“As these were the last orders of my brother, I thought it
right to obey them, and, therefore, I withstood the repeated
solicitations of many of his friends, who wanted to have them
printed. Notwithstanding the regard I had for the persons who
solicited the publication, I could not be persuaded to print
the Letters; and they never had appeared in public, with my
consent, had not a surreptitious edition of them lately made
its way from the press, and were I not under a firm persuasion
that will be followed by more.
“As this is the case, I think it my duty to the memory of my
late brother to send forth as correct an edition as I possibly
can, for as to that which has appeared (from what editor I
know not) it is so faulty and incorrect, that, but little
judgment can be formed from it, of the propriety and force of
my brother’s answers to Mr. Wesley.
“As to the unfairness of publishing my brother’s Letters
without my consent, and the injustice to his memory in sending
so mangled a performance out under his name, they are too
apparent to need any proof; and though, the editor, as I have
been informed, gave away the whole impression, so that it
is plain lucre was not the motive of his proceeding, and I
would charitably hope he did it with a view of benefiting his
readers, yet, it is so like doing evil that good may come, as,
in my opinion, to be quite unjustifiable.
“I have one thing more to add, which is concerning the
_seasonableness_ of the following publication. It may, perhaps,
be thought a needless revival of a dispute, which happened
long ago, and which is now probably forgotten. In answer to
which, I can assure the reader, that, though my brother died
December 25, 1758, the controversy did by no means die with
him, but still subsists in the daily publication and sale of
Mr. Wesley’s ‘Preservative.’ The controversy is, in the most
effectual manner, daily and hourly kept alive by Mr. Wesley
himself. This proves very sufficiently the _seasonableness_,
and, as things have happened, the _expediency_ of the present
appearance of the following Letters in public.”
Such was the substance of Mr. William Hervey’s explanation or apology.
He says, he knew not who was the editor of the surreptitious edition of
his brother’s letters; and, in the absence of counter evidence, he is
entitled to belief. It is somewhat staggering, however, that he had been
informed, the editor “gave away the whole impression,” without being told
the donor’s name; and also, that, as the proprietor of his brother’s
manuscript, he must have known in whose hands the manuscript had been
placed since his brother’s death. Mr. Cudworth is generally believed to
have been the stealthy publisher; but, if he was, he was not alone. Mr.
Ryland writes:—
“These letters were just upon the point of being suppressed,
and lost to the Christian world for ever. Soon after Mr.
Hervey’s death, they were put into my hands for twelve or
fourteen weeks. From a principle of foolish and false delicacy
I did not take a copy of them, which I ought to have done.
Happy for the Church, the manuscript fell into the hands
of three of my friends, who had more sincerity, zeal, and
courage than I had, and thus the manuscript was rescued from
destruction, and the original copy at last brought to light.”
Not many will coincide with Mr. Ryland’s notions “of foolish and
false delicacy.” Apart from the question, Hervey _versus_ Wesley, the
surreptitious publication of the book was a base, treacherous, nefarious
deed. No wonder that the name of the editor was never authoritatively
announced.
Mr. William Hervey complains, that, the edition was extremely “faulty
and incorrect,” and did not convey an adequate idea “of the propriety
and force of his brother’s Answers to Mr. Wesley.” Fair play makes it
imperative to say, that, intentionally or otherwise, this is far from
being true. Any one who takes the trouble to compare the two editions
will perceive, that, except in typographical corrections, the insertion
of Hebrew words in Hebrew instead of English characters, the punctuation
of sentences, and the addition of a quotation from St. Chrysostom in
Greek, the authentic edition hardly differs a hair-breadth from the
surreptitious one.
Mr. William Hervey’s last reason, for the publication of his brother’s
manuscript, is not without force. Seven years before, Wesley had unwisely
printed his “Remarks on Theron and Aspasio” in his “Preservative against
Unsettled Notions in Religion.” Notwithstanding Hervey’s death, that book
was still on sale; and, thus, Hervey was continuously attacked without
being able to answer for himself. Was this fair, and brotherly? Perhaps,
it was not enough to justify the avowed violation of Hervey’s dying wish,
and absolute command; but does it not somewhat palliate the dishonour of
the treacherous act, and, to some extent, relieve William Hervey of the
odium which has been cast upon him?
It is undeniable, that, Hervey’s “Letters” contain severe, and apparently
bitter recriminations against his old Oxford acquaintance; but did he
himself write them? Those, who are the friends of both the combatants,
have doubted this, and have, at least, insinuated that their author
was William Cudworth, Wesley’s inveterate enemy. This might be so; but
it might be otherwise. It is true, that, the taunting reproaches in
the “Eleven Letters” are not what might have been reasonably expected
from a man of Hervey’s loving and gentle spirit. His other writings are
perfectly exempt from bitterness. He seemed incapable of wounding even
an enemy, much more one who, in former days at least, had been a friend.
Was his the hand, then, that wrote the reproaches in his “Letters”?
Defenders regarded Cudworth as the culprit. There cannot be a doubt, that
Cudworth was capable of this. He hated Wesley, and his style of writing,
when he chose, was trenchant; but, after all, he might be innocent. The
“Eleven Letters” were written during the last year of Hervey’s life, when
his illness, always serious, was greatly augmented, and not unlikely to
affect his spirits. From his letters, already quoted, it is evident, his
irritation against Wesley was such, that, he honestly confesses, he found
it “no small difficulty to preserve the decency of the gentleman, and
the meekness of the Christian in his intended Answer.” Further, though
naturally so loving and so gentle, his sensitiveness was excessive. And,
once again, it must be borne in mind, that, with one or two exceptions,
such as the attack in the _Critical Review_, his writings had evoked
unmingled approbation,—religious, literary, and aristocratic circles all
uniting in his praise; and, that this was not adapted to prepare him for
the unceremonious animadversions sent to him by Wesley. God forbid! that,
we should cast a speck, which does not belong to it, on a character so
beautiful; but no man is exempt from errors; and, perhaps, the hints just
dropped are worthy of attention.
The results were painful, and, in some respects, disastrous. Wesley
himself was exceedingly annoyed. It was one of the _great_ trials of his
life. It engendered a polemical warfare which culminated in the great
Calvinian controversy of 1770; a controversy which, on one side at least,
grew in bitterness until the death of Toplady, in 1778. And, lastly,
not to mention other direful effects, by the action of Dr. Erskine, who
published Hervey’s “Eleven Letters” in Scotland, and, not only so, but,
in his Preface, made a violent attack on Wesley’s doctrines, Methodism,
across the Tweed, sustained an injury, not only deep, but of many years’
duration.
It is a painful task to conclude the life of Hervey amid the din of war;
but the facts are too important to be entirely omitted. The difference
between the two Oxford Methodists was a mournful occurrence. Neither of
them was perfect. Both are blamable. It was a misfortune, that, Wesley’s
animadversions were written in a style so blunt. It was a mistake in
Hervey to allow his excessive sensitiveness to obtain such a mastery as
to prevent his writing to his faithful friend for friendly explanation.
It was a serious blunder for Wesley to publish his critique in his
“Preservative against Unsettled Notions in Religion.” And, finally,
though Hervey’s “Letters” are ably written, it was a great calamity,
that, he died before he had given them a finishing revision; and it was
a huge breach of trust, as well as a grave impertinence, for any one to
violate Hervey’s most solemn wish, and to commit to the public press an
uncompleted manuscript, whose publication Hervey, in dying accents, had
prohibited.