Wesley replied to this, in “A Letter to the Rev. Mr. Thomas Maxfield, occasioned by a late Publication”: 8vo, 11 pages. He states, with perfect truth, that, at the time referred to, there were not five thousand Methodists in the world; that his own societies contained not more than fourteen or fifteen hundred members, and Whitefield’s not so many. He declares that, so far from receiving thirty thousand people from Whitefield in solemn trust, the latter never delivered up to him one thousand, nor one hundred. He admits, that division followed; but affirms that Whitefield himself occasioned it. Whitefield first published a treatise against him by name; but he made no reply to it. Wesley asserts that Whitefield constantly preached against him and his brother, both in Moorfields, and in other public places. Even in the very Foundery, while Charles Wesley sat beside him, he preached the absolute decrees, in the most peremptory and offensive manner; but, instead of returning railing for railing, they always and everywhere spoke of him in respectful terms. And then, with respect to the publications of the last six years, Wesley states that, though the two Hills, and Toplady, had poured upon him, in great abundance, bitterness and wrath, yea, low, base, and virulent invective, he himself had published only three tracts during the entire controversy, and in none of them had he spoken one bitter, passionate, or disrespectful word. “Where,” he asks, “have I, in one single sentence, returned them railing for railing? I have not so learned Christ. I dare not rail, either at them or you. I return not cursing but blessing. That the God of love may bless them and you, is the prayer of your injured, yet still affectionate brother, JOHN WESLEY.” Wesley’s letter was worthy of himself. True, his statements, respecting his old friend Whitefield, are scarcely to Whitefield’s honour; but it must be borne in mind, that they are not opinions, but facts; and facts not volunteered, but extorted by the falsehoods of Maxfield and those with whom Maxfield now associated. Wesley replied to Maxfield; but the publications which must be next noticed were properly treated with the silent contempt they merited. We reluctantly advert to these vile productions; and yet, for the reason already repeatedly assigned, we must. Our notices shall be brief: first, for want of space; and secondly, because we can hardly make quotations without fouling our pages. The publications were seven in number, all, except one, printed by a man of the name of Bew, in Paternoster Row, on the best of paper, and in the best of type.