“_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.”