Apologetics

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

Atheological science which has for its purpose the explanation and defence of theChristian religion.

Apologetics means, broadly speaking, a form of apology. The term is derived from the Latin adjective,apologeticus, which, in turn has its origin in the Greek adjective,apologetikos, the substantive beingapologia, "apology", "defence". As an equivalent of the plural form, the variant, "Apologetic", is now and then found in recent writings, suggested probably by the corresponding French and German words, which are always in the singular. But the plural form, "Apologetics", is far more common and will doubtless prevail, being in harmony with other words similarly formed, as ethics, statistics, homiletics. In defining apologetics as a form of apology, we understand the latter word in its primary sense, as a verbal defence against a verbal attack, a disproving of afalse accusation, or a justification of an action or line of conduct wrongly made the object of censure. Such, for example, is theApology ofSocrates, such theApologia ofJohn Henry Newman. This is the only sense attaching to the term as used by the ancient Greeks and Romans, or by the French and Germans of the present day.

Quite different is the meaning now conveyed by our English word, "apology", namely, an explanation of an action acknowledged to be open to blame. The sameidea is expressed almost exclusively by the verb, "apologize", and generally by the adjective, "apologetic". For this reason, the adoption of the word, "Apologetics", in the sense of a scientific vindication of theChristian religion is not altogether ahappy one. Some scholars prefer such terms as "Christian Evidences", the "Defence of the Christian Religion". "Apologetics" and "Apology" are not altogether interchangeable terms. The latter is the generic term, the former the specific. Any kind of accusation, whether personal, social, political, or religious, may call forth a corresponding apology. It is only apologies of theChristian religion that fall within the scope of apologetics. Nor is it all such. There is scarcely adogma, scarcely a ritual or disciplinary institution of theChurch that has not been subjected to hostile criticism, and hence, as occasion required, been vindicated by proper apologetics. But besides these forms of apology, there are the answers that have been called forth by attacks of various kinds upon the credentials of theChristian religion, apologies written to vindicate now this, now that ground of theChristian,Catholicfaith, that has been called in question or held up to disbelief and ridicule.

Now it is out of such apologies for the foundations ofChristianbelief that thescience of apologetics has taken form. Apologetics is theChristian Apologypar excellence, combining in one well-rounded system the arguments and considerations of permanent value that have found expression in the various single apologies. The latter, being answers to specific attacks, were necessarily conditioned by the occasions that called them forth. They were personal, controversial, partial vindications of theChristian position. In them the refutation of specific charges was the prominent element. Apologetics, on the other hand, is the comprehensive, scientific vindication of the grounds ofChristian,Catholicbelief, in which the calm, impersonal presentation of underlying principles is of paramount importance, the refutation of objections being added by way of corollary. It addresses itself not to the hostile opponent for the purpose of refutation, but rather to the inquiring mind by way of information. Its aim is to give a scientific presentation of the claims whichChrist's revealed religion has on the assent of every rational mind; it seeks to lead the inquirer aftertruth to recognize, first, the reasonableness and trustworthiness of theChristian revelation as realized in theCatholicChurch, and secondly, the correspondingobligation of accepting it. While not compellingfaith — for the certitude it offers is not absolute, but moral — it shows that the credentials of theChristian religion amply suffice to vindicate the act offaith as a rational act, and to discredit the estrangement of the sceptic and unbeliever as unwarranted and culpable. Its last word is the answer to the question: Why should I be aCatholic? Apologetics thus leads up toCatholicfaith, to the acceptance of theCatholicChurch as the divinely authorized organ for preserving and rendering efficacious the savingtruths revealed byChrist. This is the great fundamentaldogma on which all otherdogmas rest. Hence apologetics also goes by the name of "fundamentaltheology". Apologetics is generally viewed as one branch of dogmaticscience, the other and chief branch beingdogmatic theology proper. It is well to note, however, that in point of view and method also they are quite distinct. Dogmatictheology, likemoral theology, addresses itself primarily to those who are alreadyCatholic. It presupposesfaith. Apologetics, on the other hand, in theory at least, simply leads up tofaith. The former begins where the latter ends. Apologetics is pre-eminently a positive, historical discipline, whereasdogmatic theology is rather philosophic anddeductive, using as its premises data of divine andecclesiastical authority — the contents of revelation and their interpretation by theChurch. It is only in exploring and in treating dogmatically the elements of natural religion, the sources of its authoritative data, thatdogmatic theology comes in touch with apologetics.

As has been pointed out, the object of apologetics is to give a scientific answer to the question,Why should I beCatholic? Now this question involves two others which are also fundamental. The one is:Why should I be aChristian rather than an adherent of theJewish religion, or theMohammedan, or theZoroastrian, or of some other religious system setting up a rival claim to be revealed? The other, still more fundamental, question is:Why should I profess any religion at all? Thus thescience of apologetics easily falls into three great divisions:

In the first of these divisions, the apologist inquirers into the nature of religion, its universality, and man's natural capacity to acquire religiousideas. In connection with this the modern study of the religious philosophy of uncultured peoples has to be taken into consideration, and the various theories concerning the origin of religion present themselves for critical discussion. This leads to the examination of the grounds of theisticbelief, including the important questions of

Coupled with these questions is the refutation of monism, determinism, and other anti-theistic theories. Religious philosophy and apologetics here march hand in hand.

The second division, onrevealedreligion, is even more comprehensive. After treating the notion, possibility, and moral necessity of a divine revelation, and its discernibility through various internal and external criteria, the apologist proceeds to establish thefact of revelation. Three distinct, progressive stages of revelation are set forth: Primitive Revelation,Mosaic Revelation, andChristian Revelation. The chief sources on which he has to rely in establishing this triple fact of revelation are theSacred Scriptures. But if he islogical, he must prescind from their inspiration and treat them provisionally as human historical documents. Here he must depend on the critical study of theOld andNew Testaments by impartial scriptural scholars, and build on the accredited results of their researches touching the authenticity and trustworthiness of the sacred books purporting to be historical. It is only by anticipation that an argument for the fact of primitive revelation can be based on the ground that it is taught in the inspired book of Genesis, and that it is implied in thesupernatural state of ourfirst parents. In the absence of anything like contemporary documents, the apologist has to lay chief stress on the high antecedent probability of primitive revelation, and show how a revelation of limited, but sufficient scope for primitive man is compatible with a very crude stage of material and æsthetic culture, and hence is not discredited by the sound results of prehistoric archæology. Closely connected with this question is the scientific study of the origin and antiquity of man, and the unity of the human species; and, as still larger subjects bearing on the historic value of the sacred Book of Origins, the compatibility with Scripture of the modernsciences of biology,astronomy, and geology. In like manner the apologist has to content himself with showing the fact ofMosaic revelation to be highly probable. The difficulty, in the present condition ofOld Testament criticism, of recognizing more than a small portion of thePentateuch as documentary evidence contemporary with Moses, makes it incumbent on the apologist to proceed with caution lest, in attempting to prove too much, he may bring into discredit what is decidedly tenable apart from dogmatic considerations. However, there is sufficient evidence allowed by all but the most radical critics to establish the fact that Moses was the providential instrument for delivering the Hebrew people fromEgyptian bondage, and for teaching them a system of religious legislation that in loftymonotheism andethical worth is far superior to thebeliefs and customs of the surrounding nations, thus affording a strong presumption in favour of its claim to be revealed. This presumption gains strength and clearness in the light ofMessianic prophecy, which shines with ever increasing volume and brightness through the history of theJewish religion till it illumines thepersonality of our Divine Lord. In the study ofMosaic revelation, biblical archæology is of no small service to the apologist.

When the apologist comes to the subject ofChristian revelation, he finds himself on much firmer ground. Starting with the generally recognized results ofNew Testament criticism, he is enabled to show that thesynoptic Gospels, on the one hand, and the undisputedEpistles ofSt. Paul, on the other, offer two independent, yet mutually corroborative, masses of evidence concerning theperson and work ofJesus. As this evidence embodies the unimpeachable testimony of thoroughly reliable eye-witnesses and their associates, it presents a portraiture ofJesus that is truly historical. After showing from the records thatJesus taught, now implicitly, now explicitly, that he was the long expectedMessiah, theSon of God sent by His Heavenly Father to enlighten and savemankind, and to found the new kingdom ofjustice, Apologetics proceeds to set forth the grounds forbelieving in these claims:

Then, by way of supplementaryproof, the apologist institutes an impartial comparison ofChristianity with the various rival religious systems of the world —Brahminism,Buddhism,Zoroastrianism,Confucianism, Taoism,Mohammedanism — and shows how in theperson of its founder, in its moral andreligious ideal and influence, theChristian religion is immeasurably superior to all others, and alone has a claim to our assent as the absolute, divinely-revealed religion. Here, too, in the survey ofBuddhism, the specious objection, not uncommon today, thatBuddhistideas and legends have contributed to the formation of the Gospels, calls for a summary refutation.

Beyond the fact ofChristian revelation theProtestant apologist does not proceed. But theCatholic rightly insists that the scope of apologetics should not end here. Both theNew Testament records and those of the sub-Apostolic age bear witness thatChristianity was meant to be something more than a religious philosophy of life, more than a mere system of individualbelief and practice, and that it cannot be separated historically from a concrete form of social organization. HenceCatholic apologetics adds, as anecessary sequel to the established fact ofChristian revelation, the demonstration of thetrueChurch of Christ and its identity with theRoman Catholic Church. From the records of theApostles and their immediate successors is set forth the institution of theChurch as atrue, unequalsociety, endowed with the supreme authority of itsFounder, and commissioned in His name to teach and sanctifymankind; possessing the essential features of visibility, indefectibility, andinfallibility; characterized by the distinctive marks of unity,holiness, catholicity, andapostolicity. These notes of thetrueChurch of Christ are then applied as criteria to the various rivalChristiandenominations of the present day, with the result that they are found fully exemplified in theRoman Catholic Church alone. With the supplementary exposition of the primacy andinfallibility of thePope, and of therule of faith, the work of apologetics is brought to its fitting close. It istrue that some apologists see fit to treat also of inspiration and the analysis of the act offaith. But, strictly speaking, these are not apologetic subjects. While they maylogically be included in the prolegomena ofdogmatic theology, they rather belong, the one to the province of Scripture-study, the other to the tract ofmoral theology dealing with thetheological virtues.

The history of apologetic literature involves the survey of the varied attacks that have been made against the grounds ofChristian,Catholicbelief. It may be marked off into four great divisions.

First period

Apologies in answer to the opposition of Judaism

It lay in the nature of things thatChristianity should meet with strong Jewish opposition. In dispensing withcircumcision and other works of thelaw,Christianity had incurred the imputation of running counter toGod's immutable will. Again,Christ'shumble and obscure life, ending in the ignominious death on the cross, was the very opposite of what theJews expected of theirMessiah. Their judgment seemed to be confirmed by the fact thatChristianity attracted but an insignificant portion of the Jewish people, and spread with greatest vigour among the despisedGentiles. To justify the claims ofChristianity before theJews, the early apologists had to give an answer to these difficulties. Of these apologies the most important is the "Dialogue with Trypho theJew" composed byJustin Martyr about 155-160. He vindicates the new religion against the objections of the learnedJew, arguing with great cogency that it is the perfection of theOld Law, and showing by an imposing array ofOld Testament passages that the Hebrewprophets point toJesus as theMessiah and the incarnateSon of God. He insists also that it is inChristianity that the destiny of the Hebrew religion to become the religion of the world is to find its realization, and hence it is the followers ofChrist, and not the unbelievingJews, that are thetruechildren of Israel. By his elaborate argument fromMessianic prophecy,Justin won the grateful recognition of later apologists. Similar apologies were composed byTertullian, "Against the Jews" (Adversus Jud os, about 200), and bySt. Cyprian, "Three Books of Evidences against the Jews" (about 250).

Apologies in answer to pagan opposition

Of far more serious moment to the earlyChristian Church was the bitter opposition it met frompaganism. Thepolytheistic religion of the Roman Empire,venerated for its antiquity, was intertwined with every fibre of the body politic. Its providential influence was a matter of firmbelief. It was associated with the highest culture, and had the sanction of the greatest poets and sages ofGreece andRome. Its splendidtemples and stately ritual gave it a grace and dignity that captivated the popularimagination. On the other hand,Christianmonotheism was an innovation. It made no imposing display of liturgy. Its disciples were, for the most part,persons ofhumble birth and station. Its sacred literature had little attraction for the fastidious reader accustomed to the elegant diction of the classic authors. And so the popular mind viewed it with misgivings, or despised it as anignorantsuperstition. But opposition did not end here. The uncompromising attitude of the new religion towardspagan rites was decried as the greatest impiety. TheChristians were branded asatheists, and as they held aloof from the public functions also, which were invariably associated with thesefalse rites, they were accused of being enemies of the State. TheChristian custom of worshipping in secret assembly seemed to add force to this charge, forsecret societies were forbidden byRoman law. Nor werecalumnies wanting. The popularimagination easily distorted the vaguely-known Agape and Eucharistic Sacrifice into abominable rites marked by feasting on infant flesh and by indiscriminatelust. The outcome was that the people and authorities took alarm at the rapidly spreading Church and sought to repress it by force. To vindicate theChristian cause against these attacks ofpaganism, many apologies were written. Some, notably the "Apology" ofJustin Martyr (150), the "Plea for the Christians", byAthenagoras (177), and the "Apologetic" ofTertullian (197), were addressed to emperors for the express purpose of securing for theChristians immunity frompersecution. Others were composed to convince thepagans of the folly ofpolytheism and of the savingtruth ofChristianity. Such were:Tatian, "Discourse to the Greeks" (160), Theophilus, "Three Books to Autolychus" (180), the"Epistle to Diognetus" (about 190), the "Octavius" ofMinucius Felix (192),Origen, "True Discourse against Celsus" (248), Lactantius,Institutes (312), andSt. Augustine, "City of God" (414-426). In these apologies the argument fromOld Testament prophecy has a more prominent place than that frommiracles. But the one on which most stress is laid is that of the transcendent excellence ofChristianity. Though not clearly marked out, a twofold line of thought runs through this argument:Christianity is light, whereaspaganism is darkness;Christianity is power, whereaspaganism is weakness. Enlarging on theseideas, the apologists contrast thelogical coherence of the religious tenets ofChristianity, and its loftyethical teaching, with the follies and inconsistencies ofpolytheism, the lowethical principles of itsphilosophers, and the indecencies of its mythology and of some of its rites. They likewise show that theChristian religion alone has the power to transform man from a slave ofsin into a spiritual freeman. They compare what they once were aspagans with what they now are asChristians. They draw a telling contrast between the loose morality ofpagansociety and the exemplary lives ofChristians, whose devotion to their religious principles is stronger than death itself.

Second period. Christianity in conflict with Mohammedan religion and philosophy

The one dangerous rival with whichChristianity had to contend in theMiddle Ages was theMohammedan religion. Within a century of its birth, it had torn fromChristendom some of its fairest lands, and extended like a huge crescent fromSpain over Northern Africa,Egypt, Palestine,Arabia,Persia, andSyria, to the eastern part ofAsia Minor. The danger which this fanatic religion offered toChristian faith, in countries where the tworeligions came in contact, was not to be treated lightly. And so we find a series of apologies written to uphold thetruth ofChristianity in the face ofMoslemerrors. Perhaps the earliest was the "Discussion between a Saracen and aChristian" composed bySt. John Damascene (about 750). In this apology he vindicates thedogma of the Incarnation against the rigid and fatalistic conception ofGod taught byMohammed. He also demonstrates the superiority of the religion ofChrist, pointing out the grave defects inMohammed's life and teaching, and showing theKoran to be in its best parts but a feeble imitation of theSacred Scriptures. Other apologies of a similar kind were composed by Peter the Venerable in the twelfth, and by Raymond of Martini in the thirteenth century. Hardly less dangerous to theChristian faith was therationalistic philosophy ofIslamism. The Arabian conquerors had learned from the Syrians the arts andsciences of the Greek world. They became especially proficient in medicine, mathematics, and philosophy, for the study of which they erected in every part of their domainschools andlibraries. In the twelfth centuryMoorishSpain had nineteen colleges, and their renown attracted hundreds ofChristian scholars from every part ofEurope. Herein lay a grave menace toChristian orthodoxy, for the philosophy ofAristotle as taught in theseschools had become thoroughly tinctured with Arabianpantheism andrationalism. The peculiar tenet of the celebratedMoorishphilosopherAverroes was much in vogue, namely: that philosophy and religion are two independent spheres of thought, so that what istrue in the one may befalse in the other. Again, it was commonly taught thatfaith is for the masses who cannot think for themselves, but philosophy is a higher form ofknowledge which noble minds should seek to acquire. Among the fundamentaldogmas denied by the Arabianphilosophers were creation, providence, andimmortality. To vindicateChristianity againstMohammedanrationalism,St. Thomas composed (1261-64) hisphilosophical "Summa contra Gentiles", in four books. In this great apology the respective claims of reason andfaith are carefully distinguished and harmonized, and a systematic demonstration of the grounds offaith is built up with arguments of reason and authority such as appealed directly to the minds of that day. In treating ofGod, providence, creation and the future life, St. Thomas refutes the chieferrors of the Arabian, Jewish, and Greekphilosophers, and shows that the genuine teaching ofAristotle confirms the greattruths of religion. Three apologies composed in much the same spirit, but belonging to a later age, may be mentioned here. The one is the fine work of Louis Vivés, "De Veritate Fidei Christianæ Libri V" (about 1530). After treating the principles of naturaltheology, the Incarnation, and Redemption, he gives two dialogues, one between aChristian and aJew, the other between aChristian and aMohammaden, in which he shows the superiority of theChristian religion. Similar to this is the apology of the celebratedDutchtheologian Grotius, "De Veritate Religionis Christianæ" (1627). It is in six books. An able treatise on naturaltheology is followed by a demonstration of thetruth ofChristianity based on the life andmiracles ofJesus, theholiness of His teaching, and the wonderful propagation of His religion. In proving the authenticity and trustworthiness of theSacred Scriptures, Grotius appeals largely to internal evidence. The latter part of the work is devoted to a refutation ofpaganism,Judaism, andMohammedanism. An apology on somewhat similar lines is that of theHuguenot, Philip de Mornay, "De la vérité de la religion chrétienne" (1579). It is the first apology of note that was written in a modern tongue.

Third period. Catholicism in conflict with Protestantism

The outbreak ofProtestantism in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and its rejection of many of the fundamental features ofCatholicism, called forth a mass of controversial apologetic literature. It was not, of course, the first time that the principles ofCatholicbelief had been questioned with reference toChristian orthodoxy. In the early ages of theChurchhereticalsects, assuming theright to profess allegiance and fidelity to the spirit ofChrist, had given occasion toSt. Irenæus "On Heresies",Tertullian "On Prescription against Heretics," St. Vincent of Lérins, in his "Commonitory", to insist on unity with theCatholicChurch, and, for the purpose of confuting thehereticalerrors of private interpretation, to appeal to an authoritativerule of faith. In like manner, the rise ofhereticalsects in the three centuries preceding theReformation led to an accentuation of the fundamental principles ofCatholicism, notably inMoneta's "Summa contra Catharos et Waldenses" (about 1225), and Torquemada's "Summa de Ecclesiâ" (1450). So to a far greater extent, in the outpouring from many sources ofProtestantideas, it became theduty of the hour to defend thetrue nature of theChurch of Christ, to vindicate its authority, its divinely authorizedhierarchy under the primacy of thePope, its visibility, unity, perpetuity, andinfallibility, along with other doctrines and practices branded assuperstitious.

In the first heat of this gigantic controversy the writings on both sides were sharply polemic, abounding in personal recriminations. But towards the close of the century there developed a tendency to treat the controverted questions more in the manner of a calm, systematic apology. Two works belonging to this time are especially noteworthy. One is the "Disputations de controversiis Christianæ Fidei" (1581-92), by Robert Bellarmin, a monumental work of vast erudition, rich in apologetic material. The other is the "Principiorum Fidei Doctrinalium Demonstratio" (1579), by Robert Stapleton, whomDöllinger pronounced to be the prince of controversialists. Though not so erudite, it is more profound than the work of Bellarmin. Another excellent work of this period is that ofMartin Becan, "De Ecclesiâ Christi" (1633).

Fourth period. Christianity in conflict with Rationalism

From the middle of the seventeenth to the nineteenth century

Rationalism — the setting up of thehumanreason as the source and measure of all knowabletruth — is, of course, not confined to any one period of human history. It has existed from the earliest days ofphilosophy. But inChristiansociety it did not become a notable factor till the middle of the seventeenth century, when it asserted itself chiefly in the form ofDeism. It was associated, and even to a large extent identified with the rapidly growing movement towards greaterintellectual freedom which, stimulated by fruitful scientific inquiry, found itself seriously hampered by the narrow views of inspiration and of historic Bible-interpretation which then prevailed. The Bible had been set up as aninfallible source ofknowledge not only in matters of religion, but of history,chronology, and physicalscience. The result was a reaction against the very essentials ofChristianity.Deism became theintellectual fashion of the day, leading in many cases to downrightatheism. Starting with the principle that no religiousdoctrine is of value that cannot beproved by experience or byphilosophical reflection, theDeists admitted the existence of aGod external to the world, but denied every form of divine intervention, and accordingly rejected revelation, inspiration,miracles, and prophecy. Together with unbelievers of a still more pronounced type, they assailed the historic value of theBible, decrying itsmiraculous narratives asfraud andsuperstition. The movement started inEngland, and in the eighteenth century spread toFrance andGermany. Its baneful influence was deep and far-reaching, for it foundzealous exponents in some of the leadingphilosophers and men of letters — Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Voltaire, Rousseau, d'Alembert, Diderot, Lessing,Herder, and others. But able apologists were not lacking to champion theChristian cause.England produced several that won lastinghonour for their scholarly defence of fundamentalChristiantruths — Lardner, author of the "Credibility of the Gospel History", in twelve volumes (1741-55); Butler, likewise famous for his "Analogy of Religion Natural and Revealed to the Constitution of Nature" (1736); Campbell, who in his "Dissertation on Miracles" (1766) gave a masterly answer to Hume's arguments againstmiracles; and Paley, whose "Evidences of Christianity" (1794) and "Natural Theology" (1802) are among the classics ofEnglishtheological literature. On the continent, the work of defence was carried on by such men as Bishop Huet, who published his "Démonstration Evangélique" in 1679; Leibnitz, whose "Théodicée" (1684), with its valuable introduction on the conformity offaith with reason, had a great influence for good; theBenedictine Abbot Gerbert, who gave a comprehensiveChristian apology in his "Demonstratio Veræ Religionis Ver que Ecclesiæ Contra Quasvis Falsas" (1760); and the Abbé Bergier, whose "Traité historique et dogmatique de la vraie religion", in twelve volumes (1780), showed ability and erudition.

The nineteenth century

In the last century the conflict ofChristianity withrationalism was in part lightened and in part complicated by the marvelous development of scientific and historic inquiry. Lost languages, like theEgyptian and theBabylonian, were recovered, and thereby rich and valuable records of the past — many of them unearthed by laborious and costly excavation — were made to tell their story. Much of this bore on the relations of the ancient Hebrew people with the surrounding nations and, while in some instances creating new difficulties, for the most part helped to corroborate thetruth of theBible history. Out of these researches have grown a number of valuable and interesting apologetic studies onOld Testament history: Schrader, "Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament" (London, 1872); Hengstenberg's "Egypt and the Books of Moses" (London, 1845); Harper, "The Bible and Modern Discoveries" (London, 1891); McCurdy, "History, Prophecy, and the Monuments" (London-New York, 1894-1900); Pinches, "The Old Testament in the Light of the Historic Records of Assyria and Babylonia" (London-New York, 1902); Abbé Gainet, "La bible sans la bible, ou l'histoire de l'ancien testament par les seuls témoignages profanes" (Bar-le-Duc, 1871); Vigouroux, "La bible et les découvertes modernes" (Paris, 1889). On the other hand,Biblical chronology, as then understood, and the literal historic interpretation of the Book of Genesis were thrown into confusion by the advancingsciences —astronomy, with its grand nebular hypothesis; biology, with its even more fruitful theory of evolution; geology, and prehistoric archæology.Rationalists eagerly laid hold of these scientific data, and sought to turn them to the discredit of theBible and likewise of theChristian religion. But able apologies were forthcoming to essay a conciliation ofscience and religion. Among them were: Dr. (afterwards Cardinal)Wiseman, "Twelve Lectures on the Connection between Science and Revealed Religion" (London, 1847), which, though antiquated in parts, is still valuable reading; Reusch, "Nature and theBible" (London, 1876). Others more modern and up to date are: Duilhé de Saint-Projet, "Apologie scientifique de la foi chrétienne" (Paris, 1885); Abbé Guibert, "In the beginning" (New York, 1904), one of the bestCatholic treatises on the subject; and more recent still,A. de Lapparent, "Science et apologétique" (Paris, 1905). A more delicate form of scientific inquiry forChristianbelief was the application of the principles of historic criticism to the books ofHoly Scripture. Not a fewChristian scholars looked with grave misgivings on the progress made in this legitimate department of human research, the results of which called for a reconstruction of many traditional views of Scripture.Rationalists found here a congenital field of study, which seemed to promise the undermining of Scripture-authority. Hence it was but natural that the encroachments of Biblical criticism on conservativetheology should be disputed inch by inch. On the whole, the outcome of the long and spirited contest has been to the advantage ofChristianity. It istrue that thePentateuch, so long attributed to Moses, is now held by the vast majority of non-Catholic, and by an increasing number ofCatholic, scholars to be a compilation of four independent sources put together in final shape soon after the Captivity. But the antiquity of much of the contents of these sources has been firmly established, as well as the strong presumption that the kernel of the Pentateuchal legislation is ofMosaic institution. This has been shown by Kirkpatrick in his "Divine Library of the Old Testament" (London-New York, 1901), by Driver in his "Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament" (New York, 1897), and by Abbé Lagrange, in his "Méthode historique de l'Ancien Testament" (Paris, 1903; tr. London, 1905). In theNew Testament the results of Biblical criticism are still more assuring. The attempt of the Tübingenschool to throw the Gospels far into the second century, and to see in most of theEpistles ofSt. Paul the work of a much later hand, has been absolutely discredited. Thesynoptic Gospels are now generally recognized, even by advanced critics, to belong to the years 65-85, resting on still earlier written and oral sources, and the Gospel of St. John is brought withcertainty down to at least A.D. 110, that is, within a very few years of the death of St. John. The three Epistles of St. John are recognized as genuine, the pastoral letters being now the chief object of dispute. Closely connected with the theory of the Tübingen School, was the attempt of therationalist Strauss to explain away themiraculous element in the Gospels as the mythical fancies of an age much later than that ofJesus. Strauss's views, embodied in his "Life of Jesus" (1835), were ably refuted, together with thefalse assertions and inductions of the Tübingen School by suchCatholic scholars asKuhn,Hug, Sepp,Döllinger, and by theProtestant critics, Ewald, Meyer, Wieseler, Tholuck, Luthardt, and others. The outcome of Strauss's "Life of Jesus," and of Renan's vain attempt to improve on it by giving it a legendary form (Vie de Jésus, 1863), has been a number of scholarly biographies of our blessed Lord: byFouard, "Christ the Son of God" (New York, 1891);Didon, "Jesus Christ" (New York, 1891); Edersheim, "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah" (New York, 1896), and others.

Another field of study which grew up chiefly in the last century, and has had an influence in shaping thescience of apologetics, is the study ofreligions. The study of the great religious systems of thepagan world, and their comparison withChristianity, furnished material for a number of specious arguments against the independent andsupernatural origin of theChristian religion. So, too, the study of the origin of religion in the light of the religious philosophy of uncultured peoples has been exploited againstChristian (theisticbelief) on the unwarranted ground thatChristianity is but a refinement, through a long process of evolution, of a crude primitive religion originating in ghost-worship. Among those who have distinguished themselves in this branch of apologetics areDöllinger, whose "Heidenthum und Judenthum" (1857), tr. "Gentile and Jew in the Court of the Temple" (London, 1865-67), is a mine of information on the comparative merits ofrevealedreligion and thepaganism of the Roman world; Abbé de Broglie, author of the suggestive volume, "Problèmes et conclusions de l'histoire des religions" (Paris, 1886); Hardwick, Christ and other Masters" (London, 1875). Another factor in the growth of apologetics during the last century was the rise of numerous systems ofphilosophy that, in the teaching of such men asKant, Fichte,Hegel, Schelling, Comte, and Spencer, were openly or covertly in opposition toChristianbelief. To counteract these systems,Pope Leo XIII revived throughout theCatholic world the teaching ofThomistic philosophy. The many works written to vindicateChristian Theism againstPantheism,Materialism, Positivism, and Evolutionary Monism have been of great service to apologetics. Not all these philosophic apologies, indeed, are scholastic. They represent several modernschools of thought.France has furnished a number of able apologetic thinkers who lay chief stress on the subjective element in man, who point to the needs and aspirations of thesoul, and to the corresponding fitness ofChristianity, and ofChristianity alone, to satisfy them. This line of thought has been worked out in various ways by the lately deceased Ollé-Laprune, author of "La certitude morale" (Paris, 1880), and "Le prix de la vie" (Paris, 1892); by Fonsegrive, "Le catholicisme et la vie de l'esprit" (Paris, 1899); and, in "L'action" (Paris, 1893), by Blondel, the founder of the so-called "Immanence School" the principles of which are embodied in the spiritual writings of Father Tyrrell, "Lex Orandi" (London, 1903), "Lex Credendi" (London, 1906). The continued opposition betweenCatholicism andProtestantism in the last century resulted in the production of a number of noteworthy apologetic writings: Möhler, "Symbolism", published inGermany in 1832, which has gone through many editions in English;Balmes, "Protestantism and Catholicity Compared in their Effects on the Civilization of Europe", a Spanish work published in English in 1840 (Baltimore); the works of the three illustriousEnglishcardinals,Wiseman,Newman, andManning, most of whose writings have a bearing on apologetics.

It is out of all these varied and extensive studies that apologetics has taken form. The vastness of the field makes it extremely difficult for any one writer to do it fulljustice. In fact a complete, comprehensive apology of uniform excellence still remains to be written.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT