Wesley had on Grantham’s earlier work, the charge was not “altogether groundless,” as Heylin claimed. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

There can be no question that Wesley lifted several lines of his pamphlet directly from Grantham. The wording in many instances is verbatim, and the big tip-off is that Wesley follows Grantham’s line of thought throughout. The material he uses at the beginning of his pamphlet is what Grantham used at the beginning of his, and so on through the work, up to the end. While this use of someone else’s material without attribution is shocking in our day, it was more common back then.

So what we have here is that Grantham was at least one influence (if small) for Wesley’s doctrine of predestination. Obviously, this is something completely different from Wesley’s reliance on John Goodwin. Wesley reprinted lengthy books from him with glowing prefaces. Instead, in Grantham’s Dialogue Between the Baptist and the Presbyterian, with the imaginary Presbyterian’s answers being direct quotations from Calvinist luminaries, confessions, and catechisms of the time, we have a handy source of ammunition against Calvinism that any anti-Calvinist would have found useful. And Wesley certainly did.

I wish, however, that Wesley had seen fit to follow Grantham on the latter’s more Reformed understandings of the penal-satisfaction nature of atonement, justification by the imputation of the active and passive obedience of Christ, disavowal of Christian perfection, and how a believer who is in union with Christ and thus imputed with his active and passive obedience can apostatize only by becoming an unbeliever and thus no longer being in union with Christ—an irremediable state.

Instead, Wesley went with Goodwin, reprinting much-longer works by the latter that advocated a governmental view of atonement, spent many pages deriding imputed righteousness as a legal fiction, and arguing, literally, for repeated regeneration. (Goodwin’s wording, as Jesse Owens points out in his excellent recent paper on Goodwin, is that people can be “twice regenerate” and that regeneration can be “reiterated” or “repeated.”) [8].

I also wish that Wesley had given Grantham credit for that eight-page pamphlet, as he did John Goodwin for the lengthy reprinting he did of Goodwin’s work. If nothing else, it would have given Grantham more name recognition outside the Baptist fold and ensured a greater legacy for his work.

This whole episode has reminded me of how great figures of the past can be ignored by subsequent history. Grantham, whom the esteemed British historian Diarmaid MacCulloch recently called a “doctor of the church” and “one of seventeenth-century English Christianity’s long-neglected but rewarding intellects” has almost been forgotten by church historians. Until the last few years, his name was found only in obscure older Baptist histories, with modern mention only by Free Will Baptist historians [9]. Yet his formidable body of scholarship, despite the differences some (including me) might have with him, deserves another look.


[1] A version of that paper will be published in my forthcoming collection of essays entitled Arminian and Baptist: Explorations in a Theological Tradition (Nashville: Randall House, 2015).

[2] Herbert McGonigle, Sufficient Saving Grace: John Wesley’s Evangelical Arminianism (Eugene, OR: Paternoster, 2001).

[3] The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination Stated and Asserted (New York: George Lindsay, 1811). Toplady’s letter to Wesley is reprinted as an appendix to this volume, and the quotation concerning Grantham and Goodwin appears on p. 296.

[4] Augustus Toplady, More Work for Mr. John Wesley: Or, a Vindication of the Decrees and Providence of God from the Defamations of a late printed Paper Entitled “The Consequence Proved”  (London: James Matthews, 1772), 83.

[5] Luke Tyerman, Life and Times of the Rev. John Wesley, M.A., Founder of Methodism , vol. 1 (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1876), 365-66.

[6] Dictionary of National Biography, s.v., “John Wesley” (London: Smith, Elder, and Co., 1899), 60:313.

[7] Richard Green, The Works of John and Charles Wesley: A Bibliography (London: C. H. Kelley, 1896), 18.