of Mr. Wainewright's "adversary" from his language. If language be the criterion, never were the lines from Hudibras, which he applies to the Methodists, more capable of being thrown back upon himself in the way of retort, "More peevish, cross, and splenetick, Like dog distract, or monkey sick."* The "Strictures" are not without a slight tincture of the style of Mr. Wainewright; and the writer manifests all the painful feeling which is generally produced by previous castigation. It is not impossible that the "True Churchman," in publick, may present a fac-simile of the Rector in private: any how, if the writer be not his entire self, he must be considered as a part of the whole-a brother beloved. There have been various 66 guesses at the author of the Letters of Junius," and these "Strictures"-not for the extraordinary talent displayed, prevent a termination of the age of guessing. The same spirit is breathed against the Methodists-the same views entertained of themthe same want of Scripture authority evinced-the same doctrines contended for-the same follies and amusements pleaded forand, in not a few instances, a similar phraseology is adopted, with that of Mr. Wainewright. Listen a moment to the author of the "Strictures." "Mr. Wainewright," says he, "I apprehend, would feel but little difficulty in pardoning the personalities in which this writer scruples not to indulge."+ Again, "The tone of defiance which he assumes in speaking of his antagonist, is at once puerile and ludicrous." Now, Sir, advert to Mr. Wainewright's manuscript letter to yourself, dated April 5, 1819, a copy of which now lies before me, in which he expresses his opinion of that portion of the LETTERS which he had read,―an opinion which he can have no objection to render publick, and which, to render publick, can be no breach of trust, as it was not communicated in confidence, as it only contains an honest sentiment of the work of another, and ought, as it refers to himself, rather to be concealed by the present writer, than by Mr. Wainewright. What has he to advance? Hear him. "Mr. Wainewright has read two of Mr. Everett's LETTERS in the Methodist Magazine, and he regrets to observe that they contain one or two personalities, which were not uncommon in the old mode of conducting controversy, and that the general style, in which these Letters are composed, appears to be that of defiance."-Attend once more to the author of the "Strictures." "Were I to notice one half of the instances of false reasoning and false statement, to be found in Mr. Everett's four vindicatory letters, I should swell these few pages into a ponderous volume." Those texts upon which they (the Methodists) place the greatest reliance, have been + Ibid, p. 11. + Page 10. || Page 34. * Strictures, p. 1, perverted from their primitive signification, and are altogether incapable of the construction given to them by these ignorant expounders."* "As the letter-writer says but little of the vindication of the Methodistical institutions of classes, bands, lovefeasts, and watch-nights, I will not needlessly extend these Strictures." "A great part of Mr. Everett's fourth letter is occupied by libellous reflections on the Clergy and the National Church. The silence which this liberal-minded writer observes on many particulars, is a pretty sure indication of his inability to vindicate his sectarian brethren from the absurdities alleged against them."+ "Sufficient has been said to shew the futility of the defence recently made for the Methodists, and to repel the accusations of their ill-chosen champion." "I cannot omit noticing the coarseness and familiarity, (though I might with justice adopt a harsher epithet) of some of the expressions made use of by the writer of the letters before me: expressions more likely to produce disgust than conviction, and which we might expect to find in the pages of those blasphemous and deistical works with which this country has been recently deluged.-If this be the language which the Methodists authorize their preachers to adopt, I can only say, that, when Mr. W. describes it as bordering upon the profane, he might be justly charged with being too lenient and forbearing." The language condemned by the author of the "Strictures," is to be found in the Remarks on Mr. Wainewright's Observations, Letter 4th, p. 174. This language is said to be "described" as "profane" by Mr. Wainewright. Now, a query arises, In what place, to whom, or in what work, has Mr. Wainewright "described" this language as "profane?" The LETTERS in which the "language" is found were written in reply to Mr. Wainewright's Observations; to that Reply he has never published an answer, which has been honoured with his name, Where then are we to meet with it? Was it "described" in private to the author of the "Strictures?" If so, a good understanding must have subsisted between them; and if Mr. W. knew that his friend was about to buckle on his armour, and appear in the field for him, he must have fled it himself. A coward, however, is but a poor substitute. Or, is it " described" in public? only published anonymously. Possibly it may in the Antijacobin Review, for Sept. 1819, where the conductors of that work have honoured the LETTERS with a few remarks. that has received a reply; and on looking over the Review, no such language is referred to there. What! Is this descriptive piece to be met with no where? Yes, Sir, you will find the whole of these sentiments embodied in a short note of Mr. Wainewright's Strictures, Page 14. + Page 44. But Page 45. § Page?, || Pages 47, 49, E* to you, dated July 6th, 1819, a copy of which has been possessed by me for the last twelve months, and whose contents, unless the author of the Strictures were Mr. Wainewright himself, must haye been entirely unknown. "Mr. Wainewright has attentively perused this publication, and truth compels him to affirm that in so short a compass he has seldom met with more futile and unsatisfactory reasoning, more frequent misapplication of Scripture language, a more palpable perversion of an opponent's meaning, than are exemplified in the three first Letters in question. The 4th and last letter it is difficult to view in any other light than as a deliberate libel on the Established Church, and the great body of the Clergy, expressed (Mr. Wainewright laments) in language, in too many instances, highly indecorous, and in some even approaching to blasphemy. The principal topics are very slightly noticed, and there is an evident wish to avoid a closer discussion. The condition of the Methodist Preachers must indeed be truly deplorable to have induced them to select so injudicious and so uncharitable an advocate." You will perceive, Sir, that the author of the "Strictures," and Mr. Wainewright, are pretty much agreed, and that the language and sentiments of the one, are not very inaccurately "described" by the other. It is admitted, that it is not impossible that the same things might strike different persons in the same light. There are indeed many things within the range of possibility; and it is possible that Mr. Wainewright may rejoice in finding, in the author of the "Strictures," a man like-minded with himself. The whole pamphlet is a mere echo of his own Observations; only, with this addition, the particulars specified are urged with greater vehemence. No new light is thrown on any subject; no additional reasoning is brought to strengthen former positions: and but for a few false statements, and a little dust which he wishes to throw into the eyes of his less judicious readers, perhaps the best mode of answering him would be, to bind up the LETTERS which he attempts to refute with his own "Strictures." Had it not been for the blunders just referred to, the author of the LETTERS would solicit no higher triumph over his opponent than that of accompanying him in his pamphlet through the world, with his previous Remarks on Mr. Wainewright's Observations. It has just been stated that the "True Churchman"—and it is lamentable that his assumption of the title necessitates his opponent to associate him with the Church in this instance, is as little supported by Scripture authority as his friend Mr. Wainewright. From this there is no disposition to recede. His total want of Scripture reference, except in two or three instances, where he has been assisted to a passage by the author of the Letters, would lead his readers to conclude that he may possibly have heard of the Bible, as he may have read or heard of the books of the Sybils among the heathen. He appears to be much better acquainted with Mrs. Siddons, in the character of Lady Macbeth, with Kemble in that of Hamlet, and Kean in that of Richard III.* than with the Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles, in the character of ministers and saints; and much better versed in the works of Hudibras, Cicero, the Bill of Rights (with the exception of the Rights of other religious bodies besides his own,) the Statute of Mortmain, Count de Stendhal's whimsical remarks on the beau ideal de la danse, Moliere in reply to those who opposed his Tartuffe, Cervantes and Le Sage, the Rape of the Lock, the Dispensary of Garth, the Lutrin of Boileau, the Secchia Rapita of Tassoni, the Othello of Shakespeare, and the Athalie of Racine, than in the sacred books. These are the principal persons and works that grace his defence of the Church of England. There is another work with which, it is presumed, he is very familiar, viz. the "Complete Letter-Writer;" presumed chiefly from the endless application of the term "letter-writer" to the author of the Reply to Mr. Wainewright. But if this gentleman can write letters no more accurately than he can write "Strictures," postage must be a serious object to his correspondents; nor could he do better, if they are to have any thing for their money, than to seal up his sheets a perfect blank, for his friends to fill up. Terribly afraid of the patience of his readers, he reminds them, at almost every step, that the absurdities of the author of the Letters are so numerous, that they would occupy more time than the task of refuting merits. Granting him full credit for his statement, it would neither be beneath the dignity of a man of sense, nor would his time be misapplied in convincing the deluded of their error. Both duty and Christian sympathy ought to induce us to make a few sacrifices to accomplish such a purpose. He finds some points, however, which really "call for reply;"§ and weak as the defence of Methodism is, he is laid under the necessity of writing 55 octavo pages to shew "the feebleness of its foundation." It is a consolatory reflection, that he condescends to notice any thing as he stalks along; and that, with the present writer, he meets with something which "calls for reply. We are social beings, and when we meet with a fellow-traveller by the way, circumstanced like ourselves, we can, though he may be a few inches taller, condole with each other. His dignity remains uninjured by this stoop, especially if his person be unknown. But when a writer passes over the whole of the principal arguments of his opponent, and nibbles only at a few particulars of minor importance, as the author of the "Strictures" has done, Strictures, p. 46. + ibid. p. 1, 7, 8, 42, 46, 47, 49. f p. 7, 15, 16, 19, 21, p.55. we begin to see a convenience in the act of reminding his readers a dozen times in 51 pages-of a want of time. He may flatter himself by this manoeuvre, into the belief that he will obtain credit with his less discerning readers; but sensible people will suspect him to be inadequate to the task he has assigned himself, and will be prompt to whisper in his ear, that he ought not to have commenced a work which he had not leisure to finish, or which, when completed, would exhaust the patience of his 'readers. If such a case were to come before himself, he would give his decision in favour of a want of ability. Thus, for instance, though he has failed to overturn the arguments employed against Mr. Wainewright, he remarks, "The silence which this liberal-minded writer observes on many particulars, is a pretty sure indication of his inability to vindicate his sectarian brethren." It is singular, in addition to the sentence of condemnation which he is thus permitted to pronounce against himself, that, in the same pamphlet, he should complain of silence-of not sufficient being said, and of more work being carved out for him than he finds inclination and time to execute. * Another convenient article which the "True Churchman" finds at hand, is, a want of perspicuity in the opponent of Mr. Wainewright, and a consequent want of power in himself to understand. Perhaps the case of Seneca's Harpesten, adverted to in the LETTERS, will apply here, who complained that the room was dark; the defect, however, was found, not to be in the sombre appearance of the room, but in the sphere of vision. Cases like those of the "True Churchman" and Harpesten, are not solitary. A person said to Dr. Johnson once, "Sir, I do not understand you." I have furnished you with an argument," replied the Doctor, "but I am not obliged to furnish you with an understanding." Saint Paul experienced similar difficulties. in a ready reception of what he advanced, and was obliged to say at last," The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." There are two other methods to which this gentleman has recourse, in order to mistify his readers. Without quoting the words of his opponent, and inclosing them in inverted commas, he generally states his own opinion of what is advanced, and gives it as the positive sense of the words of the author. A want of time probably, as he was obliged to be rather rapid in his movements, prevented him from suffering the writer to speak for himself, and to employ his own terms. When he is at the trouble to make a solitary extract, in an almost breathless state, he is careful to present it in a garbled form-separating it from *Strictures, p. 45. + Cor. ii. 14. |