HEBERT'S NEOLOGY NOT TRUE.

Neology not True, and Truth not New: Three short Treatises concerning the Rev. F. O. Maurice's Vere-street Sermons; the Rev. Professor Jowett's Doctrine on "The Righteousness of God;" the Rev. J. L. Davies' Reply to "Atonement by Propitiation," with that Treatise also, and a Summary of the Atonement Controversy. By the Rev. Charles Hebert, M.A., Mary-le-bone. London: Nisbet and Co. 1861.

WE have reached a crisis in theological opinion; but its final issue, who can predict? Are we any nearer the solution of the problem, how our own intellectual processes, or subjective conditions of mind, are to be reconciled with our modern systems of theology; or how both of these are to be brought into harmony with the disclosures and teachings of the Christian Testament? Between the human moral consciousness and the supernatural discoveries of revelation, there must be a perfect correspondence. The facts which lie far down in man's fallen nature, instead of being overlooked or depreciated, are the data on which the Bible proceeds. It assumes the lapsed and ruined condition of humanity: it does not come to reveal this fact, or to reason men into its belief; it takes it for granted, as something of which man has but too painful consciousness; and from this point, it sets out in its revelation of that infinite love which has provided for the recovery of our race. Here is the grand radical difference between our mode of philosophical thinking and the deeper utterances of the work of God. We. begin with the intellectual process; the Bible begins with the moral consciousness. Our metaphysics take no cognizance of sin as a fact inseparable from man's nature; Scripture makes this the basis of all which it declares. We assume a condition of humanity which does not exist, and hence reason from false premises; on the other hand, the spirit of inspiration seizes on the very fact which our philosophy ignores, and brings into view that which philosophy never even dreamed of. Hence the effort of the present day to get rid of an external revelation, to rob that revelation of all supernatural or sufficient evidence, and to reduce our belief in its very existence to a mere fiction. And certainly it is more consistent to set aside the written word altogether, then first to admit its existence and authority, and then reason against it from our own intellectual or subjective consciousness.

Mr. Hebert, in the controversy before us, has taken advantage of his position as a believer in revealed truth. On this he plants his foot, and challenges the united strength of his opponents to force him from it. Conscious that he is standing on the side alike of religion and of humanity, he "speaks

what "he knows," and this with a firm and manly tone; but withal in the spirit of love. We quite agree with him, that "vital differences constitute the heart of the controversy;" yet it may be conceded, that there is an advantage in the present struggle,—it is manifestly, as well as really, a wrestling for the essentials of Christian doctrine,- Agitur de VITA et sanguine, the errors of his opponents are vital; they are so strongly pronounced, that their exposure will prove their antidote; and that the discussion of them forms an excellent opportunity for urging upon the minds of all, but particularly upon students at the universities, upon candidates for the Christian ministry in all places, and upon inquiring minds among young men in general, the investigation of the truth once delivered by Christ and His apostles."

Our author deals first with Mr. Maurice in his published works. One of the latest of these is, his Vere-street sermons, in which he asserts, that to every man, and to every man alike, has been given the spirit of adoption, so that he can claim God as his Father, and partake "the deep infinite blessing that is hidden" in this fact; that our sin consists in forgetting this; and that we are delivered from our sin only by remembering it! Is it then true, that all men have received the adoption of sons? Is it true, "that St. Paul means to say, that all men, heathen or Christian, or that even all Christians-the real and the nominal alike, have received this adoption?" Is it true, that "every lost drunkard, every reprobate son and daughter of shame, every lover of filthy lucre, every Godless and Christ-less child of pleasure," have been introduced into this highest privilege? These questions are pressed by Mr. Hebert upon Mr. Maurice, and demand his answer. "Mr. Maurice utters a loud declaration, that they all have received the adoption of sons." Mr. Hebert again asks,

"Can men be serving God and drunkenness? Can men enjoy the witness of the Spirit in uncleanliness? Can the love of the world, and the love of the Father, exist together? Both cannot reign. And if the former reign, manifestly the latter cannot. Therefore such have not the 'adoption of sons;' and to tell such that they have, is doing all we can to shut them up in error, and to prevent their finding the truth of salvation." Again:-"If we are not yet partakers of real sonship in heart, and of the inward witness of the Holy Ghost, that God is in a spiritual sense 'our Father,' then it is a delusion to believe that it is so with us: a delusion which may probably prevent our seeking to become reconciled with God, and to be adopted into His family of real and loving, and holy sons. It is a delusion which may leave a man at ease, resisting that voice of the spirit within him, which urges him continually to repent and come to Jesus. It is a delusion which may last during prosperity and pleasure, and even through sickness and trouble; but it will probably fail him at death; and after death, and in the day of judgment, it will utterly fall to

ruins. It will sink under him. It will be like wax melting, or like flax that falls asunder at the touch of fire.'"

Mr. Hebert next grapples with Professor Jowett on the doctrine of imputed righteousness. The professor, having arrived at the conclusion, that "the use of language and the mode of thought are different in the writings of the apostle from what they are among ourselves," he tells us that "there is no other righteousness than that of God;" that "man who is righteous has no righteousness of his own," but that his righteousness is the righteousness of God in him." Now what does he mean by this righteousness of God in man? Does he point to the righteousness of Christ which is made over to the believer? Nothing of the kind. With him "righteousness is the righteousness of God; and the righteousness of God in man is man's communion of His righteousness,-an actual participation in God's inherent original righteousness!" He says, "that the righteousness of God is an idea not difficult for us to comprehend; human justice is also intelligible; but to conceive justice or righteousness passing from heaven to earth, from God to man, actu et potentiâ, at once, as a sort of life, or stream, or motion, is perplexing;"-that "yet this notion of the communion of the righteousness of God being what constitutes righteousness, is of the very essence of the gospel ;"-that "this is what the apostle and the first believers meant and felt ;" and that "if we could get the simple and unlettered Christian (receiving the gospel as a little child) to describe to us his feelings, this is what he would describe;" but how this communion or participation in God's own inherent righteousness is to be obtained, the professor does not even deign to explain. An imputed righteousness, wrought out by Christ, and accepted through faith by man, he wholly repudiates, and treats as one of the after-thoughts of theology. Even on that fundamental passage of St. Paul in Romans iii. 21-26, he says that "the righteousness of God may either mean that righteousness which existed always in the Divine nature, once hidden, but now revealed; or it may be regarded as consisting in the very revelation of the gospel itself in the mind and the heart of man." On which Mr. Hebert, with great point and force, remarks,

The

"Now the gospel is a message about God's righteousness, which, with Mr. Jowett, means God's inherent justice or righteousness; which is a mere property or attribute of the Godhead. Therefore this second proposed interpretation of the righteousness of God is this. attribute righteousness' means the revelation of the attribute; which is much the same as saying, the uncovering of a picture is the picture itself. Is not this a descent ad absurdum?'''

An imputed righteousness flowing from the perfect obedience and propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, and accepted by faith on

the part of man, an "after-thought of theology." Will the - Professor tell us from what point he dates his theology? Is theology a novelty in the world? Was Divine truth never intellectually and reflectively realized till after the reformation in the sixteenth century? Is not theology as old as religion? Is not religion coeval with man? And was there ever a religion out of paradise, in which the fact of sacrifice and propitiation was not fundamental and essential? Has the "afterthought of theology" no existence in Scripture? And if all the fathers were silent on the point of an imputed righteousness, would not the testimony of Scripture outweigh their authority? Mr. Hebert depends on no such "catena of authorities." The Bible is independent of all human authority. It can give strength and weight to such authority, but the authority can lend nothing to it. While it demands every knee to bow before its shrine, it bends before none. Its voice is final; and the appeal to it is ultimate. Mr. Hebert is right therefore when he says,

"I believe the age of Catena Patrum is gone; for people know pretty well that doctrinal opinions in the early church were far from being reduced ad normam on points which had not been brought before councils for settlement; imperfect and often discordant as those courts of final appeal were. But I believe that the opinions which I have been advocating, have been the generally-received doctrines among the most earnest and spiritually instructed of the fathers."

At the basis of this imputed righteousness lies the doctrine of substitution and atonement. If Christ was not, in the true and proper sense of the word, a substitute for man, and if His death was not a vicarious offering for the sins of the world, then indeed it would be more than trifling to speak of a righteousness transferred from Him to us, in virtue of which we are received into the favour and family of God. If there be nothing meritorious either in the life or death of Christ-if both are to be resolved into only a perfect example-then, having lost our own original righteousness, we are left without a righteousness, and consequently without any ground of hope. For to speak of a communion or participation of God's inherent righteousness, is nothing less than absurd, since it is impossible to partake that righteousness without becoming possessed of God's infinite and incommunicable nature. His righteousness is not something distinct and separate from His nature, but is one of the properties or characteristics of that nature; and to partake this nature is impossible. There can be no such thing as an infinite rectitude in a finite existence-an absolute and unchangeable perfection in a derived and dependent being. Such an idea is unknown to the Bible, which teaches us that He who knew no sin, was made sin for us, that we might be made the

righteousness of God in Him:--that of God he is made unto us righteousness; and that to be found in Him, not having our own righteousness, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith, is the highest point of holy attainment, and touches on the perfection of future glory. Mr. Hebert therefore has done wisely to bring the weight of his argument to bear on the defence of the doctrine of the atonement. This is the keystone of the arch with which every other revealed truth stands or falls. Mr. Davies, who is the neologian authority assailed, "denies altogether that Christ suffered and died as a propitiatory sacrifice on our behalf." On the contrary, he affirms, that Christ's death is simply a wondrous exhibition of God's love to sinners, in order that they may be brought to love God. He denies that any offering instead of sinful man was necessary; for he asserts that God is able, in perfect consistency with His own nature, to grant full forgiveness of sin, without the payment of any penalty, or the exaction of any condition whatsoever.

"This is the gist of the whole; that God can freely forgive without requiring any punishment on account of the breach of His law. As to His threatenings, God can, as it were, retract them, and pardon without making His word good. In fact, God's work in the gospel is no more than to persuade man to believe in His love, and to love Him in return. Thus the death of Christ becomes simply a wonderful manifestation of the Father's compassion, by the display of which He influences our hearts to believe how easy a thing it is to be reconciled to Him, who is already in pure pity reconciled to us."

In other words, the penalty of violated law can in every instance, if God only so will it, be remitted. Though the fact of transgression carry with it the fact of death, yet He who has connected death with transgression, can at the same moment sever the effect from the cause. His forgiving love is irrespective of, and rises infinitely above, all the conditions and requirements of His moral government! And to convince our fallen race of this, He has recourse to a scheme which is wholly out of proportion and out of character with the end to be insured. Seizing upon this anomaly in our modern theology, Mr. Hebert says with great pertinence :

"The unexplained marvel in this system is, why Christ died at all. For, if God can freely, and of mere pity, forgive without a propitiation, and if there was no need of Christ's suffering to do away the wrath of God, why was that mysterious and inconceivable suffering appointed? Why did not God forgive, without giving up His own Son to bleed and to die? On this theory, God amazes men and angels with a wonder of wonders without adequate cause.

*

*

**

"In this system the very death of Christ has lost its power. It is