Systematic Theology. 123 ceeds to enumerate, among others, the Antinomian, the Synergistic, and the Osiandrian controversies; we can only wonder what his idea of a great point in theology is. We are quite willing to allow that there is some degree of truth in the censure he passes on the theologians of that day, but it is certainly pronounced in far too sweeping and reckless a way. In subsequent parts of his book Dr Hurst indulges in what we must call very silly and vulgar sneers at the voluminousness of the old theological works, and the minute scholastic distinctions, and prolix discussions in which they abound. No doubt the form of many of the systematic treatises of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is singularly unfortunate and repulsive to modern taste; but surely a historian of Rationalism has too much to censure and deplore to spend much time on such faults of manner, and he should at least have recognised the permanent value of many of these uncouth and unwieldy tomes as storehouses of learning and argument for the exposition and defence of the truth. But it is to the Dutch theology and church that Dr Hurst, in his horror of scholasticism, does most grievous injustice; and indeed the chapter in which he describes the theology and religion of Holland, from the Synod of Dort to the commencement of the present century, almost requires us to make an exception to the praise we gave to the book in general, as manifesting a reverent and evangelical spirit. It appears to us that the tone in which he speaks in that chapter is very unbecoming, especially the way in which he sneers at the theological discussions and experimental preaching of the divines, and the religious knowledge of the people. And we hold that no man, whatever his own views may be, has a right to say as Dr Hurst does (p. 270), "The doctrines of grace, of which the Church of Holland had always been the defenders, left no room for an ethical system;" or to characterise the practical teaching of the Dutch divines as "a disgusting system of casuistic ethics" (p. 271). There is indeed, we are ready to allow, some foundation in fact for the remarks of our author, both upon the philosophy and the scholastic theology of the post-Reformation period, as having had an injurious effect on religion, but these topics would need to be handled with a far more discriminating and delicate touch than Dr Hurst brings to them. The minute exactness, the elaborate distinctions, and pedantic forms of the theological treatises of that age did tend to divorce and alienate theology from spiritual life, and to give it a hard, dry, and repulsive aspect, and so to bring about a reaction against orthodoxy: and the philosophy of the day was by many raised to too high a position, as if it might supersede the special teachings of revelation entirely. But at the most we can only say that the defects or faults of the prevalent philosophy and theology were the occasions, not the real causes, of the rise of Rationalism. Its cause must be sought in something deeper than either, in the decay of real godliness and spiritual life in the church, and when that was most marked the rise and progress of Rationalism was most rapid and formidable. This leads us, instead of pursuing further our criticism of this particular work, to enter upon some general train of thought, suggested by the subject itself, which it brings before us. The most important and interesting question raised by a survey of the history of Rationalism is that concerning its relation to the principles of the Reformation: Is it, or is it not, a legitimate development of Protestant principles? Is its fundamental axiom identical with, or a logical consequence of, that which alone justified the Reformers in their revolt against the authority of Rome? Or is there an essential difference and opposition between them? This is a question that can hardly be avoided in the present day, and which the defenders of evangelical truth must fairly face and answer. It is pressed upon them from both sides. On the one hand, the advocates of Rationalism claim to be regarded as following in the footsteps of the Reformers, asserting the liberty of thought and right of private judgment, which they first proclaimed, and repudiating the usurpation of outward authority in the shape it now assumes, as they repudiated it when claimed by the Pope or the Church. If they have arrived at results widely different from the views of the first Protestants, it is only because they have carried out their principles in a more consistent and thorough-going manner; and if Protestants refuse to acquiesce in their opinions, and censure them for undue licence, they are really inconsistent with their professed principles, and so far conceding to a spiritual despotism, and retreating to the Romish position. Such are the views of the so-called Liberal school of the present day. And, on the other hand, these views are acquiesced in and eagerly laid hold of by the adherents of the Church of Rome. They point to Rationalism as the legitimate outgrowth of Protestantism; and assure us, that once the certain guidance of authority is given up, there is no safeguard left against falling a prey to the endless doubts and thousand and one errors in which the human mind has lost itself. The Reformers, it is true, and those who still attempt to stand in their position, did not go so far as that; but they set their foot upon the treacherous slope, and, though they might sustain themselves for a time, their position is pre Need of a Via Media. 125 carious and uncertain, and the only way to be absolutely safe from gliding down at last to the abyss of doubt, is to regain their footing on the sure ground of authority. Thus both of the opposing parties seem determined to reduce the question to a simple alternative between Rome and reason, between the absolute authority of the church, and the arbitrary allegations of the schools, and meanwhile to unite their forces from opposite sides, in driving out of the way the Biblical Christianity that stands between, and is alike obnoxious to both; in order that they may join hand to hand in deadly combat; or, perhaps,—it is not impossible,—amicably divide the land between them, and reign together in harmony, as in the golden days of Papal omnipotence and scholastic philosophy. Meanwhile, those who shrink equally from either alternative, and who thought that they had a standing ground equally remote from both, in a faith neither taught by the commandments of men, nor wavering with their caprices, but founded on the word of God, are apt to fare ill in the present warfare of opinions, being thus pressed and assailed on both sides; and it is due to their losing hold of their sure anchorage in the truth, that many have been driven by the wild eddies and currents of these agitated days, either to dash against the Scylla of Rome's authority, or to be sucked in to the whirling Charybdis of scepticism. It is of the most vital importance, then, for the security of our position, to be able to make out a difference between Rationalism and true Protestantism; and that not a mere difference in results or special opinions, but an essential and fundamental difference in principles: and, in like manner, to shew a similar radical distinction between evangelical Anti-Rationalism and Romanism. In a word, it is needful to prove that there is a middle position, equally distant from, and equally secure against, the attacks of the Romanist, on the one hand, and the Rationalist on the other; and the point in regard to which we must have such a twofold defence, is one of no less importance than the foundation and rule of faith; it is that which forms the very basis of our whole religious belief. According to the Romanist, the ultimate judge of all truth is the Church; according to the Rationalist, it is the reason of the individual. The Via media of the Tractarians was an attempt to establish a middle position, such as the exigencies of the case, as we have seen, require. Dr Newman's Autobiography has dislosed to the world the rationale of that movement. It was his intense repugnance to Liberalism, and his earnest desire to obtain a safeguard from it, yet maintaining a position against Rome on the other side, that led him to the peculiar theory aptly designated the Via media. Its principle, briefly stated, was, to make, not reason, not the Church, but antiquity, the supreme judge of truth. For a time it was held with great confidence and boldness; but ultimately, even by the admission of its chief author, it entirely broke down. Its defences were strong enough on the side of Rationalism, standing as it did on ground far enough apart to be beyond the range of its arguments; but its walls, on the other side, were too near Rome to stand long against her assaults; and one after another they crumbled to pieces, and left those who had trusted to them no alternative, but to surrender at discretion, and march out under the yoke as captives to the authority of Rome, or to flee in dismay from the dismantled fortress. Antiquity is clearly not capable of affording a tenable position between the two extremes. But why, our readers will perhaps exclaim, waste words in going round about the matter, and arriving at the result by an exhaustive discussion of expedients that have failed, when the true solution of the difficulty is ready at hand, and can be stated in a sentence? Protestantism places the right of ultimately judging all questions of faith, not in reason, nor in the church, nor yet in antiquity, but in the Bible, and this is surely a distinct enough middle position, equally removed from either extreme. This would, we suppose, be the general answer given to the question we have raised. It seems to be the answer given and considered sufficient by Dr Hurst. He says, p. 25: "It was a favourite view of the Rationalists, that the Reformation had been produced by reason asserting her rights, and it was then an easy step to take, when they claimed as much right to use reason within the domain of Protestantism, as their fathers possessed when within the pale of Catholicism. But there were wide points of difference between the Reformers and Rationalists. The former would return to the spirit and letter of the word of God; while the latter did not hesitate to depart from both. The former accepted the Bible as it is, making faith its interpreter; the latter would only construe its utterance as reason would dictate." Now we admit, of course, that this is true and very important; the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants; this statement does indeed indicate the great leading principle of Protestantism as distinguished from Romanism. But it does not quite go to the root of the matter, or touch the absolutely fundamental and ultimate principle, which it is important to bring out, especially when we have to deal with Rationalism. The truth is that, strictly speaking, the Bible cannot be directly and simply appealed to by the Protestant as occupying the place which Vain Attempt at a Via Media. 127 the Romanist gives to the church, and Rationalism to reason. "Hic liber est in quo quærit sua dogmata quisque, Its The simple assertion of the Bible alone as the religion of Protestants, might seem to afford a foundation for such a via media as we are in quest of; but when brought to the test, it will prove as treacherous as that of the Tractarians. danger, however, comes from the opposite side. It is safe enough as against Rome, and far enough removed from that extreme, but it lacks any sufficiently strong barrier to secure us from gradually and insensibly sliding into scepticism. The Bible is accepted as authoritative; but as we have seen it must be both authenticated and interpreted, and for these ends, unless I am simply to acquiesce in some Protestant council or confession instead of that of Rome, I have only my own faculties to use; I set out indeed with the full purpose of using them always in subordination to Scripture, and not as the Rationalist does as its judges. But how do I fare as I proceed? In examining the evidence for the books of the Bible, I may not be able to acquiesce in the received canon; I may like many learned critics have doubts about the Second Epistle of Peter, or like Luther reject that of James; and if the evidence in their favour does not convince me, I have no alternative but to use my own judgment and reject them. Then I come to the contents of Scripture. I have been led to recognise it as divine partly, perhaps mainly, by the heavenliness of its teaching. But I find some things which seem |