“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.”
Perplexity is here. Wesley had written twice to Hervey, criticising
“Theron and Aspasio.” Hervey was obviously offended at Wesley’s
abruptness, and, as Hervey believed, dogmatism. Of course, remembering
their former friendship, Wesley expected a reply; but, for some reason,
Hervey, almost unexceptionally gentle and courteous, resolved to maintain
a sort of sullen silence. As yet, Wesley’s critique was not printed;
it was simply a _private_ letter. Hervey was apparently as unfit for
controversy as he professed to be averse to it: in fact, he was actually
dying; and, yet, the tremulous energies of the dying man were exerted
to the utmost, in preparing an answer to Wesley’s _private_ letter, not
to be sent to Wesley himself, but to be committed to the press. Why was
this? If Wesley’s letter was _wholly private_, why should Hervey answer
it in _public_? He had a right to feel grieved, to be offended, and,
if not discourteous, to refuse writing a reply; but was it fair that,
without consulting Wesley, he should resolve to _publicly_ answer a
_private_ communication, even though that communication was not in the
most complaisant language? Wesley’s second letter was dated, October 15,
1756, so that, Hervey had now had it in his possession for nearly a year
and a half; and, as his correspondence proves, had shown it to several of
his friends. Why did he, at the commencement of 1758, when his health had
entirely failed, begin to answer a letter, which, for fifteen months, he
had treated with silent sullenness? Was he instigated by Mr. Cudworth,
who, at the same time, was in diligent correspondence with Mr. Sandeman?
Or had Wesley been so annoyed, by Hervey’s contemptuous silence, as
to make his letter the subject of conversation among his friends, and
Hervey having heard, that, what had been a private communication was now
becoming the subject of public observation, was so extremely sensitive,
and so afraid of tarnished honour, that, he unadvisedly resolved to
print a public answer, and employed his dying days in writing it? It
is impossible to answer these questions with certainty. Opinions will
differ. Two holier men than Wesley and Hervey did not live; but, by a
most painful misunderstanding, they were now estranged. Which of them was
blamable? Was either? or were both?
Wesley disliked Hervey’s doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ,
and he told him so;—a thing which, as a friend, he had a perfect right
to do. If he erred at all, it was in using a brusque abruptness, the
very opposite of the sort of style usually employed by Hervey, and which
was undoubtedly somewhat grating to a sensitive mind like his. Still,
even this may be excused. Wesley was without “learned leisure.” Bearing
in mind the incessant duties of his itinerant life, the wonder is,
how he found time to write at all. Perforce of circumstances, as well
as by deliberate choice, his style of writing was always concise, and
frequently abrupt. Besides, in this instance, he was writing, not for the
public, but privately to a friend.
“It is no wonder,” says he, “that, several of my objections, as
Mr. Hervey observes, ‘appear more like notes and memorandums,
than a just plea to the public.’ It is true. They appear like
what they are, like what they were originally intended for. I
had no thought of ‘a plea to the public’ when I wrote, but of
‘notes and memorandums to a private man.’”[254]
One cannot but lament, that, they were not thus regarded. In such a case,
an unseemly and unhappy controversy would have been avoided. For want
of confidence, and a frank and friendly explanation, the two old and
warm-hearted friends were alienated from each other. Hervey submitted
Wesley’s private letter to the inspection of friends who had no right to
see it; Wesley, perhaps, yea probably, heard of this, and made it the
subject of remark; Hervey, increasingly irritated, began to write an
answer; and now Wesley, in an unlucky moment, published what, up to the
present, had been a _private_ letter. Hence the following, by Hervey, to
a friend, perhaps Cudworth:—
“WESTON-FAVEL, _June 23, 1758_.
“I little thought, when I put Mr. Wesley’s manuscript into
your hand, that I should see it in print so soon. I took very
little notice of it, and let it lie by me for several months,
without giving it an attentive consideration. It seemed to
me so palpably weak, dealing only in positive assertions and
positive denials, that, I could not imagine he would adventure
it into the world, without very great alterations. But it is
now come abroad, just as you received it, in a two shillings’
pamphlet, entitled, ‘A Preservative from Unsettled Notions in
Religion.’ Of this pamphlet, what he has wrote against me,
makes only a small part. Now then, the question is, Whether I
shall attempt to answer it? Give me your opinion, as you have
given me your assistance. Ill I have been, and ill I am; torn
almost to pieces by a cough in the night, which admits of no
remedy; whatever is taken to assuage, exasperates it. Of all
men living, that are not absolutely confined, surely I am the
weakest. If by such weakness, the Lord Jesus will vouchsafe
to glorify His name, how transparent, how effulgent, will be
the glory of His power! Blessed be the Lord, for setting our
affections on a happier state! Blessed be His grace, for giving
us some knowledge of Jesus, as the way to immortal mansions!
There we may be citizens; here only sojourners.”
Hervey not only wrote his answer; but, unfortunately, he submitted it,
for revision, to Mr. Cudworth, between whom and Wesley, for several
years, Christian charity was nearly at zero. Most of Hervey’s manuscript
was sent to Cudworth during the three months, next succeeding the date of
the foregoing letter.
“I apprehend,” writes Hervey, “that the piece will make a
two-shilling pamphlet. I must entreat you to get time for the
revisal of all of it. If you could suggest or insert anything
to make it edifying and useful, I should be glad. Would it not
be proper to print Mr. Wesley’s letter, and prefix it to my
answer?”
Hervey’s reply to Wesley was completed in September. A month afterwards,
he wrote as follows:—
“WESTON, _October 19, 1758_.
“I am now so very ill, that, I scarce think I shall live to
see the approaching Christmas. I spend almost all my time in
reading and praying over the Bible. Indeed, indeed, you cannot
conceive how the springs of life are relaxed and relaxing.
‘What thou doest, do quickly,’ is for me a proper admonition,
as I am so apprehensive of my approaching dissolution.”
Ill as he was, however, his mind was, at least, occasionally occupied
with his controversial pamphlet, which, though written, was still under
the revision of his friends. Five days after the date of the preceding
extract, he says:—
“Let me repeat my thanks for the trouble you have taken,
and for the assistance you have given me, in relation to my
controversy with Mr. Wesley. He is so unfair in his quotations,
and so magisterial in his manner, that, I find it no small
difficulty to preserve the decency of the gentleman, and the
meekness of the Christian, in my intended answer. May our
Divine Master aid me in both these instances, or else not
suffer me to write at all.”[255]