Online Encyclopedia

Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.

APOLOGETICS

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V02, Page 194 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
» Make a correction to this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Spread the word: del.icio.us del.icio.us it!

APOLOGETICS , in See also:

theology, the systematic statement of the grounds which Christians allege for belief in (at least) a super-natural See also:revelation and a divine redemption (cf. e.g. Heb. i. 1-3). The See also:majority of apologists in the past have further believed in an infallible See also:Bible; but they admit this position can only be reached at a See also:late See also:stage in the See also:argument. We should See also:note, how-ever, that even a liberal orthodoxy, while saying nothing about See also:infallibility, is pledged to the essential authority of the Bible; it cannot e.g. simply ignore the Old Testament with F. E. D. See also:Schleiermacher. See also:Catholic apologetics must further give a central position to See also:Church authority, which See also:Roman Catholics explicitly define as infallible; but this position too is debated in a late See also:section of their See also:system. On the other See also:hand, there may be a See also:Christianity which seeks to extricate the " spiritual " from the" supernatural " (See also:Arnold See also:Toynbee, characterizing T.H.See also:Green). It would only See also:lead to confusion, however, if we called this method " apologetic." Any single effort in apologetics may be termed " an See also:apology." More elaborate contrasts have been proposed between the two words, but are of little See also:practical importance. 1.

The Word itself.—In See also:

Greek, ItiroXoryia is the See also:defendant's reply (personally, not through a lawyer) to the speech for the prosecution—uarnyopia. Sometimes defendants' speeches passed into literature, e.g. See also:Plato's splendid version of the Apology of See also:Socrates. Thus, in view of persecution or See also:slander, the See also:Christian church naturally produced See also:literary " Apologies." The word has never quite lost this See also:connotation of See also:standing on the defensive and rebutting See also:criticism; e.g. See also:Anselm's Apologia contra insipientem Gaunilonem (c. r Too) ; or the Lutheran Apology for the See also:Augsburg See also:Confession (1531); or J. H. See also:Newman's Apologia See also:pro vita sua (1864); or A. B. See also:Bruce's Apologetics; or Christianity Defensively Stated (1892). Of course, See also:defence easily passes into See also:counter-attack, as when See also:early apologists denounce Greek and Roman phase of See also:Platonism, however, was much more slowly adopted. The earlier apologists dispute the natural See also:immortality of the soul; See also:Athanasius himself, in De Incarnatione Dei, §§ 4, 5, tones down the teaching of See also:Wisdom; and the somewhat See also:eccentric writer See also:Arnobius, a layman—from See also:Justin See also:Martyr downwards apologetics has always been largely in the hands of laymen—stands for what has recently been called " conditional immortality "—eternal See also:life for the righteous, the See also:children of See also:God, alone. Allied with this more empiricist stand-point is the assertion that Greek See also:philosophy borrowed from See also:Moses; but in studying the Fathers we constantly find that groundless assertion uttered in the same breath with the dominant Idealist view, according to which Greek philosophy was due to incomplete revelation from the divine See also:Logos.

On purely defensive lines, early apologists rebut charges of See also:

cannibalism and sexual promiscuity; the Christians had to meet in See also:secret, and the See also:gossip of a rotten See also:age See also:drew See also:malignant conclusions. They make counter attacks on polytheism as a folly and on the shamefulness of obscene myths. Here they are in See also:line with non-Christian writers or culture-mockers like See also:Lucian of See also:Samosata; or graver See also:spirits like See also:Porphyry, who champions Neo-Platonism as a See also:rival to Christianity, and does See also:pioneer See also:work in criticism by attacks on some of the Old Testament books. Turning to Christian See also:evidence proper, we are struck with the continued prominence of the argument from prophecy. The Old Testament was an immense religious asset to the early church. Their enemies had nothing like it; and—the N.T. See also:canon being as yet but See also:half formed—the Old Testament was pushed into See also:notice by dwelling on this imperfect " argument," which See also:grew more extravagant as the partial See also:control exercised by Jewish learning disappeared. An argument from miracles is also urged, though with more reserve. Formally, every one in that age admitted the supernatural. The question was, whose supernatural ? And how far did it carry you ? See also:Miracle could not be to a 3rd See also:century writer what it was to W. Paley—a conclusive and well-nigh solitary See also:proof.

Other apologies are by See also:

Aristides (recently recovered in See also:translation), See also:Athenagoras ("elegant "), See also:Eusebius of Caesarea, See also:Cyril of See also:Alexandria; in Latin by Minucius See also:Felix, See also:Tertullian (a masculine spirit and phrase-coiner like T. See also:Carlyle, if bitterer still), Lactantius Firmianus, &c., &c.' As Christianity wins the See also:day, a new objection is raised to it. The age is full of troubles; Christianity is ruining the See also:empire! Besides notices elsewhere, we find the See also:charge specially dealt with by St See also:Augustine and his See also:friends. See also:Paulus See also:Orosius argues that the See also:world has always been a vale of tears. See also:Salvian contends that not the See also:acceptance of Christianity, but the sins of the See also:people are bringing trouble upon them; and he gives ugly evidence of the continued prevalence of See also:vice. Most impressive of all was Augustine's own contribution in The See also:City of God. See also:Powers created by worldliness and See also:sin are crumbling, as they well may; "the city of God remaigeth!" Whether he meant it so or not, the See also:saint's argument became a See also:programme and an apologia for the imperializing of the Western Church under the leadership of See also:Rome during the See also:middle ages. IV. Middle Ages.—From the point of view of apologetics, we may See also:mass together the See also:long stretch of See also:history which covers the See also:period between the disappearance and the re-See also:appearance of See also:free discussion. When emperors became converts, the church, so lately a victim and a pleader for See also:liberty, readily learned to persecute. Under such conditions there is little See also:scope for apologetics.

Force kills argument and drives doubt below the smooth See also:

surface of a nominal conformity. But there were two influences beyond the See also:bounds or beyond the See also:power of the christianized empire. The See also:Jew remained, as always, stubbornly unconvinced, and, as often, fond of slanders. Many of the See also:principal See also:medieval attempts in apologetics are directed chiefly against him, e.g. the Pugio Fidei of See also:Raymond See also:Martini (c. 128o), ' While these writings are of See also:great See also:historical value, they do not, of course, represent the Christian argument as conceived to-day. The Church of Rome prefers medieval or See also:modern statements of its position; Protestantism can use only modern statements.which became one of See also:Pascal's See also:sources (see V. below), or See also:Peter See also:Abelard's Dialogus inter Judaeum Philosophum et Christianum. And the Moslem came on the scenes bringing, as a See also:gift for Christendom, See also:fuller knowledge of classical, especially Aristotelian, texts. The See also:Jews, less bitterly opposed to Mahommedanism than the Christians were, caught See also:fire more rapidly, and in some cases served as an intermediate See also:link or channel of communication. These two religions anticipated the discussion of the problem of faith and See also:reason in the Christian church. According to the great See also:Avicenna and See also:Maimonides, faith and the highest reason are sure to coincide (see ARABIAN PHILOSOPHY). According to Ghazali, in his Destruction of Philosophers, the various See also:schools of philosophy See also:cancel each other; reason is bankrupt; faith is 'everything. (So nearly Jehuda See also:Halevi.) According to See also:Averroes, reason suffices, and faith, with (what he considers) its dreams of immortality and the like, is useful only for the ignorant masses.

Christian theology, how-ever, strikes out a line of its own. Moslems and Jews were applying Aristotelian philosophy to rigorously monotheistic faiths; Christianity had been encouraged by Platonism in teaching a trinity of divine persons, and Platonism of a certain See also:

order long dominated the middle ages as See also:part of the Augustinian tradition. In sympathy with this Platonism, the medieval church began by assuming the entire mutual See also:harmony of faith and reason. Such is the teaching, along different lines, alike of St Anselm and of Abelard. But, when increased knowledge of See also:Aristotle's texts (and of the commentaries) led to the victory of a supposed Aristotelianism over a supposed Platonism, Albertus See also:Magnus, and his still more distinguished See also:pupil See also:Thomas See also:Aquinas, See also:mark certain doctrines as belonging to faith but not to reason. They adhere to the See also:general position with exceptions (in the See also:case of what had been considered Platonic doctrines). From the point of view of philosophy, this was a See also:compromise. Faith and reason partly agree, partly diverge. The tendency of the later middle ages is to add to the number of the doctrines with which philosophy cannot See also:deal. Thomas's great rival, See also:Duns Scotus, does this to a large extent, at times affirming " two truths." The latter position, ascribed by the schoolmen to the Averroists, becomes dominant among the later Nominalists, See also:William of See also:Occam and his disciples, who withdraw all doctrines of faith from the See also:sphere of reason. This was a second and a more audacious compromise. It is not exactly an See also:attempt to See also:base Christian faith on rational See also:scepticism.

It is a consistent policy of harbouring inconsistencies in the same mind. A statement may be true in philosophy and false in theology, or vice versa. To the standpoint of Aquinas, however, the Church of Rome (at least in regard to the basis of See also:

doctrine) has more and more returned. The See also:councils of See also:Trent and of the Vatican mark the Two Truths See also:hypothesis as heretical, when they affirm that there is a natural knowledge of God and natural certainty of immortality. Along with this See also:affirmation, the Church of Rome (if less decisively) has adopted the limitations of the Thomist theory by the condemnation of " Ontologism "; certain mysterious doctrines are beyond reason. This cautious compromise sanctioned by the Church does not represent the extremes' reaction against See also:nominalism. Even in the nominalistic See also:epoch we have Raymond of Sabunde's Natural Theology (according to the See also:article in See also:Herzog-Hauck, not the See also:title of the See also:oldest See also:Paris MS., but found in later See also:MSS. and almost all the printed See also:editions) or See also:Liber Creaturarum (c. 1435). The See also:book is not what moderns (schooled unconsciously in See also:post-See also:Reformation developments of Thomist ideas) expect under the name of natural theology. It is an attempt once more to demonstrate all scholastic dogmas out of the book of creation or on principles of natural reason. At many points it follows Anselm closely, and, of course, very often " makes See also:light work" of its task. The Thomist compromise—or even the more sceptical view of "two truths "—has the merit of giving filling of a See also:kind to the See also:formula "supernatural revelation "—mysteries inaccessible to reason, beyond See also:discovery and beyond comprehension.

According to earlier views—repeatedly revived in Protestantism —revelation is just philosophy over again. Can the choice be fairly stated? If revelation is thought of as God's See also:

personal word, and redemption as his personal See also:deed, is it reasonable to view them either as open to a sort of scientific prediction or as capricious and unintelligible? Even in the middle ages there were not wanting those—the St Victors, Bonaventura—who sought to vindicate mystical if not moral redemption as the central thought of Christianity. V. Earlier Modern Period.—It will be seen that apologetics by no means reissued unchanged from the long period of authority. The compromise of Aquinas, though not unchallenged, holds the See also:field and that even with Protestants. G. W. See also:Leibnitz devotes an See also:introductory See also:chapter in his Thgodicge, 1710 (as against See also:Pierre See also:Bayle), to faith and reason. He is a See also:good enough Lutheran to quote as a "See also:mystery" the See also:Eucharist no less than the Trinity, while he insists that truths above are not against reason. Stated thus baldly, has the distinction any meaning?

The more celebrated and central thesis of the book—this finite universe, the best of all such that are possible—also restates positions of Augustine and Aquinas. Before modern philosophy began its career, there was a great revival of See also:

ancient philosophy at the See also:Renaissance; sometimes See also:anti-Christian, sometimes pro-Christian. The latter furnishes apologies by Marsilio See also:Ficino, See also:Agostino See also:Steuco, J. L. See also:Vives. Early in the modern period occurs the great name of Blaise Pascal (1623-1662). A staunch Roman Catholic, but belonging to a school of Augustinian enthusiasts (the Jansenists), whom the Church put down as heretics, he stands See also:pretty much apart from the general currents. His Pensges, published posthumously, seems to have been meant for a systematic See also:treatise, but it has come to us in fragments. Once again, a See also:lay apologist! A layman's work may have the See also:advantage of originality or the See also:drawback of imperfect knowledge. Pascal's work exhibits both characters. It has the originality of rare See also:genius, but it borrows its material (as industrious editors have shown) from very few sources—the Pugio Fidei, M. de See also:Montaigne, P.

See also:

Charron. Ideas as well as learning are largely Montaigne's. The latter's cheerful See also:man-of-the-world scepticism is transfigured in Pascal to a deep distrust of human reason, in part, perhaps, from anti-See also:Protestant motives. But this attitude, while not without See also:parallels both earlier (Ghazali, Jehuda Halevi) and later (H. L. See also:Mansel), has peculiarities in Pascal. It is fallen man whom he pursues with his fierce scorn; his view of man's nature—intellect as well as character—is to be read in the light of his unflinching Augustinianism. Again, Pascal, unlike most apologists, belongs to the small See also:company of saintly souls. This philosophical sceptic is full of humble joy in salvation, of deep love for the Saviour. Another See also:French Roman Catholic apologist, P. D. See also:Huet (163o–1721)—within the conditions of his age a See also:prodigy of learning (in apologetics see his Demonstratio Evangelica)—is not uninfluenced by Pascal (Traitg de la faiblesse de l'esprit humaine).

As we might expect, Protestant lands are more busily occupied with apologetics. Intolerant reliance upon force presents greater difficulties to them; soon it grows quite obsolete. See also:

Benedict See also:Spinoza, the eminent Jewish pantheist (1632-1677), to whom miracle is impossible, revelation a phrase, and who renews pioneer work in Old Testament criticism, finds at least a See also:fair measure of liberty and comfort in See also:Holland (his See also:birth-See also:land). Bayle, the historical sceptic, lectured and published his learned Dictionnaire (1696) at See also:Rotterdam. From Holland, earlier, had proceeded an apologetic work by a man of See also:European fame. See also:Hugo See also:Grotius's De Veritate Christianae Religionis (1627) is partly the medieval tradition:—Oppose Mahommedans and Jews! It is partly practical:—Arm Christian sailors against religious danger! But in its cool spirit it forecasts the coming age, whose See also:master is See also:John See also:Locke. His Reasonableness of Christianity (1695) is the thesis of " a whole century " of theologians. And his See also:Essay on the Human Understanding (1690) is almost a Bible to men of See also:education during the same period; its lightest word treasured. Locke does not break with the compromise of Aquinas. But he transfers See also:attention from contents to proof.

Reason proves that a revelation has been made—and then submits. Leibnitz has to supplement rather than correct Locke on this point. In such an See also:

atmosphere, See also:deism readily uttered its protest against mysterious revelation. Deism is, in fact, the Thomist natural theology (more clearly distinguished from dogmatic theology than in the middle ages, alike by Protestants and by the post-Tridentine Church of Rome) now dissolving See also:partnership with dogmatic and starting in business for itself. Or it is the doctrine of unfallen man's " natural See also:state "—a doctrine intensified in Protestantism—separating itself from the theologians' See also:grave doctrine of sin. If Socinianism had challenged natural theology—Christ, according to it, was the See also:prophet who first revealed the way to eternal life—it had glorified the natural powers of man; and the learning of the Arminian divines (friends of Grotius and Locke) had helped to modernize Christian apologetics upon rational lines. Deism now taught that reason, or " the light of nature," was all-sufficient. Not to dwell upon earlier See also:continental " Deists " (mentioned by Viret as quoted first in Bayle's See also:Dictionary and again in the introduction to See also:Leland's View of the Deistical Writers), See also:Lord See also:Herbert of Cherbury (De Veritate, 1624; De See also:Religion Gentilium, 1645?—according to J. G. See also:Walch's Bibliotheca Theologica (1757) not published See also:complete until 1663) was universally understood as hinting conclusions hostile to Christianity (cf. also T. See also:Hobbes, See also:Leviathan, 1651, ch. xxxi.; Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, 167o, ch. xiv.). Professedly, Herbert's contention merely is that non-Christians feeling after the " supreme God and the See also:law of righteousness must have a See also:chance of salvation.

Herbert was also epoch-making for the whole 18th century in teaching that priests had corrupted this See also:

primitive faith. During the 18th century deism spread widely, though its leaders were " irrepressible men like See also:Toland, men of mediocre culture and ability like See also:Anthony See also:Collins, vulgar men like See also:Chubb, irritated and disagreeable men like See also:Matthew See also:Tindal, who conformed that he might enjoy his See also:Oxford fellowship and wrote anonymously that he might relieve his See also:conscience " (A. M. See also:Fairbairn). More distinguished sympathizers are See also:Edward See also:Gibbon, who has the deistic spirit, and See also:David See also:Hume, the historian and philosophical sceptic, who has at least the See also:letter of the deistic creed (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion), and who uses Pascal's See also:appeal to " faith " in a spirit of mockery (Essay on Miracles). In See also:France the new school found powerful speaking-trumpets, especially See also:Voltaire, the idol of his age—a great denier and scoffer, but always sincerely a believer in the God of reason—and the deeper but wilder spirit of J. J. See also:Rousseau. Others in France See also:developed still more startling conclusions from Locke's principles, E. B. See also:Condillac's sensationalism—Locke's philosophy purged of its more ideal if less logical elements—leading on to See also:materialism in J. O. de la Mettrie; and at least one of the Encyclopedists (P.

H. von See also:

Holbach) capped materialism with confessed See also:atheism. In See also:Germany the parallel See also:movement of " See also:illumination " (H. S. See also:Reimarus; J. S. See also:Semler, pioneer in N.T. criticism; and a layman, the great See also:Lessing) took the See also:form of " See also:rationalism " within the church—interpreting Bible texts by See also:main force in a way which the age thought " enlightened " (H. E. G. Paulus, 1761–1851, &c.). Among the innumerable See also:English anti-deistic writers (see W. Law, The Case of Reason; R. See also:Bentley, or " Phileleutherus Lipsiensis "; &c., &c.), three are of See also:chief importance.

Nathaniel See also:

Lardner (Arian, 1684–1768) stands in the front See also:rank of the scholarship of his See also:time, and uses his vast knowledge to maintain the genuineness of all books of the New Testament and the perfect accuracy of its history. See also:Joseph See also:Butler, a very See also:original, careful and honest thinker, lifts controversy with deists from details to principles in his See also:Analogy of Religion both Natural and Revealed to the Constitution and Course of Nature (1736). This title introduces us to a new conception. Deists and orthodox in those days agreed in recognizing not merely natural theology but natural religion—" essential religion," Butler more than once styles it; the expression shows how near he stood intellectually to those he criticized. But morally he stood aloof. In part i.—on Natural Religion—he defends a moral or punishing Deity against the sentimental softness of the age. The God of Nature, whom deists confess, does punish in time, if they will but look at the facts; why not in eternity ? "Morality, as others have confessed, is " the nature of things "t Not the Being of God is discussed—Butler will not See also:waste words on triflers (as he thinks them) who deny that—but God's See also:character. Unfortunately (perhaps) Butler prefers to argue on admitted principles; holds much of his own moral belief in reserve; tries to reduce everything to a question of probable fact. If this hampers him in part i., the situation appears still worse in part ii., which is directly occupied with the defence of Christianity. Butler says nothing about incomprehensible mysteries, and protests that reason is the only ground we have to proceed upon. But by treating the See also:atonement simply as revealed (and unexplained) See also:matter of fact—in spite of some partial analogies in human experience, a thing essentially anomalous—Butler repeats, and applies to the moral contents of Christianity, what Aquinas said of its speculative doctrines.

(Whether one calls the unknowable a revealed mystery or an unexplained and in-explicable fact makes little difference.) William See also:

Paley (1743--1805) borrows from many writers; he borrows Lardner's learning and Butler's " particular evidence for Christianity," viz. miracles, prophecy and " history "; and he states his points with perfect clearness. No man ever filled a typical position more exactly than Paley. Eighteenth-century ethics—Hedonism, with a theological background. Empiricist Natural Theology—the argument from See also:Design. Christian Evidences—the strong See also:probability of the resurrection of See also:Christ and the consequent authority of his teaching. Horae Paulinae—mutual confirmations of Acts and Epistles; better, though one-sided. When such exclusively " See also:external " arguments are urged, the contents of Christianity go for next to nothing. VI. Later Modern Period.—Towards the end of the 18th century a new epoch of reconstruction begins in the thought and life of See also:civilization. The See also:leader in speculative philosophy is Immanuel See also:Kant, though he includes many agnostic elements, and draws the inference (which some things in the letter of Butler might seem to See also:warrant) that the essence of Christianity is an ethical See also:theism. While he thus created a new and more ethical " rational-ism," Kant's many-sided See also:influence, alike in philosophy and in theology, worked to further issues. He (and other Germans, but not G.

W. F. See also:

Hegel) was represented in See also:England in a 'fragmentary way by S. T. See also:Coleridge (1772-1834), probably the most typical figure of his period—another layman. His general thought was that " rationalism " represents an uprising of the See also:lower reason or " understanding " against the higher or true " reason." The mysteries of theology re its best part—not See also:alien to reason but of its substance, tie logos." This is to upset the compromise of Aquinas and go back to a Christian platonism. Of course the difficulty revives again: If a philosophy, why supernaturally revealed? Thomas Arnold, criticizing Edward See also:Hawkins, appeals rather to the atonement as deeper neglected truth. So in See also:Scotland, Thomas See also:Erskine and Thomas Chalmers—the latter in See also:contradiction to his earlier position—hold that the doctrine of salvation, when translated into experience, furnishes " See also:internal evidence "—a somewhat broader use of the phrase than when it applies merely to evidence of date or authorship See also:drawn from the contents of a book. This gives a new and moral filling to the conception of " supernatural revelation." The attempt to work out either of the reactions against Thomism in new theological systems is pretty much confined to Germany. Hegel's theological followers, of every shade and party, represent the first, and Schleiermacher's the second. Schleiermacher rejects natural religion in favour of the See also:positive religions, while the school of A.

See also:

Ritschl and W. Herrmann reject natural theology outright in favour of revelation—a striking external parallel to early Socinianism. See also:British and See also:American divines, on the other hand, are slow to suspect that a new apologetic principle may mean a new system of apologetics, to say nothing of a new dogmatic. Among the evangelicals, for the most part, natural theology, far from being rejected, is not even modified, and certain doctrines continue to be described as incomprehensible mysteries. No Protestant, of course, can agree with Roman Catholic theology that (supernatural) faith is anobedient assent to church authority and the mysteries it dictates. To Protestantism, faith is personal See also:trust. But the principle is hardly ever carried out to the end. Mysterious doctrines are ascribed by Protestants to scripture; so half of revelation is regarded as matter for See also:blind assent, if another half is luminous in experience. The movement of See also:German philosophy which led from Kant to Hegel has indeed found powerful British champions (T. H. Green, J. and E. See also:Caird', &c.), but less churchly than Coleridge (or F.

D. See also:

Maurice or B. F. See also:Westcott), though churchly again in J. R. Illingworth and other contributors to Lux Mundi (1890). Before this See also:wave of thought, H. L. Mansel tried (1858) to See also:play Pascal's See also:game on Kantian principles, developing the sceptical See also:side of'Kant's many-faceted mind. But as he protested against relying on the human conscience—the one See also:element of positive conviction spared by Kant—his ingenuity found few admirers except H. See also:Spencer, who claims him as justifying anti-Christian See also:agnosticism. Butler's tradition was more directly continued by J.

H. Newman—with modifications on becoming a Roman Catholic in the light of the church's decision in favour of Thomism. A. M. Fairbairn (Catholicism, Roman and See also:

Anglican, ch. v., and elsewhere) and E. A. See also:Abbott (Philomythus, and elsewhere) suspect Newman of a sceptical See also:leaven and extend the criticism to Butler's doctrine of " probability." Yet it seems See also:plain that any theology, maintaining redemption as historical fact (and not merely ideal), must attach religious importance to conclusions which are technically probable rather than proven. If we See also:transfer Christian evidence from the " historical " to the `.` philosophical " with H. Rashdall—we surely cut down Christianity to the limits of theism. And the inner mind of Butler has moral anchorage in the Analogy, quite as much as in the Sermons. It is in part ii. more than in part i. of his masterpiece that the light seems to grow dim. Another of the Oxford converts to Rome, W.

G. See also:

Ward, made vigorous contributions to natural theology. 1. Apologetics and Philosophy.—The main part of this subject is discussed under THEISM. Some notes may be added on See also:special points. (a) Freewill is generally assumed on the Christian side (R.C. Church; Scottish philosophy; H. See also:Lotze; J. See also:Martineau; W. G. Ward. Not in a libertarian sense; Leibnitz.

New and obscure issues raised by Kant). But there is no continuous tradition or steady trend of discussion. (b) Personal immortality is affirmed as philosophically certain by the Church of Rome and many Protestant writers. Others See also:

teach " conditional immortality." Others base the See also:hope on belief in the resurrection of Christ. (c) Theodicy—the tradition of Leibnitz is preserved (on libertarian lines) by Martineau (A Study of Religion, 1883). See also F. R. See also:Tennant's Origin and See also:Propagation of Sin (1902)—sin a " bye-product' of a generally good See also:evolution. Others find in the See also:gospel of redemption the true theodicy. (d) The problem of Christian apologetic has been simplified in the past by the prevalence of the Christian See also:ethics and See also:temper even among many non-Christians (e.g. J. S.

See also:

Mill). But hereafter it may not prove possible for the apologist to assume as unchallenged the Christian moral outlook. Germans have suspected an anti-Christian See also:strain in See also:Goethe; all the world knows of it in E. von. See also:Hartmann or F. See also:Nietzsche. 2. Apologetics and See also:Physical See also:Science.—(a) Copernicanism has won its battles and the Church of Rome would See also:fain have its See also:error forgotten. The See also:admission is now general that the .Bible cannot be expected to use the See also:language of scientific See also:astronomy. Still, it is not certain that the See also:shock of Copernicanism on supernatural Christianity is exhausted. (b) See also:Geology has also won its battles, and few now try to harmonize it with See also:Genesis. (c) Evolution came down from the clouds when C. See also:Darwin and A.

R. See also:

Wallace succeeded in displacing the naif conception of special creation by belief in the origin of See also:species out of other species through a See also:process of natural law. This gave immense See also:vogue to wider and vaguer theories of evolutionary process, notably to H. Spencer's grandiose See also:cosmic formula in terms of mechanism. Here the apologist has more to say. The special Darwinian hypothesis—natural " selection " —may or may not be true; it was at least a fruitful See also:suggestion. If true, it need not be exhaustive. Again, evolution itself need not apply everywhere. We are offered a philosophical rather than a scientific See also:speculation when E. Caird (Evolution of Religion, 1893) tries to vindicate Christianity as the highest working of nature—true just because evolved from lower religions. The Christian apologist indeed may himself seek, following John See also:Fiske, to philosophize evolution as a re-statement of natural theology—" one God, one law, one element and one far-off divine event "--and as at least pointing towards personal immortality. But if evolution is to be the whole truth regarding Christianity, we should have to surrender both super-natural revelation and divine redemption.

And these, it may be strongly urged, contain the magic of Christianity. Losing them it might sink into a lifeless theory. As far as pure science goes, the inference from science in favour of materialism has visibly lost much of its plausibility, and Protestant apologists would probably be prepared to accept in advance all verified discoveries as belonging to' a. different region from that of faith. Roman Catholic apologetic prefers to negotiate in detail. 3. Apologetics and History. History brings us nearer the See also:

heart of the Christian position.. (a) Old Testament criticism won startling victories towards the end of the loth century. It blots out much supposed knowledge, but throws a vivid and interesting light on the reconstrued process of history. Most Protestants accept the general See also:scheme of criticism; those who hang back make not a few concessions (e.g. J. Orr, Problem of the O.T., 1906).

The Roman Catholic Church again prefers an attitude of reserve. (b) New Testament criticism raises even more delicate issues. Positively it may be affirmed that the recovered figure of the historical Jesus is the greatest asset in the See also:

possession of modern Christian theology and apologetics. The " Lives " of Christ, Roman Catholic and Protestant; "See also:critical" (D. F. See also:Strauss, A. See also:Renan, &c.,&c.). and "believing," imply this at least. Negatively, " unchallenged historical certainties " are becoming few in number, or are disappearing altogether, through the See also:industry of modern minds. True, the See also:Tubingen criticism of F. C. See also:Baur and his school—important as the first scientific attempt to conceive New Testament conditions and literature as a whole—has been abandoned. (A.

Ritschl's Entstehung der alt-katholischen Kirche, and edition, 1857, was an especially telling reply.) The synoptic gospels are now treated with considerable respect. It is no longer suggested in responsible quarters that they are party documents sacrificing truth to " tendency." But not all quarters are responsible; and in the effort to grasp scientifically, i.e. accurately, the amazing facts of Christ and primitive Christianity, every imaginable hypothesis is canvassed. Even the Roman Catholic Church produced the See also:

Abbe See also:Loisy (though he undertakes to play off church certainties against historical uncertainties). Hitherto at least the See also:fourth gospel has been the touchstone. The authorship of the epistles is in many cases a matter of subordinate importance; at least for Protestants or for those surrendering Bible infallibility, which Rome can hardly do. (c) New Testament history. II. 7The apologist must maintain (1) that Jesus of See also:Nazareth is a real historical.figure—a point well-nigh overlooked by Strauss, and denied by some modern See also:advocates of a mythical theory; (2) that Jesus is knowable (not one " of whom we really know very little "—B. See also:Jowett) in his teaching, example, character, historical See also:personality; and that he is full of moral splendour. On the other hand, faith has no special See also:interest in claiming that we can compose a See also:biographical study of the development of Jesus. Certainly no early writer thought of providing material for such use. It is a See also:common See also:opinion in Germany that our material is in fact too scanty or too self-contradictory.

Yet the See also:

fascination of the subject will always revive the attempt. If it succeeds, there will be a new line of communication along which that great personality will tell on men's minds and See also:hearts. If it fails—there are other channels; character can be known and trusted even when we are baffled by a thing necessarily so full of mystery as the development of a personality. Notably, the See also:manifest non-consciousness of personal See also:guilt in Jesus suggests to us his sinlessness. (3) Apologists maintain that Jesus " claimed " Messiahship. There are speculative constructions of gospel history which eliminate that claim; and no doubt apologetics could—with more or less difficulty—restate its position in a changed form if the See also:paradox of to-day became accepted as historical fact to-morrow. The central apologetic thesis is the uniqueness of the "only-begotten"; it is here that " the supernatural " passes into the substance of Christian faith. But most probably the description of Jesus as thus unique will continue to be associated with the allegation—He told us so; he claimed Messiahship and "died for the claim." (See See also:preface to 5th ed. of Ecce Homo.) Nor did so superhuman a claim crush him, or deprive his soul of its See also:balance. He imparted to the title a grander significance out of the riches of his personality. (4) In the light of this the " argument from prophecy " is reconstructed. It ceases to lay much stress upon coincidences between Old Testament predictions or " types " and events in Christ's career. It becomes the assertion; historic-ally, providentially, the expectation of a unique religious figure arose—" the " See also:Messiah; and Jesus gave himself to be thought of as that great figure.

(5) It is also claimed as certain that Jesus had marvellous powers of healing. More reserve is being shown towards the other or "nature" miracles. These latter, it may be remarked, are more unambiguously supernatural. But, if Jesus really cured leprosy or really restored the dead to life, we have miracle plainly enough in the region of healing. (6) For Jesus' own resurrection several lines of evidence are alleged. (i.) All who believe that in any sense Christ See also:

rose again insist upon the impression which his personality made during life. It was he whose resurrection seemed credible! Some practically stop here; the apologist proceeds. (ii.) There is the See also:report of the empty grave; historically, not easily waved aside. (iii.) We have New Testament reports of appearances of the risen Jesus; subjective? the See also:mere clothing of the impression made by his personality during life? or See also:objective? "telegrams" from See also:heaven (Th. See also:Keim)—" Veridical Hallucinations" ? or something even more, throwing a See also:ray of light perhaps on the state and powers of the happy dead?

(iv.) There is the immense influence of Jesus Christ in history, associated with belief in him as the risen Son of God. In view of the claims of Jesus, different possibilities arise. (i.) The evangelists impute to him a higher claim than he made. This may be called the rationalistic See also:

solution; with sympathy in Christ's ethical teaching, there is See also:relief at minimizing his great claim. So, brilliantly, See also:Wellhausen's Gospel commentaries and Introduction. (Mark fairly historical; other gospels' fuller See also:account of Christ's teaching and claims unreliable.) (ii.) The claim was fraudulent (Reimarus; Renan, ed. 1; popular anti-Christian agitation). This is a counsel of despair. (iii.) He was an enthusiastic dreamer, expecting the world's end. This the apologist will recognize as the most plausible hostile alternative. He may feel See also:bound to admit an element of illusion in Christ's See also:vision of the future; but he will contend that the apocalyptic form did not destroy the spiritual Content of Christ's revelations—nay, that it was itself the II vehicle of great truths. So he will argue as the essence of the matter that (iv.) he who has occupied Christ's See also:place in history, and won such reverence from the purest souls, was what he claimed to be, and that his many-sidedness comes to See also:focus and harmony when we recognize him as the Christ of God and the Saviour of the world.

To a less extent, similar problems and alternatives arise in regard to the church:—Catholicism a compromise between Jewish Christianity and Pauline or See also:

Gentile Christianity (F. C. Baur, &c.); Catholicism the Hellenizing of Christianity (A. Ritschl, A. See also:Harnack); the Catholic church for good and evil the creation of St See also:Paul (P. Wernle, H. Weinel); the church supernaturally guided (R.C. apologetic; in a modified degree High Church apologetic); essential—not necessarily exclusive—truth of Paulinism, essential error in first principles of Catholicism (Protestant apologetic). (R.

End of Article: APOLOGETICS

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML.
Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.

Links to articles and home page are always encouraged.

[back]
APOLLYON 		[next]
APOLOGUE (from the Gr. &rroXoyos, a statement or ac...

Site © 2006 - Net Industries