This system of interpretation was, as we have observed, principally applied to the Old Testament, but the New Testament also contains passages which were too tempting to be passed over by the rationalists. It was at first chiefly the appearance of angels in the New Testament on which Eichhorn tried the rationalistic interpretation, and all pas. rages of this kind ought, according to this critic, to be considered as figurative expressions or allegories : thus a happy chance is represented a.s a saving angel ; an internal joy, as the salutation of an angel ; and great calmness and peace of mind, as a comforting angel, &c.
• • The way being thus prepared, the number of rationalistic divines increased, and their influence became apparent in many other depart manta of knowledge. A Utilitarian school had at the same time acquired considerable power ; and so far as it endeavoured to instruct the people in the so-called useful sciences, and to do away with every thing which was deemed superstitious, it went hand in hand with and supported rationalism, which now began to be carried out in its whole extent with regard to the New as well as the Old Testament.
Among the works which gained the greatest popularity, we may mention K. F. Bahrdt, Briefe -Ober die Bibel im Volkston,' 1782; Eck,' Versuch fiber die Wundergeschichten des Ncuen Testaments,' 1795 ; ' Die Wonder des Neueu Testaments in ihrcr wahren Gestalt Stir itchte Christusverchrer; 1790 ; Natfirliche Geschichte des grossen Propheten von Nazaret,' 1800. The two last works, which were published anonymously, were written by Venturini. Most of these, and the numerous other works of the same tendency, were written in a popular style ; and those of Bahrdt had often a coarse and vulgar tone. The philosophical systems of Hegel and Schelling had the same realistic tendency, though in a less popular form. But none of these writers equalled Dr. Paulus of Heidelberg, either in learning or ingenuity; he it was who most completely developed the whole system of Rationalism. His principal works are—' Philole gisch-kritischer and historischer Commentar fiber des Neue Testament,' 4 vols., Ltibeck, 1800-1804 (this work was republished in 1830-33, in 3 vole., with numerous alterations and corrections, under the altered title of Exegetisches Handbuch fiber die drei erst,en Evangelien '); Das Leben Jesu, ale Grundlage zu eiuer reinen Geschichte des Urchrietenthums,' 2 vols., Heidelberg, 1828. Paulus first insists upon the necessity of distinguishing between those passages of the Bible in which the writers simply state facts and those in which they give their own opinions of them. A fact, according to him, is that which the writers describe as having taken place within their own experience; an opinion, on the other hand, is the manner in which they interpret an occurrence and trace it to what they conceive to be its cause. But as these two elements are in most cases interwoven and mixed up with each other in the biblical writings, Paulus conceives it to be the chief object of the biblical critic to separate them, and to discover the genuine historic truth in the various disguises with which the opinions of the age and of the writer have surrounded it ; and he thinks with Eichhorn, that this object may be accomplished if the critic transports himself as much as possible to the scene of the events, and supplies such accessory and explanatory circumstances as may have been neg lected or overlooked by the reporter or eye-witness. Thus the New as
well as the Old Testament is deprived of its divine character, and all supernatural interference in the affairs of the Hebrews and in the introduction and establishment of Christianity is denied. Christ is no longer the son of God, but a wise and virtuous man ; his miracles are either acts of friendship and humanity, and manifestations of his skill in the healing art, or the effects of a happy chance. In short, the whole history of the Bible assumes an aspect totally different from that of the original records, and from that which their authors manifestly intended ; in fact it becomes a romance without any foundation except the assertion of the Rationalist that things did actually happen thus and thus.
A reaction against the spirit of this school manifested itself during the first ten years of the present century. The dreadful ravages caused by the French Revolution created a general desire to restore or maintain the good old times by returning to the religious and political institutions of past times. But although this reaction was successful in other depart ments, it had very little effect in theology, as it manifested itself rather in passive and retired mysticism than in energetic efforts against the system of the Rationalists. A vigorous opposition however began in 1810, which was called forth by the publication of Reinhard's Ges Liudnisse,' in which Rationalism and Supernaturalism were declared to be diametrically opposed and utterly irrecoileilable with each other. This assertion was denied by other theologians, who endeavoured to reconcile the two schools. The contest which then commenced was carried on in a calm and philosophic spirit till 1817, when the cente nary anniversary of the Reformation was celebrated in Germany, and the Supernaturalistic party, headed by Dr. Harms, of Kiel, endeavoured to make the question a practical one, and to draw to it the attention of the governments and of the whole German nation. The Rationalists were now universally decried as infidels, and as men who had forfeited all right to be called Christians ; and innumerable works were written by the theologians of both parties to defend their opinions. The principal champiotts on the Supernaturalistic side, besides Harms, were Hengstenberg and Tholuck ; on the side of the Rationalists, Gesenius, Wegscheider, Paulus, and Rohr. In these controversies, the rational istic theory itself almost disappeared, and the question assumed the more general character, whether the Protestant church should allow freedom of thought or not. This turn of the question induced many of the moderate Supernaturaliats, who could not sacrifice their liberty of conscience, to side with the Rationalists. Their wish, however, was merely to bring about some kind of a reconciliation, and not to allow the question to become a national one. Their opinion was that it should be kept strictly within scientific limits, and confined to the learned. Although willing to make concessions to the Rationalists on many points, they were anxious to prevent any practical innovations.