“The nature of justification, and the nature of condemnation
are two _opposites_, which will mutually illustrate each other.
What is implied in the condemnation of a sinner? He forfeits
eternal life, and is doomed to eternal death. What is included
in the justification of a sinner? It supersedes his obligation
to punishment, and invests him with a title to happiness. In
order to the _first_, there must be a remission of sins. In
order to the _second_, an imputation of righteousness. _Both_
which are derived from Christ’s mediation on our behalf; and
_both_ take place, when we are united to that Divine Head.”
_Theron_ answers,—
“This, I know, is the fine-spun theory of your systematic
divines. But where is their _warrant_ from Scripture? By what
authority do they introduce such subtle distinctions?”
“_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]