“To grant my request was obliging; to grant it so speedily
was like yourself. My hands are still tied by the business
of the press. You can hardly imagine what obstructions and
mistakes happen in the process of such a work, especially when
the author is at a distance from the press. I take it for
granted your ladyship approves of my presenting the piece to
the princess, but would you have me attempt to put it into the
hands of the prince?[222] I question whether the bishop would
think it a proper book for his royal highness’s collection.
I dare say Mr. Stone[223] (who, I am told, is the principal
director of the prince’s conduct), would banish it, not for a
term of years, but, for ever; and not to the American colonies,
but to the country of the Hottentots. I dare not expect that
the bishop himself will like it; but, perhaps, he will dislike
my practice, if I do not pay him the compliment. When he gave
us a charge, at his last visitation, he inveighed against
enthusiasm on the one hand, and profaneness on the other;
and some of our reverend brethren took notice, that, when
delivering himself on the former topic, he frequently threw his
eye upon my friend Hartley and me. However, this I must say, he
wrote me a very handsome letter, when I presented him with the
‘Remarks on Lord Bolingbroke;’ and, in a private letter, which
I happened to see, expressed no disapprobation concerning the
‘Meditations.’”
“_December 26._ I have a fresh obligation to your ladyship
for procuring me the opinion of good Dr. Hales.[224] I cannot
but be pleased with his approbation; but I cannot persuade
myself, that, the bishop will undertake to present the books,
or even consent to his royal pupil’s reading them. In case he
should present them, who knows in what manner he may do it?
Suppose he should shrug his shoulders, and say, ‘An ambitious
and conceited clergyman of his diocese, by the importunity
of request, in a manner, forced him upon this office. How
ungraceful would the affair appear, and how unsuitable to
decorum of conduct! Upon the whole, I am in a state of real
perplexity. I would not seem to slight the Doctor’s opinion,
much less reject his solicitation; yet, I cannot prevail upon
myself to think, that, to execute the proposal would be the
propriety of action. I hope, madam, you will give me your free
advice, and help to extricate me from this embarrassment, into
which yourself, yes, you yourself, have led me. For I should
never have been known to such grand personages, if you had not
condescended to introduce me. My name had never been heard
by a royal ear, if it had not received some credit by your
ladyship’s notice.”[225]
These extracts might be multiplied; but the reader has had sufficient for
the purpose of showing the almost extreme assiduity of Hervey in making
his book correct and popular. Among others, he consulted his old friend
Wesley, who revised the first three “Dialogues,” and “sent them back
with a few inconsiderable corrections.” Hervey replied, “You are not my
friend, if you do not take more liberty with me.” Wesley promised, that,
he would; upon which the manuscripts were again revised; and alterations
were made of a more important character.[226] Whether Wesley, on this
occasion, had used the prerogatives of a _friend_ to a greater extent
than Hervey liked, is a matter which has never been explained; but it is
quite certain, that, when Hervey’s work was nearly ready for the public,
Hervey and Wesley, by some means, had become alienated, and were no
longer the warm-hearted friends they had been in former days. Writing to
Lady Frances Shirley, under the date of January 9, 1755, Hervey says,—
“Mr. John Wesley takes me very roundly to task, on the score of
predestination; at which I am much surprised. Because a reader,
ten times less penetrating than he is, may easily see, that,
this doctrine (be it true or false) makes no part of my scheme;
never comes under consideration; is purposely and carefully
avoided. I cannot but fear he has some sinister design. Put the
wolf’s skin on the sheep, and the flock will shun him, the dogs
will worry him. I do not charge such an artifice, but sometimes
I cannot help forming a suspicion.”
This is a mournful episode. From letters, already printed in the
foregoing pages, it is manifest, that, Hervey, at one period, held Wesley
in the highest affection and esteem; and, that, this was mutual is
evident from the fact, that, as recently as the year 1754, not only had
Hervey twice over requested Wesley to revise his “Theron and Aspasio,”
but, Wesley (at the time an invalid like Hervey) had requested his friend
to revise his “Notes on the New Testament.” Hence the following:—
“WESTON-FAVEL, _June 29, 1754_.
“DEAR SIR,—I have read your ‘Notes,’ and have returned them
by the Northampton carrier, and transmitted such observations
as occur to my mind. I think, in general, you are too sparing
of your remarks and improvements. Many expositions are too
corpulent; your’s are rather too lean. May the good hand of
the Lord be with them and with their author! ‘Bengelius’ is
likewise returned, with thanks for the use of that valuable
book. Please to present my affectionate respects to Mr.
Charles, and desire him, if he has done with ‘Vitringa,’ to
send it by the same conveyance as brings your parcel. Let me
beg to be remembered in your prayers, and in his, that, I may
not dishonour the relation of, dear sir, your brother and
friend in Christ,
“JAMES HERVEY.”[227]
The two old Oxford friends were now estranged; and, mournful to relate,
their friendship was not renewed till they met in heaven. But more of
this anon.
Hervey’s “Theron and Aspasio” was advertised to be published on February
18, 1755; but he writes, “there are so many unexpected remoras, that, I
dare not answer for its forthcoming, even at the expiration of ten days
more.”
A copy of the “large octavo edition” is before us, in three volumes; pp.
405, 464, and 446; with a dedication, as already intimated, “to the Right
Honourable Lady Frances Shirley.”[228] The following is a copy of “the
Contents”:—
“Dialogue I. Character of the speakers.—On improving
conversation.—Elegance and dignity of the Scriptures.
“Dialogue II. Walk through the gardens.—The beautiful frame
and beneficial ordination of things.—Preparatory discourse on
the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness.—Meaning of the terms
settled.
“Dialogue III. Walk through a meadow.—Doctrine of Christ’s
satisfaction stated.—Considered as a Redemption Price, and
as a Sacrifice for sin.—Variously typified under the Mosaic
dispensation.
“Dialogue IV. Park and romantic mount.—Christ’s death
further considered, as the very punishment which our sins
deserved.—Objections, ancient and modern, answered.—The whole
summed up and improved.
“Dialogue V. Elegant arbour in the flower-garden.—Imputation of
Christ’s obedience.—Objections from reason canvassed.
“Dialogue VI. Gallery of pictures.—Library and its furniture.—A
sordid taste in painting censured; a more graceful
manner displayed.—Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness
resumed.—Objections from Scripture urged and refuted.
“Dialogue VII. Hay-making.—Pleasures of nature freely
enjoyed.—Blessings of grace bestowed with equal
freeness.—Theron’s plan of acceptance with God; consists of
sincerity, repentance, and good works, recommended by the
merits of Christ.—This shown to be a false foundation.—No
such thing as a good work, till we are accepted through the
Redeemer.
“Dialogue VIII. Duelling.—Animadversions on the
practice.—Spirituality and extent of the Divine law.—Infinite
purity of God.
“Dialogue IX. Curious summer-house.—No relaxation of the
Divine law, as to the precept or the penalty.—Its inflexible
strictness, and principal ends.
“Dialogue X. Theron’s last effort to demolish the evangelical
scheme of justification.—Among other objections, more plausible
and refined than the preceding, he strenuously insists, that,
faith is our righteousness.—Review of the whole.
“Dialogue XI. Ruins of Babylon.—Fine passage from Mr.
Howe.—Depravity and ruin of human nature, as they are
represented in Scripture.—Applied, with a view to determine the
yet dubious inquiry.
“Dialogue XII. Extremely hot day.—A solemn shady bower.—True
method of deriving benefit from the classics.—The wonderful
structure and economy of the human body.
“Dialogue XIII. Walk upon the terrace.—Depravity of human
nature, laid open and proved from experience.—Uses of the
doctrine, and its subserviency to the grand point.
“Dialogue XIV. Theron alone in the fields.—His soliloquy
on the charms of rural nature.—His reflections on the
past conferences.—Aspasio reinforces his arguments for
the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness.—Recommends
self-examination, the keeping of a diary, and prayer for the
enlightening Spirit.—Departs, under an engagement to correspond
by letter.
“Letter I. Aspasio opens the correspondence with some important
articles of duty; designed to facilitate self-examination, and
promote conviction of sin.
“Letter II. Theron, convinced of the iniquity of his life,
and the evil of his heart, sees the necessity of a better
righteousness than his own.—Desires a further explanation, and
a fuller proof of the doctrine under debate.
“Letter III. Aspasio proves the point—from the Liturgy—the
Articles—the Homilies of the Church of England—and the writings
of the Fathers.
“Letter IV. Aspasio re-establishes the tenet, from the
Scriptures of the Old Testament.
“Letter V. Aspasio relates a remarkable panic.—Terrors of the
day of judgment.—Christ’s Righteousness and its Imputation,
largely demonstrated from the New Testament.
“Letter VI. Theron takes a cursory view of the habitable
creation.—Traces the perfections of nature through the earth,
air, and fire.—Admirable construction, and advantageous
effects, of these elements.
“Letter VII. Aspasio takes occasion to display the no
less admirable perfection of Christ’s Righteousness.—Its
Principle—Extent—Perseverance.
“Letter VIII. Aspasio describes a drought.—Majesty and beauty
of the sun, after a night of rain.—The meritorious excellency
of Christ’s Righteousness illustrated, from the magnificence
of His works, and the divinity of His person.
“Letter IX. Theron’s account of the western cliffs—the wonders
of the ocean—and the benefits of navigation.
“Letter X. Aspasio enumerates the much richer benefits
resulting from the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness.—Shows
their happy influence, on holiness of heart, and obedience of
life.
“Letter XI. Aspasio exemplifies the last particular; in two
very memorable instances.—Especially in the conduct of Abraham
offering up his son Isaac.
“Letter XII. Aspasio touches upon union with Christ.—How
described in Scripture.—Its blessed and glorious effects.
“Dialogue XV. Aspasio revisits Theron.—Theron under anxiety
of spirit.—Partly to entertain, partly to comfort his friend,
Aspasio enlarges upon the bounty of the Creator, visible both
in the animal and vegetable world.—The new convert is slow of
heart to believe.—Evangelical motives to faith.
“Dialogue XVI. Harvest scene.—Philenor’s
gardens.—Statues.—Grove of evergreens.—Nature of true
faith.—Its sure foundation, and sovereign supports.
“Dialogue XVII. A river voyage.—The diversified
prospect.—Comparative happiness.—Advantages of peace.—A
celebration of the Gospel and its blessings, in a kind of
rhapsody.—Christ’s Righteousness applied, to every case of
distress, and every time of need.”
Such is Hervey’s own correct outline of his work. As the reader will
easily perceive, the book is a mixture of theological teaching and scenic
painting, the latter being used, as Hervey himself states, “to soften the
asperities of argument.” His “views of nature” are employed, not as being
essential to the truths which he wished to teach, but rather, to grace
his book with ornament, and to render it more readable. Whether this
ought to be regarded as an excellence or a blemish, Hervey leaves his
readers to determine. He writes,—
“The author confesses a very peculiar fondness for the amiable
scenes of creation. It is, therefore, not at all improbable,
but his excursions on this topic may be of the _diffusive_
kind, and his descriptions somewhat _luxuriant_. It is hoped,
however, that, the benevolent reader will indulge him in this
favourite foible.”
Hervey’s work was one of great importance. Of his “luxuriant
descriptions” nothing need be said, except, that, many of them are
quite equal to those in his “Meditations and Contemplations.”[229]
Nearly all of them, however, might have been entirely omitted without
at all interfering with the principal doctrines which it was the
object of Hervey to teach and vindicate. They are excrescences, though
beautiful,—oases in a doctrinal arena. To many of Hervey’s readers,
they would be the most attractive sections of his book; to others, only
intent on pursuing and mastering the author’s argument, they would be
embellished barriers, and would be skipped.
To Hervey’s doctrines, considered as a whole, orthodox Christians can
take no exception. Wesley observed with perfect justness, “Most of the
grand truths of Christianity are herein explained and proved with great
strength and clearness.”[230] The _crux criticorum_ was Hervey’s peculiar
views of what he called “the imputed righteousness of Christ.” A few
brief extracts will show what he meant.
“_Aspasio._ Justification is an act of God Almighty’s grace;
whereby He acquits His people from guilt, and accounts them
righteous; for the sake of Christ’s righteousness, which was
wrought out for them, and is imputed to them.
“_Theron._ Two of your terms want some further explication.
What do you understand by _Christ’s righteousness_? And what is
the meaning of _imputed_?
“_Aspasio._ By _Christ’s righteousness_, I understand, _all_
the various instances of His _active_ and _passive_ obedience;
springing from the perfect holiness of His heart; continued
through the whole progress of His life; and extending to the
very last pang of His death. By the word _imputed_, I would
signify, that, this righteousness, though performed by our
Lord, is _placed to our account_; is reckoned or adjudged by
God as _our own_. Insomuch, that we may _plead_ it, and _rely_
on it, for the pardon of our sins; for adoption into His
family; and for the enjoyment of life eternal.”