Chapter L: Tyerman (15)

“_Aspasio._ I cannot think the distinction so subtle, or the
theory so finely spun. To be released from the _damnatory_
sentence, is one thing; to be treated as a _righteous_ person,
is evidently another. Absalom was pardoned, when he received
a permission to remove from Geshur, and dwell at Jerusalem.
But this was very different from the re-commencement of filial
duty, and parental endearment. A rebel may be _exempted_ from
the capital punishment, which his traitorous practices deserve;
without being _restored_ to the dignity of his former state,
or the rights of a loyal subject. In _Christianity_ likewise,
to be freed from the charge of guilt, and to be regarded as a
righteous person, are two several blessings; really distinct in
themselves, and often distinguished in Scripture.”

Instances being adduced in proof of this, _Aspasio_ continues,

“Let me produce one text more,—‘I send thee to turn them from
darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God; that,
they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among
them which are sanctified by faith that is in Me’ (Acts xxvi.
18). Here Christ distinguishes between _remission of sins_,
and the _inheritance of the saints_; between the _pardon_ that
delivers from hell, and the _justification_ that entitles to
heaven. So that the former does by no means constitute the
latter; but is connected with it, as a link in the same sacred
chain; or included in it, as part of the same glorious whole.

“_Theron._ Admitting your distinction to be just, is not
the satisfaction, made by the death of Christ, sufficient
of _itself_ to obtain, both our full pardon, and our final
happiness?

“_Aspasio._ Since my friend has started the question, I may
venture, with all reverence to the divine counsels, to answer
in the negative; it being necessary, that, the Redeemer of
man should _obey_, as well as _suffer_, in their stead” (John
x. 18; Matt. iii. 15; Rom. v. 17). “It should be considered,
Whether Christ’s sufferings were a complete satisfaction of the
law? Complete they were with regard to the _penalty_, not with
regard to the _precept_. A distinction obvious and important.
From whence arises the following argument; which, for once,
you will allow me to propose in the _logical_ form. By what
alone the law was not satisfied; by that alone sinners could
not be justified: By Christ’s sufferings alone, the law was not
satisfied. Therefore, by Christ’s sufferings alone, sinners
could not be justified. But when we join the active with the
passive obedience of our Lord,—the efficacy of the one, with
the perfection of the other,—how does our justification stand
firm, in the _fullest_ sense of the word! We have _all_ that
the law demands, both for our exemption from the curse, and as
a title to the blessing.

“_Theron._ But if we are justified by Christ’s fulfilling
the law, we are justified by works. So that, before you can
strike out such a way of salvation, you must _contradict_
yourself; and, what is more adventurous, you must abolish that
fundamental principle of the Gospel; ‘By the works of the law,
shall no flesh be justified.’

“_Aspasio._ I grant it, _Theron_. We _are_ justified by
works. But whose? The works of Christ, not our own. And this
is very far from contradicting ourselves; equally far is
it from abolishing, what you call the _Gospel-principle_.
Between the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace,
this, I apprehend, is the difference: By the former, man was
indispensably bound to obey, in his _own person_. By the
latter, the obedience of _his surety_ is accepted, instead
of his own. The righteousness required by both, is, not
_sincere_, but _complete_; not proportioned to the abilities
of fallen man, but to the purity of the law, and the majesty
of the Lawgiver. By this means, the glory of God as an awful
sovereign, and the glory of His law as an inviolable system,
are entirely preserved and illustriously displayed. The
salvation of sinners, neither clashes with the truth, nor
interferes with the justice of the supreme Legislator. On the
contrary, it becomes a _faithful_ and _just_ procedure of the
most High God, to justify _him that believeth on Jesus_.

“_Theron._ Farewell then to our own obedience. No more occasion
for any holiness of life. Fine divinity truly! Should I not
rather say? Downright Antinomianism!

“_Aspasio._ No, my friend; Christ came not to destroy the law,
but to fulfil. He has fulfilled it to the very uttermost, in
His own person. He has also merited for _us_, and conveys to
_us_, those supplies of the Spirit, which alone can enable us
to yield faithful and acceptable obedience.

“_Theron._ My principal objection is not satisfied. I was
observing, that, according to _your_ manner of stating the
affair, salvation is no longer free, but founded upon works.
They are the works of the law, though Christ performs them. To
maintain that we are justified by these works, is to confound
the difference between the law and the Gospel.

“_Aspasio._ Though we should admit your premises, we cannot
acquiesce in your conclusion. The same righteousness, by which
we are justified, is both legal and evangelical. _Legal_, in
respect to _Christ_, who was made under the law, that He might
obey all its commands. _Evangelical_, in respect to _us_, who
work not ourselves, but believe in the great _fulfiller_ of
all righteousness. We are justified _by_ works, if you look
forward to our Surety. We are justified _without_ works, if
you cast a retrospective view on ourselves. The grand reason,
which inclines some people to reject this comfortable doctrine,
lies concealed, if not in an absolute disbelief of our Lord’s
eternal glory and Godhead, yet, in _unsettled_ apprehensions
of it, or an habitual _inattention_ to it. If our Saviour was
not really God, it would be a reasonable practice to disavow
the imputation of His righteousness. Because, upon such a
supposition, His obedience was no more than bounden duty; in
which there could not be the least pretence to merit, and which
could be profitable to none but Himself. Whereas, if we verily
believe Him to be the Incarnate God, His submission to the law
becomes an act of _voluntary_ humiliation. Which circumstance,
together with the _transcendent_ dignity of His person, renders
His obedience, not meritorious only, but inexpressibly and
_infinitely_ meritorious.

“_Theron._ But if Christ’s righteousness, _His very_
righteousness, be imputed; then, the true believers are
altogether as righteous as Christ Himself. Whereas, if you
maintain, that, His righteousness is imputed only _as to its
effect_, you will keep clear of this rock.

“_Aspasio._ This, I fear, will be like keeping clear of
_Scylla_, only to fall foul upon _Charybdis_. What are the
effects of the Mediator’s righteousness? Pardon of sin,
justification of our persons, and the sanctification of our
nature. Shall we say, these effects, these benefits, are
imputed? To _talk_ of their imputation, I think, is an affront
to sound sense. All these benefits are not imputed, but
imparted; they are not reckoned to us, but are really enjoyed
by us. Yet it does by no means follow, that believers are
altogether as righteous, as Christ; unless you can prove, that,
to be the _receiver_ is, in all respects, the same, as to be
the _Author and Finisher_. The righteousness of Christ arises
solely from Himself; the source of ours subsists in another.
Christ’s righteousness is originally and absolutely _His own_;
whereas, it is made ours in a way of favour, and gracious
imputation.”

“_Theron._ But if Christ’s perfect obedience be accounted ours,
me-thinks, we should have no more need of _pardoning_ mercy
than Christ Himself.

“_Aspasio._ Yes; because _before_ this imputation, we were
sunk in guilt, and dead in sins. Because, _after_ it, we are
defective in our duty, and in many things offend.

“_Theron._ Does not this doctrine render the intercession of
our Saviour _superfluous_? What occasion have _they_ for an
advocate with the Father, whose righteousness has neither
blemish nor imperfection?

“_Aspasio._ They stand in need of an advocate, first, that
they may be brought home to the _Repairer of their breaches_,
and made partakers of His righteousness by a living faith.
Next, that their faith may be preserved, notwithstanding all
opposition, steadfast and immovable; or rather, may be carried
on, victorious and triumphant, to the end.

“_Theron._ You say, ‘Christ performed all that was
conditionary’; then He _repented_ for us, and _believed_ for us.

“_Aspasio._ Christ performed whatever was required by the
covenant of works, both before it was violated, and after it
had been transgressed. But neither _repentance_ nor _faith_
was comprehended in this institution. It was not therefore
necessary, neither indeed was it possible, for our spotless and
Divine Lord to repent of sin, or believe in a Saviour.

“_Theron._ However, from what you have advanced, _this_ will
unavoidably follow—That a man is to be justified, under the
character of a notorious transgressor of the law; and justified
under the character of a sinless observer of the law. And what
is this, but a _glaring inconsistency_?

“_Aspasio._ Not at all inconsistent, but absolutely needful,
if we consider those distinct branches of the Divine law, the
_preceptive_ and the _penal_. Both which, in case of guilt
already contracted, must necessarily be satisfied. Not at all
inconsistent, if we take in the _two constituent parts_ of
justification, the acquittance from guilt, and a title to life.
The former supposes us to be transgressors of the law; and
such the highest saints in the world are. The latter requires
us to be observers of the law; and such must the inheritors
of heaven be. Much less is this inconsistent, if we consider
believers in their _personal_ and _relative_ capacity; as they
are in themselves, and as they are in their Surety. Notorious
transgressors in themselves, they have a sinless obedience in
Christ. The consciousness of _that_, will be an everlasting
motive to humility; the belief of _this_, an inexhaustible
source of joy.”

In these extracts, the reader has, in Hervey’s own words, a full account of his doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ. All must admit, his fairness in the putting of Theron’s objections; most will doubt his successfulness in answering them. His theory, that, the death of Christ bought the sinner’s pardon, and the righteousness of Christ procured for the sinner the privileges and rights of justification; or, to speak more precisely, of adoption into the family of God, was a speculative distinction, without Scriptural authority, and pregnant with antinomian heresy. He meant well; but he missed the mark. Wesley was right, when he said,—

“‘The imputed righteousness of Christ’ is a phrase not
scriptural. It has done immense hurt. I have had abundant
proof, that the frequent use of this unnecessary phrase,
instead of ‘furthering men’s progress in vital holiness,’ has
made them satisfied without any holiness at all; yea, and
encouraged them to work all uncleanness with greediness.”[231]

Hervey’s book created great commotion. It was both attacked and defended; and was turned to good purpose and to bad. Sandeman, in his “Letters on Theron and Aspasio,”[232] both approved and disapproved. Cudworth, a dissenting minister, in his reply to Sandeman,[233] was a warm defender of his friend, the Church of England rector. Dr. Witherspoon, “Minister of the Gospel in Beith,” published a pamphlet of 72 pages, in 1756, to show, that Hervey’s doctrine of justification, by imputed righteousness, does not weaken the obligations to holiness of life. Besides these, other pamphlets were issued, on both sides of the dispute; but the only one which Hervey himself answered, was a tract by his old friend Wesley. This will be noticed hereafter. Meanwhile, a selection from Hervey’s voluminous correspondence will furnish the reader with glimpses of this period of Hervey’s history.

Lady Frances Shirley had given him a hint, that some one wished to make a present to the author of “Theron and Aspasio.” He replied:—

“WESTON-FAVEL, _February 23, 1755_.

“My thirst after books is very much allayed. I have bid
adieu to the curious and entertaining inventions of wit, or
discoveries of science. My principal attention is now devoted
to the sacred oracles of inspiration. These I should be glad
to have in their noblest form and highest perfection; and, I
find, there is now published a very fine edition of the Hebrew
Scriptures, by Father Houbigant. Such a present would be
singularly acceptable, and, I hope, it would be beneficial. I
do not know the price: though, I fear, it will be costly; as
it consists of four tomes in folio, and as Hebrew printing is
uncommonly expensive.”[234]

The next refers to the same subject, and to his being thanked for a copy of his “Theron and Aspasio,” by Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales.

“_March 1._ If what I mentioned be an improper proposal, you
will have such a kind regard to the unadvised writer, as to
stifle and suppress his project. My heart is not set on that
or any other book. As I have the Bible in its pure and sacred
original, I can dispense with the circumstance of a grand and
pompous form.

“I have received a very friendly letter from the bishop;
and Dr. Hales has transmitted to me the thanks of her royal
highness. Alas, madam! what good does this do me? Or, if I were
presented to a deanery, what service would that do me when I
stand at the great tribunal? Blessed Jesus, let not my poor
endeavours be rewarded with such chaff! Be Thou glorified; let
souls be edified; and then _they_ who read, and _he_ who wrote,
may one day rejoice together.”

The demand for Hervey’s book was such, that, though the first edition consisted of nearly six thousand copies, a second edition was almost immediately required. He writes to the Rev. John Ryland:—

“_March 8._ We have begun another edition, and ventured to
print three thousand. Any remarks and improvements will
be extremely welcome; but they must be communicated soon,
otherwise, perhaps, they cannot take place; for it was proposed
to begin upon each volume at once; and proceed, by means of
several hands, and several presses, with great expedition.

“The Princess of Wales, and my other noble friends, were
pleased to receive my books, in a very candid and obliging
manner.”[235]

Seven days later, he wrote again:—

“_March 15._ The author of the _London Magazine_ has
taken notice of ‘Theron and Aspasio,’ and, really, in a
very respectful and honourable manner. My sentence in the
_Gentleman’s Magazine_ is respited till next month. I know not
whether the _Monthly Review_ has taken me to task; but this I
know, that, if God be for us, it matters not who is against
us.”[236]

Hervey perceived his book would be attacked on the ground, that, his doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ led to Antinomianism; and he already entertained the idea of writing another work as a sort of appendix to his former one. Under the date of March 19, 1755, he observes:—

“I proposed to have closed the plan of ‘Theron and Aspasio’
with an explicit and pretty copious treatise on evangelical
holiness or obedience; and to have shown my true believer
in his dying moments. If your thoughts should happen to
take such a turn, be so good as to suggest what you think
the most advisable and advantageous way of managing this
important point. This would most effectually stop the mouths
of Arminians, and be the best security against the abuses of
Antinomians. I could wish, if it were the Lord’s will, that I
might live to furnish out one more volume of this kind.”

The sale of “Theron and Aspasio” proceeded with such rapidity, that, the second edition was made larger than Hervey and his publisher had originally agreed. Hence the following:—

“_April 5._ Our new edition goes on at a great rate. They have
finished very near half of each volume: and my publisher,
presuming that I should have no objection, took the liberty of
making the edition consist of 4,000, instead of 3,000, on which
we had agreed. I suppose he was prompted to do this, by finding
a call for the piece.”[237]

In revising the work for this second edition, he earnestly asked the help, not only of John Ryland, the Baptist minister, but of William Cudworth, the minister of an Independent congregation, in Margaret Street, London. To the latter, he wrote as follows:—

“_April 22._ The doctrine, which you approve in my essay, and
have clearly displayed and fully proved in your own writings,
is not relished by everybody; no, not by many pious people. I
take the liberty to send you a couple of letters containing
objections.[238] I wish you would be so kind as to consider
them, and, in your _concise_ way, which I much admire, to make
your remarks upon them. I am not shaken in my opinion by these
attacks; but I should be glad to deliver it more clearly, and
establish it more firmly, in another edition.

“I heartily wish you success in your projected work.[239]
I assure you, it is my opinion, that, such a book, if well
executed, will be one of the most valuable services to the
present age. You will not, I hope, be too hasty. Mr. Wesley has
huddled over his performance[240] in a most precipitate, and,
therefore, most imperfect manner. One would think, his aim was,
not to select the best and noblest passages, but to reprint
those which came first to hand.”

Cudworth responded to the request of Hervey; and the two henceforward became ardently attached and confiding friends. This, if it did not actually create, widened the breach between Hervey and his old adviser, Wesley. Ten years before, Wesley and Cudworth had come into collision, by Wesley’s publication of his two Dialogues “between an Antinomian and his friend;” partly written in answer to a “Dialogue” which Cudworth himself had published. Wesley, rightly or wrongly, accounted Cudworth an Antinomian, and spoke of him with a severity which he seldom used. Cudworth resented this; angry feelings were engendered; and, beyond a doubt, Hervey’s affection and respect for Wesley were lamentably abated.

The year 1755 was a crisis in the history of the Societies, which had been founded by the labours of Wesley and his itinerant evangelists. At a Conference, held at Leeds, three days were spent in discussing the momentous question, whether the Methodists should separate from the Established Church. It was on this occasion, that, Charles Wesley composed and published his famous poetical “Epistle” to his brother. Hervey heard of this, and wrote as follows:—

“_1755, July 5._ I have just now read advertised in the
magazine, the following book, ‘An Epistle from Charles Wesley
to John Wesley.’ Has your ladyship seen or heard of it? If you
have, be so good as to inform me of the design and contents. I
hope, there is no hostility commenced between the brothers. I
have no connection, nor correspondence with them, but should be
sorry for such an event.”[241]

Hervey had ceased to write to Wesley; but Wesley wrote to him. Hence the following:—

“WESTON, _August, 1755_.

“Pray return Mr. Wesley’s letter. I find, by private
intelligence, that, he has shown it in London; and has thought
proper to animadvert upon me, by name, from his pulpit. I am
inclined to take no notice either of his preaching or his
writing.

“My good friend, Mr. Whitefield, is now at my house. He
purposes to lift up his voice at Northampton, and proclaim the
acceptable year of the Lord.”[242]

Did Hervey get his “private intelligence” from Whitefield? Probably he did. It is a curious fact, that, at this very time, there was a misunderstanding between Wesley and Whitefield, respecting Methodist affairs at Norwich;[243] and, though there was no breach of friendship, it is not at all unlikely, that, this and cognate matters would be the subject of conversation at the meeting which Hervey mentions.

Whitefield was at Weston-Favel on August 30; and here he wrote several letters, remarking in one of them:—“Mr. Hervey is now writing another volume, upon Sanctification.” This, of course, was the work which has been already named; but which was never published. Ten days after Whitefield’s visit, Hervey described his plan, in a long letter, from which the following is an extract:—

“WESTON-FAVEL, _September 10, 1755_.

“MY DEAR FRIEND,—I esteem your letters as treasures. Though I
destroy almost all I receive, every one of yours is preserved.

“The grasshopper is a burden to me. Every blast blows me down,
or my continual indisposition and inconceivable languors pierce
through me. I now hang a swelled face over my paper; occasioned
only by taking the air yesterday in my chair, and finding a
sharper atmosphere, than for many weeks I had been accustomed
to. Pray for me, dear sir, that, established in Christ, and
strong in His faith, I may be looking for, and hasting to the
coming of the day of God; when this poor, enervated, crazy
body, will be made like unto Christ’s glorious body.

“I live with my mother and sister. Our method is, every morning
at nine, when we breakfast, to read a verse or two from the
Bible, and make it the subject of our conversation,” etc., etc.

“I desire your opinion concerning the plan of my new work;
which, with a weak hand and desponding heart, I have sketched
out, though with very little hope of being enabled to execute.

“The _Plan_ of the Supplement to _Theron_ and _Aspasio_.

“Pleasure and happiness of Christ’s religion (for I am of the
same mind with Mr. Marshall, in his Treatise on Sanctification,
namely, that, we must partake of the comforts of the Gospel,
before we can practise the duties of the law).—Theron oppressed
with fears, on account of his numerous sins.—Discouraged with
doubts on account of his imperfect obedience.—The cordials
of the Gospel re-administered, with some additional spirit
and strength.—Objections to assurance of faith, stated,
discussed, answered.—Vital holiness; its nature, necessity,
excellency.—Its grand efficient, the blessed Spirit.—Its
principal instrument, true faith; mixed with which, the
Scriptures, the Lord’s Supper, prayer, the divine promises, are
powerful and effectual means; disunited from which, they are
a dead letter and insignificant ordinances.—The evangelical
principles of holiness, such as, ‘I beseech you by the mercies
of God’; ‘Ye are bought with a price’; ‘Ye are the temples
of the living God’; etc.—All these privileges, though not
hereditary, yet indefeasible; or the final perseverance of
the believer.—Our friends part; renew their correspondence;
Theron desires to glorify the God of his salvation, asks
advice concerning the best method of family worship, educating
children, instructing servants, edifying acquaintance.—On each
of these particulars, Aspasio satisfies his inquiry, enlarges
on the subject of education, especially of daughters; as that
seems to be the most neglected, or the proper way of conducting
it least understood.—Letter on the covenant of grace,
comprising the substance, and being a kind of recapitulation,
of the three foregoing volumes.—Aspasio seized with a sudden
and fatal illness; his sentiments and behaviour in his last
moments.

“If, dear sir, you see anything in this plan, that is improper;
anything that is defective, supply it; and if any thoughts
occur on any of the topics, be so kind as to suggest them.”

Hervey, certainly, had great encouragement to continue the employment of his pen. The first edition of “Theron and Aspasio,” as already stated, consisted of nearly six thousand copies; and the second of four thousand; and yet, within nine months from the time when the work was first published, a third edition issued from the press.

No wonder, that, the book obtained the attention of Hervey’s old friend, Wesley. The first three of the Dialogues had been submitted to him, in manuscript, for his revision, and he had sent “some important alterations.” Now he read the whole of Hervey’s work, not only once, but twice, and says, “I wrote him my thoughts freely, but received no answer.” This was probably the letter which Hervey mentions, in one of the foregoing pages, under the date of “August, 1755.” In a little more than a year afterwards, Wesley wrote again; and this letter, he himself subsequently published; though, he says,—

“At the time I wrote, I had not the least thought of making
it public. I only spoke my private thoughts, in a free, open
manner, to a friend dear as a brother,—I had almost said, to a
pupil,—to a son; for so near I still accounted him.”

No doubt this second letter contained the substance of the former one. There is much in Hervey’s book which Wesley heartily commends: the chief points of animadversion are two. (1) He begs that Hervey will lay aside the phrase “the imputed righteousness of Christ,” adding, “it is not scriptural, it is not necessary, it has done immense hurt.” Unprejudiced readers must allow that this position is impregnable. Many of Wesley’s critiques are so brief as to be almost blunt, but they serve to show that Hervey’s interpretation of scriptural texts, in support of his favourite idea of the Imputed Righteousness of Christ is, in many instances, at least, arbitrary and incorrect; and, in all instances, insufficient for his purpose. To this part of Wesley’s letter no exception ought to have been taken. True, it destroys the pivot on which the whole of Hervey’s book is made to turn; but all that is said is relevant, and there is nothing that is disrespectful. Wesley’s remarks were pointed, but not intended to be impolite. (2) The other section of Wesley’s criticisms, while correct in sentiment, are perhaps hardly pertinent Hervey, to some extent, was undoubtedly a Calvinist; but he never taught, or held the doctrines of unconditional election and reprobation. Remembering this, Wesley was scarcely fair in such comments as the following:—

“‘The righteousness wrought out by Jesus Christ is wrought out
for all His people, to be the cause of their justification,
and the purchase of their salvation. The righteousness is the
cause, and the purchase.’ So the death of Christ is not so much
as named! ‘For all His people.’ But what becomes of all other
people? They must invariably perish for ever. The die was cast
or ever they were in being. The doctrine to pass them by has—

“‘Consigned their unborn souls to hell,
And damned them from their mother’s womb.’

“I could sooner be a Turk, a deist, yea, an atheist, than
I could believe this. It is less absurd to deny the very
existence of God, than to make Him an almighty tyrant.

“‘The whole world and all its seasons are rich with our
Creator’s goodness. His tender mercies are over all His works.’
Are they over the bulk of mankind? Where is His goodness to the
non-elect? How are His tender mercies over them? His temporal
blessings are given to them. But are they blessings to them at
all? Are they not all curses? Does not God know they are? that,
they will only increase their damnation? Does He not design
they should? And this you call goodness! This is tender mercy!

“‘May we not discern pregnant proofs of goodness in each
individual object?’ No; on your scheme, not a spark of it, in
this world or the next, to the far greater part of the work of
His hands.

“‘This is His tender complaint, They will not come unto me!’
Nay, that is not the case; they cannot. He Himself has decreed
not to give them that grace without which their coming is
impossible.

“‘The grand end which God proposes in all His favourable
dispensations to fallen man is to demonstrate the sovereignty
of His grace.’ Not so: to impart happiness to His creatures is
His grand end herein. Barely to demonstrate His sovereignty is
a principle of action fit for the Great Turk, not the Most High
God.”

If Hervey had taught the doctrines of ultra-Calvinism, such strictures, though strongly worded, would not have been unjust. But the question is, did Hervey hold the tenets of unconditional election and reprobation? If he did, Wesley was not unfair; if otherwise, Wesley’s remarks are not applicable. Hervey probably clung to the doctrine of election; and, it may be said, this inevitably involves the doctrine of reprobation; but there is no evidence that Hervey regarded it in such a light. On this subject, the man must be allowed to be his own exponent. In a letter, written to Lady Frances Shirley, immediately after Wesley had sent him his criticisms on “Theron and Aspasio,” Hervey observes:—

“WESTON, _November 25, 1755_.

“There is, doubtless, abundance to be said against
Predestination. And abundance has been said, with great force
of argument, for its support, and that by men of the most
eminent learning and exalted piety. As this is the case, and
as it is not necessary to faith and salvation either that we
should embrace or that we should reject the doctrine, I think
we may prudently and safely acquiesce in the advice of a great
scholar and a great saint: ‘Let a man go to the grammar-school
of faith and holiness before he enters the university of
election and predestination,’ I am at the grammar-school; and
there, perhaps, I shall continue, till I hear the voice from
heaven, saying, ‘_Come up hither, and I will show thee_ what
thou couldest not comprehend in the regions below. Madam,
shall I have the honour of your ladyship for a form-fellow?
_You_ shall be the head-scholar; only be content to allow us
your company, and do not leave us for a higher class. Let
_us_ study the glories of Christ’s person, and the love of
His heart; let _us_ contemplate His infinite satisfaction and
everlasting righteousness. May the knowledge of these grand
doctrines be revealed in our hearts by the blessed Spirit! May
the faith of these unspeakable privileges comfort our souls,
purify our affections, and _work by love_! Then we shall, ere
long, see every dark, mysterious point cleared up to our full
satisfaction. We shall see, without a veil, the shining and
adorable perfections of our God. We shall know His unsearchable
counsels and wonderful ways, _even as we are known_.

“In the meantime, I would beg leave to decline all controversy.
I can very freely converse or correspond with persons who
either adopt or discard Predestination; provided, they will not
drag in the litigated proposition, and force me to engage in
disputation. But, if they are determined to obtrude the bone
of contention, I had much rather remain alone and in silence;
for, I readily confess, that I am not master of the subject.
Therefore it would be very unadvised in me to undertake either
its establishment or refutation.

“I believe, I must desire your ladyship to return this letter,
with your free remarks upon it, because I do not know but I
shall be obliged to explain myself on this subject before
the public. Because a person,[244] who makes a great figure
in the religious world, has sent me some critical remarks
and pretty keen censures on my late work, but inveighs
particularly against my predestination principles; at which I
am somewhat surprised, because I have (whatever my sentiments
are) studiously avoided this peculiarity; I have but barely
mentioned it, in the apostle’s own words; only in an incidental
manner; and without explaining, enlarging upon, or inculcating
it.”

On receiving Wesley’s letter, Hervey wrote to his friend Ryland as follows:—

“_1756, November 29._ Herewith, you have the grand attack from
Mr. Wesley, of which I apprised you some time ago. Examine it
closely; return it speedily; and, if you please, confute it
effectually; demolish the battery, and spike up the cannon. I
have not answered in any shape, and, when I do answer with my
pen, I propose nothing more than a general acknowledgment, and
an inquiry, whether he proposes to print his animadversions.”

Wesley’s strictures were printed in 1758; and till then we must leave the subject.

The only pieces published by Hervey in 1756, were a “Recommendatory Letter,” prefixed to his favourite book, “Marshall’s Gospel Mystery of Sanctification”; and a “Preface” to “Jenks’s Meditations,” the latter of which was reprinted, in two volumes, by Hervey’s expressed desire.[245] Besides these, however, he preached three sermons, which he subsequently committed to the press, with the titles,—“The Time of Danger;” “The Means of Safety” and “The Way of Holiness.”[246]

Hervey’s published sermons are few in number, principally because the sermons he preached were never written.

“I have never,” said he, “since I was minister at Weston, used
written notes; so that all my public Discourses are vanished
into air; unless the blessed Spirit has left any traces of
them, on the hearts of the hearers. And, though I have many
Discourses, that were written before I discontinued the use of
notes, they are all penned in short-hand, and are intelligible
to none but the writer. I sometimes speak to my people an hour
together; but I always blame myself for it. It detains the
congregation too long. It renders the Discourse tiresome to be
heard, and almost impossible to be remembered. This is one of
the inconveniences attending the extempore method of preaching.
We forget how the time passes away.”[247]

The reason, why he wrote and published the three sermons above mentioned, he states in a letter to Lady Frances Shirley,—

“I am inclined,” said he, “to print two or three Sermons,
preached on the late _Fast-Days_. These, for some particular
reason, I happened to take down in short-hand. As I have
seen no Discourses, on this occasion, that were sufficiently
_evangelical_, I have a strong desire, for the supply of this
_one_ defect _only_, to appear on the stage.” “Here,” he
observed to Mr. Ryland, “I shall make a sacrifice of all my
reputation (if I ever had any), with the elegant and polite;
and let it go, freely let it go, if any honour may redound to
the Lord our Righteousness.”

At the time, England was at war with France; and many of the sermons preached on the day of national humiliation were published; but Hervey was not satisfied. He writes:—

“The author pretends to nothing refined or extraordinary;
he affects neither brilliant thought, nor polished style;
equally remote from nice criticism and profound learning, his
Discourses are studiously _plain_, and brought down to the
level of the meanest capacity. ‘What then is his motive?’ This
is the very truth. In several of the sermons, published on
this occasion, the _one thing needful_ seems to be overlooked.
Christ and His free grace,—Christ and His great salvation,—are
either totally omitted, or but slightly touched. Till these
doctrines are generally inculcated, the most eloquent harangues
from the pulpit, or the most correct dissertations from the
press, will be no better than a pointless arrow, and a broken
bow.”

Space forbids giving an outline of Hervey’s sermons.[248] Suffice it to say, that, they are able and eloquent, and intensely earnest and faithful. If such were a fair specimen of his pulpit performances, Hervey’s preaching must have been as remarkable as his writings; and, had he possessed Whitefield’s voice and elocution, the effects would have been something marvellous. Mr. Ryland, who visited him at Weston-Favel twice a year, observes,—

“He loved simplicity in his _manner_ of preaching. He had no
complicated and perplexed conceptions; no crowd of thoughts
to overwhelm his own understanding, or the conceptions of his
hearers. In all his sermons, you might discern a clear and
easy arrangement; nothing tedious; no long-winded periods;
no perplexing parentheses; no tiresome circumlocutions; but
everything adapted to the weakest memory of his auditors.
He despised and avoided all boisterous noise,—all rude and
violent vociferation in the pulpit. His subjects were always
serious and sublime; they might well be ranged under three
heads,—Ruin, Righteousness, and Regeneration. He always steered
a middle course, between a haughty positivity, and a sceptical
hesitation. He made it an invariable rule to be thoroughly
convinced of the truth and importance of his subject, before
he proceeded to state and defend it; but, when he was once in
possession of a truth, he held it with the greatest fortitude
and tenaciousness. He considered very minutely the state of all
his hearers. He did not preach to a promiscuous auditory, as
though they were all converted to Christ; nor did he treat true
believers as though they were in an unregenerate state.”

“He preached without notes,” says his friend, Dr. Stonehouse,
“excepting that he had before him a small leaf of paper, on
which were written, in short-hand, the general heads and
particulars of the sermon, which he sometimes looked at, and
sometimes not. He was very regular in his plans, nor was he
very long; from thirty to forty minutes was his usual time;
rarely longer. His weakness rendering him, for several months
before his death, incapable of speaking any length of time
to his congregation, he shortened his discourses, and took a
most useful method of inculcating his instructions. After he
had expounded his text, and divided his sermon into two or
three heads, he would speak briefly, and, at the conclusion
of each head, enforce what he had said by a pertinent text of
Scripture, desiring his congregation to turn to their Bibles,
and double down that text. ‘Now,’ he added, ‘my dear brethren
if you forget my sermon, you cannot forget God’s word in this
text, unless you wilfully throw aside your Bibles. Show this
to your children, or the absent part of your family, when you
return home.’ Then he gave a striking exhortation, and, at the
end of it, another text for them to double down; so that they
always had three texts, in order to their finding of which he
paused in the pulpit for two or three minutes. This method had
another good effect; it obliged the generality to bring their
Bibles along with them, for those who were without Bibles lost
the benefit of the texts, and were unemployed, while the great
majority, who had theirs, were busy looking for the texts
referred to in the sermon.”

“My acquaintance with Mr. Hervey,” writes the Rev. Dr. Haweis,
“was only of one day. He was removing from his ministerial
labours, just as I was ready to enter upon mine; and, being
very desirous of seeing him before his departure to glory, I
rode from Oxford to Weston-Favel, a distance of about fifty
miles, for that purpose. I found him tall and much emaciated.
His preaching was purely evangelical, and very similar to his
writings, in beautiful comments on the Scriptures he quoted;
but his manner of delivery, in the tone of voice and action,
far from the elegance I expected. His church was very small;
and, though full, was not remarkably crowded; but the people
were very attentive to hear him.”

These are mere glimpses of Hervey as a preacher; but they are of some importance, as being furnished by those who saw and heard him.

Hervey had become famous, and some of his friends wished for a formal recognition of the fact. The following refers to this, and also to Wesley’s strictures on his “Theron and Aspasio”:—

“Now for the affair, relating to Mr. Ogilvie’s proposal.
Tell our amiable and benevolent friend, that, I am deeply
sensible of his kindness; but I must beg of him to lay aside
all thoughts of procuring for me so undeserved a distinction.
I assure you, it would make me blush, and give me much
uneasiness, to be addressed under the character of _doctor_.
Never, no never, should I have taken as much as a _master’s_
degree, if I had not been obliged to it, in order to hold what
we call ecclesiastical preferment. Preferment? Yes, if rightly
understood, it is rightly so called. For what can be a more
honourable or exalted office, than to labour for Christ? O that
my brethren and I may always understand the word _preferment_
in this truly precious and noble sense!

“It is a great uncertainty, whether I shall be enabled to
add another volume. I am told, a very formidable attack
is going to be made upon ‘Theron and Aspasio,’ by a hand
not well affected to the imputed righteousness of our Lord,
but remarkably zealous for the inherent righteousness and
_perfection_ of man.”[249]

In this world, no man basks in unclouded sunshine. Upon the whole, the reviews of Hervey’s “Theron and Aspasio,” had been favourable; those of his later publications[250] had been otherwise.

“Have a care,” he wrote, in a letter, dated November 21, 1757,
“Have a care, you do not depreciate your works by inserting
anything of mine. My poor character is going to execution.
The Reviewers have already put the halter about its neck; if,
therefore, you would obtain distinction, or are a candidate
for fame, stand clear and detached from such a contemptible
scribbler.”

Besides this, he suffered increasingly from enfeebled health.

“Incessant and insuperable languors,” he wrote, “unfit me for
every business; render every enjoyment unrelishing; and, what
is more deplorable, make my temper like the sore, inflamed,
ulcerated flesh. Anything that comes unexpected, alarms me;
anything that goes cross, vexes me: I am sadly inclined to a
peevish humour.”

In another letter, belonging to the same period, he writes:—

“I beg, I entreat you, if you value the honour of the Gospel,
that, you will dissuade those polite persons you mention,
from coming to hear me to-morrow. My spirits sink more and
more, I am visited with some returns of my hacking cough;
perhaps I shall not be able to speak at all. Such disagreeable
circumstances will only expose me, and create in them very
unpleasing ideas of what I shall deliver. My imagination
is gone. I am sensible my sermons are flat, and my voice
spiritless. The poor country people love me tenderly, and,
therefore, bear with my infirmities; else, I should no longer
attempt to preach, even before them. I am now unfit to appear
in the pulpit.”

In the midst of all this, Hervey commenced the rebuilding of his parsonage; and, besides the vexations usually connected with such undertakings, he had to suffer the annoyance of the builder, with which he had contracted, decamping, before the erection was completed, and exposing poor Hervey to the worry of being dunned by the rogue’s disappointed creditors.[251]

Hervey was more sensitive than he thought he was; and the combined circumstances just mentioned painfully affected him. In the excitement of his feelings, he began to prepare a shilling pamphlet, in reply to the _Critical Review_, which had designated Jenks’s Meditations “ridiculous and enthusiastic.” With greater vulgarity than refinement, they had been described “like hairs on the greasy coat of a groom, or like dish-water thrown down the kennel.” Malevolence like this was too contemptible to be noticed; and, yet, Hervey put himself to considerable inconvenience in writing, “Ned Dry’s Apology for the Critical Reviewers,”—a pamphlet which he intended to be a satirical castigation of his nameless opponents, as well as a vindication of Mr. Jenks and of himself. It was a mistake to notice anonymous revilers at all; and it was an additional mistake for Hervey to attempt to compose a satire. His mind was too exquisitely refined, and his soul too loving, to succeed in literary flagellation. He was himself in doubt respecting this, and wrote to Mr. Ryland as follows:—

“I have not had the pleasure of seeing the _Critical Review_
for December; but, I find, from the advertisements in the
public papers, that they take Mr. Jenks and his recommender to
task. I am not disappointed; I expected no quarter from them.

“You would smile, and be a little surprised, if you were to
see what employed my spare hours almost all last week. I never
had such an inclination for buffoonery in all my life. It
was occasioned by the unworthy and abusive treatment which
the Reviewers bestow upon all the most valuable writers that
appear in public; and, I verily think, if their insolence can
be curbed, it must be done in obedience to that command of
unerring wisdom, ‘Answer a fool according to his folly.’”

Again;—

“My friends, who have seen the piece, absolutely disapprove
of it. Dr. Stonehouse says, it is a low, dull, spiritless
thing; that, I am no more fit for such kind of writing than a
carrier’s horse to run a race. He read it, he tells me, to some
ingenious ladies, who have a regard for my character; and they
declared, they would come over to Weston, and would, upon their
knees, (if it were needful,) solicit me not to publish it.
Amidst such a diversity of opinions, how shall I determine?”

Again;—

“I have sent you Mr. Dry’s apology; though it is written, it
has been thrown aside. I have several doubts, whether my pen
carries any edge, and whether the edge, if there is any, be
like the saw, or the razor. Is it of the former kind? Then it
will not answer my purpose, and will not gall and check the
adversaries of Christ and His servants, but will give them
occasion to triumph more extravagantly. I have also some doubt,
whether this kind of writing suits my character, as a minister
of Jesus Christ. Is it not the Εὐτραπελία which the apostle
condemns and banishes from the conversation of Christians?
The principal reason to justify such a manner of address is,
that no other method seems to have the least probability of
succeeding. All that is solid, these men will evade with a
sneer; and all that is serious, they will turn into burlesque.
Ridicule is the only vein in which they will bleed.”

Nothing more need be added, except, that, though “Ned Dry’s Apology for the Critical Reviewers,” was written, it was never published.

Troubles often come in troops. In 1757, Mr. Robert Sandeman published his “Letters on Theron and Aspasio,” in two volumes,—a work already noticed in the biography of Ingham. Concerning this, Hervey writes as follows:—

“WESTON-FAVEL, _August 6, 1757_.

“The author is a Scotchman, I presume, because the two volumes
were printed at Edinburgh, and he gave orders for a set to
be sent me from Edinburgh. He conceals his name, and none
that I am acquainted with are able to discover whose work it
is. There are some strictures on my performance; but by far
the greatest part of the book is very wide from this mark.
Some things are truly excellent; and some animadversions upon
me are perfectly just; but others (if I mistake not) are
unfair and disingenuous. The manner of writing is by no means
despicable,—rather elegant and spirited, than coarse or dull.
But there is such an implacable bitterness of spirit, and such
an unchristian virulence of censure, against many of the best
men that ever lived, and best authors that ever wrote, as much
surprises and greatly offends me. I think I never saw a notion
of faith more lax, nor an idea of grace more exalted, than in
this book.”

Sandeman’s “Letters” created a great sensation;[252] but Hervey had neither strength nor time to answer them. He was about to measure swords with an opponent far more noted than Mr. Sandeman, and left the latter in the hands of his friend, Mr. Cudworth, who, immediately after Hervey’s death, issued “A defence of Theron and Aspasio against the Objections contained in a late Treatise, entitled ‘Letters on Theron and Aspasio.’ To which is prefixed, a series of Letters from Mr. Hervey to the author, authenticating this Defence with his entire approbation, and manifesting it to be the only one that can be presented to the public with that authority.” pp. 224.

Perhaps the title was more ostentatious than facts would justify; but, still, there can be no doubt, that Hervey was perfectly cognisant of a correspondence between Cudworth and Sandeman, and, that, in the main, he approved of Cudworth’s sentiments. Only three weeks before his death, he wrote to Cudworth as follows:—

“Excuse me for keeping your MS. so long. I have been extremely
ill. This morning I have been up for four hours, and, in
all that time, not able to look into a book, or hold up my
head. I fully assent to your opinions; and think you have
proved the warrant of a sinner’s application of Christ very
satisfactorily. If I live, I should much desire a copy of this
your correspondence, when you have revised and finished it. Or
do you intend to print it?”

Hervey now devoted his dying energies to the task of writing a reply to the animadversions of his old friend Wesley. Their friendship was beclouded; and it is a mournful fact, that, the few last months of Hervey’s lovely life were spent in fighting one, who, a quarter of a century before, had been the greatest of his human oracles. He writes,—

“_1758, January 3._

“Weak I am, very weak, and much out of order; insomuch, that I
have not been able to go to church since Christmas. Mr. Wesley
is angry with me, for speaking too much, and, as he thinks,
too openly on the side of election and particular redemption.
Pray favour me with your free opinion, and wherever you think
he charges me justly, or I have expressed myself improperly,
spare not to speak the naked truth. He has lately published
a large book, price six shillings, stitched, on the doctrine
of Original Sin; great part of which is an abridgment of Dr.
Watts’s Ruin and Recovery; and of another treatise, written
by Mr. Hebden. In this, he takes occasion to quote two or
three passages from Theron and Aspasio, one of which he thus
introduces,—‘To explain this a little further, in Mr. Hervey’s
words, By federal head I mean, that, as Adam was the first
general representative (of _this kind_, says Aspasio, but Mr.
Wesley makes him say) _of mankind_, Christ was,’ etc. He goes
on to the bottom of the page, then turns back to the upper
part, and represents me as forming a conclusion in these
words, ‘All these expressions demonstrate, that, Adam, as
well as Christ, was a representative of _all mankind_;[253]
and, that, what he did, in this capacity, did not terminate
in himself, but affected all whom he represented.’ This is
a very injurious representation. One sentence is a palpable
misquotation. Would it be proper to take any notice of it! I am
sometimes apprehensive, that, he would draw me into a dispute
about particular redemption. I know, he can say startling and
horrid things on this subject; and this, perhaps, might be the
most effectual method to prejudice people against my principal
point.”

Hervey’s suspicion was unfounded and ungenerous; but let it pass. His eyes, as far as Wesley was concerned, were now unfortunately jaundiced. Besides, he was, at present, extremely ill; in fact, it was currently reported that he was dead. “I do not go out of my room,” he wrote on January 21st, “till dinner time, and then it is rather to see my relations, than to take refreshment myself.” And again, in another letter, dated the 12th of March, he states, that, he had “not been at church since Christmas.” Still, he was not inactive. The following are extracts from his letters to Mr. Ryland.

“_Saturday Morning, January, 1758._ I am transcribing my
intended answer to Mr. Wesley for the press, but find it
difficult to preserve the decency of the gentleman, and the
meekness of the Christian. There is so much unfair dealing
running through my opponent’s objections, and the most
magisterial air all along supplies the place of argument.
Pray for me, dear friend, that I may not betray the blessed
cause, by the weakness of my reasoning, nor dishonour it by
the badness of my temper. Whether I shall be able to finish
this work, is apparently uncertain. My cough seizes me, in the
night, like a lion; and leaves me, before the morning, weaker
than a babe. It has so totally destroyed my small remainder of
strength, that, I am quite unable to preach so much as once on
the Lord’s day. I am obliged to beg assistance, and am looking
out for a curate, to take the whole business on his hand.”

“WESTON, _March, 1758_.

“I am transcribing, though very slowly, and with a most feeble
hand, my remarks, ‘on Mr. Wesley,’ for the press. He urges no
argument, either to establish his own opinion, or to overthrow
mine; only denies the validity of my reasons.”

It is a curious fact, that, Wesley’s strictures on “Theron and Aspasio” had not yet been printed; so that, Hervey was employed in preparing an answer to what existed only in manuscript. Even as late as the 4th of March, 1758, Hervey, writing to a friend, observes:

“I have a long letter, containing two or three sheets, from
Mr. Wesley. It consists of animadversions on my Dialogues and
Letters. He wrote me one before, more stinging and sarcastic
than this. I have taken no notice of either, being very
unwilling to embark in controversy.”