As usual, Wesley spent the first two months of the new year in London. The most notable occurrence, during this period, was the institution of a tract society,—the first that was ever formed. The Religious Tract Society was originated in 1799; Wesley’s, seventeen years previous to this. We have before us an original document printed in 1783, entitled, “A Plan of the Society, instituted in January, 1782, to distribute Religious Tracts among the Poor.” The rules are three. “1. Every member must subscribe half-a-guinea, a guinea, or more, annually. 2. A proportionable quota of tracts shall be delivered yearly to each subscriber, according to his subscription, and, as nearly as possible, at prime cost, and carriage paid. 3. Every subscriber shall have a right to choose his own tracts, if he please; otherwise, he will receive a proportionable variety of the whole.” After this follows a list of thirty tracts already printed, all of them either written or published by Wesley. Then there is subjoined the following: “An Extract of the Original Proposals.”

Though Wesley’s tract society does not now exist, in the form in which it was instituted in 1782, it is a fact worth noting, that, in 1867, Wesley’s book room, in City Road, sold not fewer than one million five hundred and seventy thousand tracts, all printed and published by itself;⁠[419] and that the number of its distinct and separate tract publications, in 1871, is not less than 1250.

We have said, the Methodist Tract Society was the first that was ever formed. It is true that, in 1699, “The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge” was founded; and, in 1750, “The Society for Promoting Religious Knowledge among the Poor”; but, strictly speaking, neither of these was a tract society. In this respect, as in others, Wesley was a pioneer. As early as 1745, he speaks of “giving away some thousands of little tracts among the common people”; and long before 1782, had written, and published, besides a large number of separate and short sermons, at least scores of penny publications. And yet Mr. Jones, the corresponding secretary of the Religious Tract Society, in his jubilee volume of 700 pages, while professing to trace the origin of tract distribution, entirely omits the name of Wesley, who saw the value and the power of a tract more than fifty years before the Religious Tract Society had a name. Was this intentional? We trust not.

On Sunday, the 3rd of March, Wesley took coach for Bristol, where he spent the next fortnight. He then started off on his long northern journey. On his way, he called at Madeley, where “both Mr. and Mrs. Fletcher complained, that, after all the pains they had taken, they could not prevail on the people to join in society, no, nor even to meet in class.” What the vicar and his new wife (Miss Bosanquet) failed to do, Wesley accomplished. He preached two rousing sermons; and “then desired those, who were willing to join together for Christian fellowship, to call upon him and Mr. Fletcher after service. Ninety-four persons did so: about as many men as women.” Wesley adds: “We explained to them the nature of a Christian society, and they willingly joined therein.”

Wesley then proceeded to Congleton, where “the Calvinists were striving to make havoc of the flock”; and to Macclesfield, where he spent Good Friday and Easter Sunday. On the former day, he preached twice, in the Rev. David Simpson’s church; and, with his assistance, administered the sacrament to about thirteen hundred persons; on the latter day, he also preached twice in the same edifice; again administered to eight hundred communicants; and, in the evening, preached in the Methodist chapel, and held a lovefeast at which sixteen or eighteen persons professed to live in the enjoyment of the blessing of perfect love. “About forty,” says Hester Ann Rogers, in the unpublished portion of her diary, “made a noble confession.” Among these were herself, George Bradock, Joseph Roe, John Booby, T. Ridgway, Joseph Norberry, Billy Sharpley, S. Bradshaw, and John Goostry; the last of whom Wesley ordered to stand on the form, that the people might hear him. “Mr. Wesley,” continues Mrs. Rogers, “kept the lovefeast two hours, a thing which I never knew him do before; but his soul was filled with thankfulness, for so many witnesses of redeeming love and full salvation.”

It would be tedious to mention all the places Wesley visited. Suffice it to say, that, at Ashton under Lyne, he preached in the new chapel, which had the following inscription over the door: “Can any good come out of Nazareth? Come and see!” At Oldham, “a whole troop of boys and girls would not be contented till he shook each by the hand.” At St. Helen’s, he preached in the house of Joseph Harris, who had removed from Kingswood, “to take care of the copper works.” At Wigan, he “saw an uncommon sight,—the preaching house filled, yea, crowded.” At Epworth, there had been a marvellous revival. At Thorne, fifty had found peace with God within two months. At Edinburgh, he was the guest of Lady Maxwell, and visited her school of forty poor children, many of whom were without shoes; but not a girl, in rags, was without her ruffles. At Kelso, he fell, head foremost, down the stairs of Dr. Douglas’s house, but mercifully escaped without serious injury.⁠[420] At York, he entered into his eightieth year, and wrote: “Blessed be God! my time is not labour and sorrow. I find no more pain or bodily infirmities than at five-and-twenty. This I still impute—(1) To the power of God, fitting me for what He calls me to. (2) To my still travelling four or five thousand miles a year. (3) To my sleeping, night or day, whenever I want it. (4) To my rising at a set hour. (5) To my constant preaching, particularly in the morning.”

Wesley reached London, after an absence of more than four months, on July 20. Here he held his conference. He writes: “Friday, August 2, we observed as a day of fasting and prayer for a blessing on the ensuing conference; and I believe God clothed His word with power in an uncommon manner throughout the week; so that, were it only on this account, the preachers who came from all parts found their labour was not in vain.”

Among other questions debated at this conference, was the sabbath. Methodists, in some instances, visited barbers’ shops on Sundays; and, in others, practised military exercises, as volunteers, or were spectators of such exercises. This led the conference to enact, that no members of society should have their hair dressed on Sundays; and that, as far as possible, those barbers should be patronised who observed the sabbath’s sanctity. It was further determined, that any Methodist, who practised military exercises on the sabbath, as a volunteer, should be expelled; and that any one who, after proper admonition, continued a spectator of such sabbath drills should undergo the same penalty. Though not absolutely forbidden, preachers were recommended not to powder their hair, nor to wear artificial curls. The weekly and quarterly contributions having been shamefully neglected in many of the societies, the assistants and leaders were to remind the people of the original rule, that “every member contributes one penny weekly, (unless he is in extreme poverty,) and one shilling quarterly.” Wesley adds: “Money lovers are the pest of every Christian society. They have been the main cause of destroying every revival of religion. They will destroy us, if we do not put them away. A man not worth a shilling enters our society. Yet he freely gives a penny a week. Five years after, he is worth scores of pounds; he gives a penny a week still. I must think this man covetous, unless he assures me he bestows his charity some other way. For every one is covetous, whose beneficence does not increase in the same proportion as his substance.”

The most troublesome subject of discussion was the case of the Birstal chapel. It was asked, “What can be done with regard to the preaching house at Birstal?” Answer. “If the trustees still refuse to settle it on the Methodist plan: 1. Let a plain statement of the case be drawn up. 2. Let a collection be made throughout all England, in order to purchase ground, and to build another preaching house as near the present as may be.”

This was an important matter, on account of its involving one of Methodism’s fundamental principles, namely, that the conference alone shall have the power of appointing preachers to preach in Methodist chapels. This was the first time that the question was fairly raised. It was seen, that the issue, either way, would be most momentous. It affected not Birstal merely, but the whole Methodist connexion; and not the present only, but the future. Great excitement was created. The controversy, among other great results, led to the drawing up and enrolment of Methodism’s Magna Charta, Wesley’s deed of declaration, in 1784. Altogether, this was one of the most important events in Wesley’s history; and, hence, a detailed account of it will not be inappropriate.

The original chapel at Birstal was erected, under the auspices of John Nelson, about the year 1751. By the deed of settlement, the right of occupying the pulpit was given, first, to the two Wesleys in succession, and then to Grimshaw of Haworth; but, after the decease of these three ministers, the trustees were to elect their own preachers monthly; and all such preachers, so long as they continued in this office, were to preach in the chapel twice every Sunday, every Christmas day, New Year’s day, and Good Friday, and also every Thursday night, as had been, up to 1751, “usual and customary to be done.”

Such was the substance of the obnoxious clause; which hitherto, however, had created no difficulty.

In 1782, it was found necessary, either to enlarge the old chapel, or to build a new one in its place. Contributions were given for this purpose; but were not sufficient. It was ascertained, that the sum of £350 additional would be required, and that eight of the intended trustees would have to advance the money. To give them security, a deed of transfer was prepared, in which John and Charles Wesley, for the considerations therein mentioned, sold to certain specified trustees the old premises, with the following agreements in reference to the enlarged, or the new chapel, which was to be provided to meet the growing necessities of the Birstal Methodists. 1. The trustees advancing the £350 were to have, as their security, “the rents and profits to arise from the hearers’ pews and seats.” 2. The new or enlarged chapel was to be occupied, during their lifetime, by John and Charles Wesley, or by those whom they might from time to time appoint. 3. After their death, the appointment of preachers, to preach in the said chapel, was to be made by the trustees, and by “such members of the Methodist society as had been classleaders for three years, within the circumjacent villages of Birstal, Great Gomersal, Little Gomersal, Birkenshaw, Adwalton, Drighlington, Batley, Carlinghow, and Heckmondwike; or by the major part of such trustees and classleaders.” Provided always, that the said preachers preach no other doctrine than is contained in Mr. Wesley’s Notes upon the Old and New Testament; that they preach in the said chapel twice every Sunday, and at least one evening every week; and that they hold the said premises and exercise the function of a preacher only during the goodwill and pleasure of the major part of the aforesaid trustees and classleaders. After this, followed a number of provisoes in reference to pew rents, etc. (1) The rents were to be applied in keeping the premises in repair. (2) In paying interest upon the debt of £350, at 5 per cent. per annum. (3) In maintaining the preacher for the time being, for which purpose, however, not more than £10 a year should be appropriated, until after the whole of the £350 had been repaid; when, after deducting for repairs and lasting improvements, the whole of the clear rents and profits arising from the pews and seats should be given “for and towards the maintenance and support of the preachers or pastors for the time being of the said society at Birstal.” It was further provided, that the appointment and removal of chapel stewards should be vested in the preachers, trustees, and classleaders aforesaid, or the major part of them, notice of their meetings for such purpose, however, having to be publicly read to the congregation on three successive Sunday evenings immediately preceding. Certain rooms also in a dwelling house, on the premises, were to be at the use of the stewards and leaders, for the purpose of transacting business and meeting classes.

The above is an abstract of all the important points in the new trust deed of 1782. That deed had attached to it the following signatures.

• John Aspinall,
• Joseph Bennett,
• James Blackburn,
• John Tempest,
• Jonathan Brearley,
• Benjamin Mallinson,
• Anthony Williamson,
• Nathaniel Harrison,
• John White,
• Joseph Nelson,
• William Booth,
• John Wesley,
• Joseph Charlesworth,
• Charles Gunson,
• John Armitage,
• Joseph Lee,
• Thomas Crowther,
• William Tempest,
• Isaac Smith,
• William Chadwick.

Wesley’s signature was witnessed by Thomas Briscoe and Alexander Mather. The deed was dated May 14, 1782, and was enrolled on the 11th of October following. It may be added, that, of the above signers, Aspinall, Bennett, Blackburn, Tempest, Brierley, Williamson, Harrison, White, Nelson, and Booth were old trustees; Mallinson, Charlesworth, Gunson, Armitage, Lee, Crowther, W. Tempest, Smith, and Chadwick were the new trustees.

The deed of 1782 was widely different from that of 1751, and, as the vice chancellor ruled in 1854, so far as it purported to vary the trusts of the latter deed, it was void and of no effect;⁠[421] but it still contained the obnoxious clause, giving power to other parties than Wesley’s conference, to appoint the preachers. Wesley says, in a letter to his brother, dated May 28, 1782:

Wesley committed a mistake; but, be it borne in mind, that he was now an old man of nearly eighty, and that Alexander Mather, and Thomas Briscoe, the superintendents of the Leeds and Birstal circuits, were participators in his folly.

In an unpublished letter to Samuel Bradburn, then stationed at Bradford, Wesley wrote:

Charles Wesley acted upon his brother’s advice. He entered into correspondence with the Birstal reformers. In answer to their objection, that “the present trustees could not legally transfer any of their power to the conference,” he asks: “Then how can they transfer any of their power to the leaders?” He continues:

This letter was written a week before the conference of 1782 was opened; and was a reply to one written by James Carr, the trustees’ attorney, who, soon afterwards, addressed the following unpublished letter to Mr. Charlesworth.

In the mean time, the new chapel was built, and Dr. Coke took up the matter. The following also is a letter now for the first time published. It was addressed to Mr. Charlesworth.

Shortly after, Dr. Coke published a 12mo tract of 12 pages, entitled, “An Address to the inhabitants of Birstal, and the adjacent villages.” He relates how the attorney of the trustees obtained Wesley’s signature to the deed. He states, that Charles Wesley had not signed, and, he believed, never would. The “amazing deed” had been discussed at the late conference, and had created just alarm; and he (Dr. Coke) had been delegated to carry into execution the minute that was passed; but, upon application to the trustees, he had “found the greatest part of them determined to hold fast their unlimited and most dangerous power.” He answers the objection, “Would it not be equally dangerous to invest this power in the conference?” by saying, “No: for the plan of settlement, adopted by the conference, ties them down to the principles of religion at present held by the Methodists.” He relates, that he had proposed to the trustees to submit the matter to the arbitration of the attorney general, or some other eminent counsellor; and had engaged that, if the opinion thus obtained was the same as that of the trustees and Mr. Carr, “Birstal preaching house should be considered an exempt case, and the trustees should be suffered quietly to retain all the power which they had at present”; with the understanding, on the other hand, that, if the legal opinion of the arbitrator was, “that the surviving trustees, with the consent of the original proprietor, and all the parties concerned, could resettle the house on the Methodist plan, they would resettle it accordingly.” He had also added, at another meeting, that, in such a case, he would give a bond of five or six hundred pounds, that the trustees, who had advanced the £350, should not only have their interest, but their principal paid them, in instalments of £50 per annum; and, further, that he would engage, that all subscribers to the recently erected building, “who signified their desire of having their money returned, should have it returned to them within two years.” The trustees, however, “obstinately refused to comply with this.”

Coke continues:

Such was the unanimous agreement. A rough draft of the intended deed was made, and (horresco referens!) was brought, by the attorney of the trustees, to Dr. Coke on the Sunday following. On reading it, Coke found a few words inserted, which upset the whole. It read: “If the said trustees and leaders, or the major part of them, shall at any time, in their judgment, think that the said conference deviates from the grand Methodist plan, then,” etc., “thus constituting themselves judges in their own cause.” Dr. Coke objected to this; and they seemed willing to give it up; but “desired that another meeting might be held on the following Sunday! at which all the leaders might be present, that their consent might also be procured.” The conference representative agreed to this; Sunday came; and the trustees and leaders “would not move a single step.”

Such had been the negotiations, and such was the state of affairs, when Dr. Coke published his pamphlet in November, 1782. He makes an appeal “to the congregation, and to the society,” and concludes with the following prayer: “O Thou Lover of concord and Prince of peace, keep these little ones under Thy fostering wing. Preserve them from the silken tongued sycophant, the sly deceiver, who seeks his own, and not the things of Jesus Christ. Hide them for a little moment in the chambers of Thy love, till this and every indignation be overpast. Keep them close to the bleeding side of Jesus, and close to the affectionate hearts of their faithful pastors for ever.”

What more was done? Two months after this, on January 3, 1783, Wesley issued a folio circular, entitled, “The Case of the Birstal House.”⁠[424] This all can read for themselves in Wesley’s collected works (vol. xiii., p. 260). Suffice it to say, that the reasons assigned by Wesley, why neither the Birstal, nor any other Methodist chapel, should be settled according to the Birstal deed, were: (1) It would put an end to itinerant preaching, for when the trustees got a preacher whom they liked, they would keep him. (2) It would put a bridle in the preacher’s mouth; for how would he dare to speak the full and the whole truth, when he was liable to lose his bread? (3) “The power of the trustees was greater than that of any nobleman; yea, or of the king himself. Where he is patron, he can put in a preacher, but he cannot put him out.” He concludes: “No Methodist trustees, if I can help it, shall, after my death, any more than while I live, have the power of placing and displacing the preachers.”

So the thing went on. A case was submitted to Mr. John Maddocks, barrister, for his opinion, as to the possibility of legally making such an alteration in trust deeds, as was desired in the Birstal case. His opinion, dated “Lincoln’s Inn, July 24, 1783,” is before us, and is to the effect, that such an alteration might be made. On the 5th of September following, Wesley met the nineteen trustees, and offered to allow the same clause to be inserted in a new deed as was inserted in the deed of the chapel in City Road, namely, “In case the doctrine or practice of any preacher should, in the opinion of the major part of the trustees, be not conformable to Mr. Wesley’s Sermons and Notes on the New Testament, on representing this, another preacher shall be sent within three months.” Five of the trustees were willing to accept of this; the rest refused.

In an unpublished letter, written by Dr. Coke, and addressed to Mr. Benson, only ten days after this interview, there are some other particulars given. Wesley first told the trustees, he wished their chapel to be settled according to the Methodist plan contained in the minutes of conference. He then offered to allow the clause to be inserted which has just been mentioned; adding, “this was never allowed to any trustees before, and never shall again while I live.” He further offered to relieve the trustees of their £350 debt, promising to give £100 himself, and saying, “This I do, because I love you, and for old acquaintance sake.” And he further promised to make them a present of the piece of ground which Dr. Coke had purchased for the site of another chapel. The names of the five consenting trustees were, Nathaniel Harrison, Anthony Williamson, John Aspinall, Joseph Bennett, and James Blackburn.⁠[425]

The dissentient trustees took time to think. On September 25, 1783, Christopher Hopper wrote to one of them, Mr. Charlesworth, in a somewhat ambiguous style, as follows.

Reflection often brings wisdom. On the 13th of January, 1784, Mr. Charlesworth wrote to Wesley, saying, that his offer would now be accepted. He says, with a Yorkshire keenness, which smacks of avarice⁠—

The result was, a new deed was made, giving the conference power to appoint preachers; and this serious hubbub, pro tem., subsided. We shall soon have to recur to the same subject; and this apparently long and tedious digression may serve as an introduction to what will have to be said hereafter. The controversy was the first battle fought for restricting, or rather for setting aside, an ecclesiastical power, which has grown to be the greatest exercised by any church throughout the whole of the Christian world; and perhaps, on this ground, the writer will be pardoned for trespassing on the reader’s patience; and especially as many of the incidents are now for the first time published.⁠[428]

We return to Wesley. Of course, the dispute at Birstal led to much unpleasantness; but Wesley was firm in maintaining discipline. Hence the following, addressed to Mr. Valton, then one of the Birstal preachers.

Wesley’s clerical friends were now regularly and constantly increasing. He had, to some extent, outlived their brotherly persecution. They began to appreciate his motives and his services; and, so far from hooting and hissing him, began to greet him, to court his company, and to ask his counsel. Among others of this description may be mentioned the Rev. Thomas Davenport, who was now in his sixtieth year, but had only recently found peace with God, and that principally through Wesley’s help.⁠[430] Wesley wrote to him as follows.

The day after this letter was written, Wesley set out westwards. On reaching Exeter, where his old antagonist, Bishop Lavington, once resided, he met with a most friendly welcome; and, by invitation, dined on the Sunday, with the bishop, in his palace, five other clergymen and four of the aldermen of Exeter being present besides himself. Arriving at Plymouth, Wesley preached in the Square, and, while doing so, a regiment of soldiers, with military music, marched into it. No sooner, however, did the commanding officer perceive the preacher, than he stopped the music, and drew up his men to listen. “They were all still as night;” says Wesley, “nor did any of them stir, till I had pronounced the blessing.”

In Cornwall, he found an old clerical friend at the point of death, the Rev. Mr. Thompson, rector of St. Gennis. It was now thirty-seven years since Wesley first preached in Mr. Thompson’s church, and, throughout the whole of that period, they had been faithful friends. The dying rector wished once more to see his old acquaintance. Wesley, borrowing the best horse he could find, and riding as fast as he was able, says: “I found Mr. Thompson just alive, but quite sensible. He had many doubts concerning his final state, and rather feared, than desired, to die; so that my whole business was to comfort him, and to increase and confirm his confidence in God. He desired me to administer the Lord’s supper, which I willingly did; and I left him much happier than I found him, calmly waiting till his change should come.”

While riding to see his friend, Mr. Thompson, Wesley was accosted by an old acquaintance of another sort. He writes: “On the way, I met with a white headed old man, who caught me by the hand, and said, ‘Sir, do you not know me?’ I answered, ‘No.’ He said, ‘My father, my father! I am poor John Trembath.’ I desired him to speak to me in the evening at Launceston; which he did. He was, for some time, reduced to extreme poverty, so as to hedge and ditch for bread; but, in his distress, he cried unto God, who sent him an answer of peace. He, likewise, enabled him to cure a gentleman that was desperately ill, and afterwards several others; so that he grew into reputation, and gained a competent livelihood. ‘And now,’ said he, ‘I want for nothing: I am happier than ever I was in my life.’”

Who was John Trembath? One of Wesley’s first itinerants, who commenced his ministry in 1743, and, for several years, laboured with diligence under Wesley’s direction,⁠[433]—a man of great eloquence and zeal,⁠[434]—a burning and shining light, and a workman who, at one time, according to Wesley, had no need to be ashamed,⁠[435]—a preacher not deep, and yet so popular as to be almost idolised by the people;⁠[436] but who, alas! for the last twenty years, had sunk into an extreme of sin, and shame, and misery. Naturally vain, the applauses of the people spoiled him. He became bouncing, and boastful, and not always truthful. He married, gave up reading, turned to farming, and kept company with men who had just wit enough to “talk of bullocks,” and to “smoke, drink, and flatter him.” He became a sportsman, and was suspected of smuggling.⁠[437] His career was almost a romance. But now, to use Wesley’s language, “John Trembath was alive again.”⁠[438] A month after the strange interview above related, Trembath wrote to Wesley: “Though God has forgiven me, yet I cannot forgive myself for the precious time I have wasted, the years I have lost, and the glorious harvest I have neglected.”⁠[439] Poor Trembath died of paralysis, at Cork, about the year 1793.⁠[440]

Such were the old friends whom Wesley met in Cornwall. Getting back to Bristol, on September 6, he found a new one, young, but warm hearted, honest, and faithful. Adam Clarke, just emerging out of his teens, had arrived from Ireland. He had travelled from Birmingham to Bristol upon a penny loaf and a halfpennyworth of apples; and had just three halfpence left when he got to Kingswood school. He met with a reception from Simpson, the head master, as frigid as cold heartedness could make it. Simpson’s stupid, imperious wife made bad things worse, by suspecting that the young Irishman might be afflicted with the itch, and by making him rub himself from head to foot with Jackson’s ointment. This “infernal unguent,” as Adam calls it, made him smell worse than a polecat. His only sustenance was bread and milk; and not enough of that. For more than three weeks, no one performed any kind act for him. As for Mrs. Simpson, he feared her as he feared the devil. At length, Wesley arrived from Cornwall; Clarke was introduced; Wesley laid his hands upon his head, and spent a few minutes in beseeching God to bless him; and then gave him his commission to proceed to Wiltshire as a Methodist preacher. Fifty years after this, Adam Clarke died in London,—an old itinerant preacher, without a spot on the fair escutcheon of his character,—one of the most extensively learned scholars of the age,—a voluminous author,—the friend of philosophers and princes,—and a man intensely beloved by nearly all who knew him.

Wesley left Bristol for London on October 7, and, on his way, preached at Newport in the Isle of Wight. He writes: “This place seems now ripe for the gospel, opposition is at an end.”

At, Newport the first Methodist preaching place was a room in Node Hill; and the opposition, referred to by Wesley, consisted of the beating of drums, tin kettles, and bells; the throwing of rotten eggs, sticks, and stones; sparrows let loose in the room for the purpose of putting out the lights; and covering the chimney top and fastening the door, in order to stifle the imprisoned worshippers. It was at Newport, that Robert Wallbridge heard Wesley preach; was converted; became a Methodist; and a Methodist local preacher. Elizabeth Wallbridge, his sister, was now a light haired, ruddy faced, and merry hearted girl, of twelve years old. Of scholastic learning she had but a slender share; and had to earn her bread as a household servant. She had a high flow of spirits, vanity, and ready wit, and was inordinately fond of dress. Elizabeth was converted under the ministry of James Crabb, a Methodist preacher, became a Methodist herself, and continued such to the end of life. Her father joined the church presided over by the Rev. Daniel Tyerman, who published an account of him, in a well written tract, a short time before he set sail on his mission to the South Sea islands. Elizabeth’s brother Robert, for more than forty years, was a Methodist local preacher, and died at Newport in 1837. Elizabeth herself died, at the age of thirty-one, in the year 1801; the Rev. Legh Richmond visited her in her last moments; and afterwards wrote her life, with the title of “The Dairyman’s Daughter,” omitting to state, however, that his heroine was a Methodist. Millions of copies of that publication have been circulated; it has been translated into, at least, thirty languages; and, thirty years ago, it had been the means of the conversion of three hundred and fifty persons.⁠[441]

Wesley reached London on October 11. Here, and in eight or nine of the southern counties of England, he spent, according to his custom, the remainder of the year.

His publications, in 1782, were few in number.

1. An Extract from his Journal, from January 1, 1776, to August 5, 1779. 12mo, 112 pages.

2. “Alleine’s Alarm to the Unconverted.” 12mo, 107 pages.

3. “An Estimate of the Manners of the present Times.” 12mo, 23 pages.

This was an exceedingly characteristic piece. With terrible severity, he lashes the vices of the age; the slothfulness of people of fashion; the increase of luxury, both in meat, drink, dress, and furniture; and lewdness of every kind. He writes: “A total ignorance of God is almost universal among us. The exceptions are exceeding few, whether among the learned or unlearned. High and low, cobblers, tinkers, hackney coachmen, men and maid servants, soldiers, sailors, tradesmen of all ranks, lawyers, physicians, gentlemen, lords, are as ignorant of the Creator of the world as Mahommedans or pagans.”

4. The Arminian Magazine. 8vo, 680 pages. Here we have an engraving of the new chapel in City Road, with portraits of George Story, etc. About forty pages are filled with a continuation of Wesley’s translation of the Dialogues of Castellio on Election and Free Will. There are long extracts from Wesley’s “Survey of the Wisdom of God in Creation”; and from Dr. Watts’s Treatise on the Passions. Remarks upon Locke’s Essay on the Human Understanding make a part of every number. Memoirs and happy deaths are more numerous than ever. There are sixty letters, and as many poems. There are six original sermons by Wesley himself. One, on “Redeeming the Time,” is a vigorous enforcement of the principles propounded in his letter to his niece in 1781.⁠[442] Another is a remarkable homily on “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return”; and another, equally striking, is on God’s six days’ work. Then there is his magnificent sermon on, “Not as the transgression, so is the free gift.” And, lastly, there is his terrific discourse on the Punishments of Hell. If the Arminian Magazine had done nothing more than give birth to sermons like these, it would have rendered incalculable service to the cause of Christ.

In addition to the above, the magazine contains several original articles, by Wesley’s pen, of great interest and importance. In one, on Persecuting Papists, he says: “I set out in early life with an utter abhorrence of persecution in every form, and a full conviction, that every man has a right to worship God, according to his own conscience. I would not hurt a hair of the head of Romanists. Meantime, I would not put it into their power to hurt me, or any other persons whom they believe to be heretics. I would neither kill, nor be killed. I wish them well; but I dare not trust them.” In another article there is an onslaught on the “Divinity and Philosophy of the highly illuminated Jacob Behmen”; concluding thus: “May we not pronounce, with the utmost certainty, of one who thus distorts, mangles, and murders the word of God, That the light which is in him is darkness; that he is illuminated from beneath, rather than from above; and that he ought to be styled Demonosopher, rather than Theosopher?”

This was savage; and Wesley’s old friend, Mr. Harry Brooke, of Dublin, wrote him a letter of earnest remonstrance; to which Wesley replied as follows.