RATIONALISM is a system of theology, which system I egan to be developed in Germany during the latter half of the last century. It arose in a great degree as a re-action against the principle s and the method of biblical criticism promulgated by Voltaire, Volney, and the French Encyclopaedists. Kant led the way, and his system endea voured to preserve a medium between infidelity and supernaturalism. He was followed, more or lees adopting his system, by Semler, J. I).
Michaelis, and J. G. Eichhorn. They directed their attacks against the deists as well as against the orthodox divines, but they confined the application of the rationalistic principle chiefly to the books of the Old Testament. Semler's principal works in this department are, ' Apparatus ad liberalem Veteris Testamenti Interpretationem,' 1773; Abhandlung von der Untersuchung des Kanons,' 4 vole., Halle, 1771-75, compare Semler's Leben, von ihm selbst verfasst,' 2 vols., Halle, 1781-82. The principal works of Michaelis are Einleitung in die gottlichen Schriften des alten Bundes,' 2 vols., Gottingen, 1750; ' Mosaisches Recht,' 6 vols., Frankfurt, 1770-75. Eichborn was by far the moat important writer of the school ; he laid down and carried out the new principles in his Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Literatur,' 10 vole., Leipzig, 1788-1801 ; Einleitung in das Alte Testament,' of which there appeared, in 1824, at GOttingen, the fourth edition, in 5 vols.; Einleitung in das Neue Testament,' in 2 vols., and several other works.
Eichhorn, whom we may consider as the representative of the new school, previous to the time when Dr. Paulus began to occupy a pro minent position in it, sets out from the principle that the early history of the Jewe should be considered in the same light and treated in the same manner as the early history of every other nation ; and that a direct interference of the deity in the early affairs of all nations must either be admitted or denied. Tlie reasons which led him to con sider the fact of such a direct interference inadmissible in the case of other nations, led him to deny it in the case of the Jews also. Rejecting the views of the deists as unphilosophical and incompatible with the character of early history in general, he proceeds to state that it is natural to all nations in their primitive ages to speak of a divine interference in their affairs, wherever their ignorance conceals from them the real causes of the things which fall within their experience.
It is this belief, according to Eichhorn, which gives a form to all their ideas and expressions. But we, who live in a far more advanced and enlightened age, have neither reason to suppose that any miracles actually took place, nor that any kind of imposition was practised : we have only to translate the expression of those early ages into the lan guage of our own time. In the infancy of mankind everything of which no direct cause appeared was referred to the intervention of supernatural powers; and accordingly all elevated thoughts, great determinations, useful inventions and institutions, and particularly dreams, were considered as the effects of a direct interposition of the deity ; extraordinary knowledge and skill were looked upon by the people as proofs of supernatural power and of an intercourse with beings of a higher order. Moreover, not only the people, but the wise and great, were themselves fully convinced that they were acting under the immediate influence and were enjoying the especial favour of the Deity. Taking these premises for granted, and at the same time admitting that the biblical books were written by contemporaries, Eichhorn thought that all the facts of the Mosaic history might be explained as natural occurrences, without supposing, with the deists, that the writer was an impostor. The temptation and the eating of the forbidden fruit, the histories of Noah, Abraham, and Moses, are thus stripped of their supposed allegorical dress and of those features which it is supposed that they have received from the imagination of the writer, and are explained as natural events. According to Eich horn, Moses was nothing but a great and benevolent patriot, who, after having long entertained the idea of delivering his countrymen from foreign slavery, was suddenly reminded of his scheme in a dream, and believing this dream to be from the deity, he represented it as a sum mons from Jehovah. The burning and smoking of Mount Sinai, according to this system of exposition, were only the effect of a fire which Moses kindled on the Mount for the purpose of keeping up the excitement of his people ; and a storm with lightning, which fortunately happened at the same time, was a useful aid to him. The shining of his face was nothing but the consequence of great heat and excitement, which the lawgiver as well as his people, not knowing the real cause of it, believed to,be the effect of a direct interference of the deity.