he various meanings in
which the word Rationalism has been used. I understand by it here only
generally the opinion that mankind are led by their reason and
especially by the natural powers of their mind and soul, and by the
observation of nature which surrounds them, to a true knowledge of
divine and sensible things, and that reason has the highest authority
and right of decision in matters of faith and morality, so that an
edifice of faith and morals built on this foundation shall be called
Rationalism. It still remains undecided whether this system declares
that a supernatural revelation is impossible and ought to be rejected.
That notion rather lies in the word Naturalism, which however is
sometimes used as synonymous with Rationalism. It has been well said
that Naturalism is distinguished from Rationalism by rejecting all and
every revelation of God, especially any extraordinary one through
certain men. This, however, is not the case with many persons called
Naturalists both by themselves and others. Supernaturalism consists in
general in the conviction that God has revealed himself supernaturally
and immediately. What is revealed might perhaps be discovered by natural
methods, but either not at all or very late by those to whom it is
revealed. It may also be something which man could never have known by
natural methods; and then arises the question, whether man is capable of
such a revelation. The notion of a miracle cannot well be separated from
such a revelation, whether it happens out of, on, or in men. What is
revealed may belong to the order of nature, but an order higher and
unknown to us, which we could never have known without miracles, and
cannot bring under the law of nature."[4]

Professor Hahn, in speaking of the work just referred to, and of the
subject in general, makes the following remarks: "In very recent times,
during which Rationalism has excited so much attention, two persons
especially, Bretschneider and Staeudlin, have endeavored to point out the
historical use of the word, but both have failed. It is therefore worth
while to examine the matter afresh. With respect to the Rationalists,
they give out Rationalism as a very different matter from Naturalism.
Roehr, the author of the _Letters on Rationalism_, chooses to understand
by Naturalism only Materialism; and Wegscheider, only Pantheism. In this
way those persons who have been usually reckoned the heads of the
Naturalists; namely, Herbert,