same epithet to the Socinians in
1688.[1] It was a common word in England two hundred years ago. Nor was
it imported into the English language from the German, either in a
theological or a philosophical sense. There was a sect of Rationalists,
in the time of the Commonwealth, who called themselves such exactly on
the same grounds as their successors have done in recent years. Some one
writing the news from London under date of October 14, 1646, says:
"There is a new sect sprung up among them [the Presbyterians and
Independents], and these are the _Rationalists, and what their reason
dictates them in church or state stands for good until they be convinced
with better_."[2] But Rationalists, in fact if not in name, existed on
the Continent long anterior to this date. The Anti-Trinitarians, and
Bodin, and Pucci were rigid disciples of Reason; and their tenets
harmonize with those of a later day.[3]

In order to arrive at a proper definition of Rationalism we should
consult those authors who have given no little attention to this
department of theological inquiry. Nor would we be impartial if we
adduced the language of one class to the exclusion of the other. We
shall hear alike from the friends and adversaries of the whole movement,
and endeavor to draw a proper conclusion from their united testimony. It
was Selden's advice to the students of ecclesiastical history, "to study
the exaggerated statements of Baronius on the one side, and of the
Magdeburg Centuriators on the other, and be their own judges."
Fortunately enough for a proper understanding of Rationalism, there is
no such diversity of statement presented by our authorities. On the
contrary, we shall perceive an unexpected and gratifying harmony.

In Wegscheider's _Institutiones Dogmaticae_, a work which for nearly half
a century has stood as an acknowledged and highly respected authority on
the systematic theology of the Rationalists, we read language to this
effect: "Since that doctrine (of supernaturalism) is encumbered with
various difficulties, every day made more manifest by the advances of
learning, especially historical, physical, and philosophical, there have
been amongst more recent theologians and philosophers not a few who, in
various ways, departing from it, thought it right to admit, even in the
investigation and explanation of divine things, not only that formal use
of human reason which regards only the method of expounding dogmas, but
also the mat