Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 1.djvu/690

This page needs to be proofread.




light on some of the adepts of the sect, including the apostate Themison and the pseudo-martyr Alex- ander. The former, ha\'ing evaded martyrdom by means of money, posed as an iimovator, addressing a letter to his" partisans after the manner of the Apostles, and finally blasphemed Christ and the Cnurch; the latter, a notorious thief, publicly con- demned at Ephesus, had himself adored as a god. We know from Eusebius that ApoUonius spoke in his work of Zoticus, who had tried to exorcise Maxi- milla, but had been prevented by Themison, and of the martyr-Bishop Tliraseas, another adversary of Montanism. He very probably gave the signal in it for the movement of opposition to Montanism which the reunion of the first synods developed. At all events, he recalls the tradition according to which Our Lord had advised the Apostles not to go far from Jerusalem during the twelve years immediately following His Ascension, a tradition known to Clem- ent of Alexandria from the apocryphal " Praedicatio Petri". He moreover recounts the restoration to life of a dead man at Ephesus by the Apostle St. John, whose Apocalypse he knew and quotes. He takes rank among the opponents of Montanism with the " Anonymous " of Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., V, 16, 17), with Miltiades and with ApoUinaris. Eusebius (loc. cit.) says his work constituted "an abundant and excellent refutation of Montanism". St. Jerome

?ualified it as a lengthy and remarkable volume". t did not therefore pass unnoticed, and must have roused some feeling among the Montanists since Ter- tullian felt it necessary to reply to it. After his six books Trepl iKcrria-eus, in which he apologized for the ecstasies into which the Montanist prophetesses fell before prophesying, TertiiUian composed a seventh especially to refute ApoUonius; he wrote it also in Greek for the use of the Asiatic Montanists.

Bareille in Diet, de thiol, calk.. II. 1507; Ve.v.veles in Diet, of Christ. Biogr., I, 135; Bardenhewer, Gesch. d. altkirchl. Lilt. (Freiburg. 1902), I. 525. For the fragments of ApoUonius see liouTH, Reliquiae Sacroe (2d ed.), I, 4G3-S5.

Fr.\ncis W. Grey.

ApoUonius of Tyana. See Neo-Pith.^ggrean Philosophy.

Apologetics, a theological science which has for its purpose the explanation and defence of the Christian religion. Apologetics means, broadly speaking, a form of apologj'. The term is derived from the Latin adjective, apoloqelicus , which, in turn has its origin in the Greek adjective, dTroXo-yijTiKAs, the substantive being d7ro\o7(a, "apology", "defence". As an equivalent of the plural form, the variant, "Apolo- getic", is now and then found in recent WTitings, 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 har- mony 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 ver- bal attack, a disproving of a accusation, or a justification of an action or line of conduct wrongly made the object of censure. Such, for example, is the Apology of Socrates, such the Apologia of Jolm Henry Newman. This is the only sense attaching to the terra as used by the ancient Greeks and Ro- mans, or by the French and Germans of the present day. Quite different is the meaning now conveyed by our English word, " apology ", namely, an explana- tion of an action acknowledged to be open to blame. The same idea is expressed almost exclusively by the verb, "apologize, and generally by the adjec- tive, "apologetic' . For this reason, the adoption of the word, "Apologetics", in the sense of a .scientific vindication of the Christian religion is not altogether a happy 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 re- ligious, may call forth a corresponding apology. It is oSy apologies of the Christian religion that fall within the scope of apologetics. Nor is it all such. There is scarcely a dogma, scarcely a ritual or dis- ciplinary institution of the Church that has not been subjected to hostile criticism, and hence, as occasion required, been vindicated by proper apologies. But besides these forms of apology, there are the answers tliat have been called forth by attacks of various kinds upon the credentials of the Christian religion, apologies written to vindicate now this, now that ground of the Cliristian Catholic faith, that has been called in question or held up to disbelief and ridicule.

Now it is out of such apologies for the foundations of Christian belief that the science of apologetics has taken form. Apologetics is the Christian Apol- ogy par excellence, combining in one well-rounded system the arguments and considerat ioruL of perma- nent value that have found expression in the va- rious single apologies. The latter, being answers to specific attacks, were necessarily conditioned by the occasions that called them forth. They were per- sonal, controversial, partial vindications of the Chris- tian 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 of Christian, Catholic be- lief, 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 op- ponent 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 which Christ's revealed religion has on the assent of every rational mind; it seeks to lead the inquirer alter truth to recognize, first, the reasonableness and trust- worthiness of the Christian revelation as realized in the Catholic Church, and secondly, the corresponding obligation of accepting it. While not compelling faith — for the certitude it offers is not absolute, but moral — it shows that tlie credentials of the Christian religion amply suflSce to vindicate the act of faith lus a rational act, and to discredit the estrangement of the sceptic and unbeliever as unwarranted and cul- pable. Its last word is the answer to the question; Why should I be a Catholic'? Apologetics thus leads up to Catholic faith, to the acceptance of the Catholic Church as the divinely authorized organ for preser\'- ing and rendering efficacious the saving truths re- vealed by Christ. This is the great fimdamental dogma on which all other dogmas rest. Hence apol- ogetics also goes by the name of "fundamental theol- ogy". Apologetics is generally viewed as one branch of dogmatic science, the other and chief branch being dogmatic theology proper. It is well to note, how- ever, that in point of view and method also they are quite distinct. Dogmatic theology, like moral theol- ogy, addresses itself primarily to those who are al- ready Catholic. It presupposes faith. Ai)ologetics, on the other hand, in theory at least, simply leads up to faith. The former begins where the latter ends. Apoloj^etics is pre-eminently a positive, historical discipline, whereas dogmatic theology is rather phil- o.sophic and deductive, using as its data of divine and ecclesiastical avithority — the contents of revelation and tlicir interpretation by the Church. It is only in exploring and in treating dogmatically the elements of natural religion, the sources of its authoritative data, that dogmatic theology comes in touch with apologetics.

.\s has been pointed out, the object of apologetics