Apologeticae sive Theologiae Fundamentalis, Tomus I: Demonstratio Christiana

Before treating the individual chapters of fundamental theology, it seems fitting to preface them with a twofold introduction: one to theology as a whole, and another to apologetic theology in particular.

The theological introduction examines the nature, division, and excellence of theology.

It is twofold: verbal and real.

(a) Verbal notion. Theology (θεός, λόγος) is etymologically a speech and discourse about God. For the Greek word λόγος designates both the external word, the word of the mouth, i.e., the speech or utterance about God, and the internal word, the word of the mind, i.e., the reasoning or knowledge about God.

In usage, however, it came about that this word signified different things at different times.

Among the pagans, all those were called theologians who discoursed about the gods and their relations to the world, whether poets, or philosophers, or priests of idols. Hence Varro¹ distinguishes, following the received custom, a threefold kind of theology among the pagan peoples: "the mythical (or fabulous), which the poets chiefly use; the physical (or natural), which the philosophers use; the civil (religious), which the peoples use."

Christians of the earlier centuries assigned the name of theology in the strict sense to the doctrine about God one in essence and triune in persons. Indeed, especially in the times of Arianism and Macedonianism, the investigation concerning the divinity of the Word and of the Holy Spirit was called theology. Hence St. John the Evangelist and St. Gregory of Nazianzus, because they had taught the divinity of the Son more clearly, were meaningfully called theologians. Every doctrine that dealt not strictly with God considered in Himself, but with our relation to God (concerning creation, redemption, the whole order of salvation), the holy Fathers called the economy.

The scholastics of the Middle Ages, finally extending the name more broadly, began to call theology every revealed doctrine, both that which is about God and that which is about creatures inasmuch as they are referred to God. This way of speaking is still in force. These things being premised, it readily appears:

(b) Real notion. Theology is the science of those things which are knowable, by the light of revelation, about God and about things related to God; or: the science of God and divine things from revelation.

By these words there is set forth the genus of the thing to be defined: "Theology is a science"; the species: "of God and divine things"; and the individual difference: "from revelation."

Theology is a science (an intellectual habit). For three things belong to the nature of science: principles, method, system. Namely, principles, i.e., fundamental and altogether certain truths from which scientific knowledge proceeds and on which it rests; method, i.e., the logical development and proof of the truths which depend on the principles; and system, by which it comes about that the deduced and proven truths are not detached members, but are so harmoniously disposed and joined that they constitute one body, one scientific organism.

Now no one will deny that theology is endowed with scientific method and system; the dispute is only about the principles. The nominalists, Vásquez, and the modern rationalists deny theology its scientific character on the ground that its principles are not evident, i.e., not known per se and intrinsically. Nevertheless, the proper characteristic of a science is not the evidence of its principles but their certainty, since certainty is the end of science, not evidence. But theological principles, although not evident, are nonetheless most certain. For all of theology rests on revelation, whose existence is proven certain by rational arguments in apologetics and which, moreover, possesses supernatural and infallible certainty from faith. Therefore theology deserves to be called a science with greater right than all other sciences.

…of God and divine things. By these words there is set forth the material object of theology, i.e., everything that is attained or known in this science. It is, however, twofold: the primary object is God Himself, or the sum of truths that can be known about God one and triune; the secondary object, moreover, is all creatures, considered not indeed in themselves, but inasmuch as they have God as their origin and last end.

Therefore, since created things are treated in theology only in relation to God, the subject of theology is God alone: "All things are treated in sacred doctrine under the aspect of God, either because they are God Himself, or because they have an order to God as to their principle and end. Hence it follows that God is truly the subject of this science."²

…from revelation. These words indicate the formal object of theology, i.e., the special aspect under which this science attains or knows its material object. This formality of theology is revelation. The theologian considers all and each of the theological matters under the light of revelation. The principle from which theological knowledge is drawn is objective revelation (the truths contained in Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition and proposed to us by the Church); the principle, however, by which theological knowledge is acquired is subjectivated revelation (reason enlightened by faith).

Hence theology differs from theodicy. Theodicy treats of God insofar as He is knowable by mere reason from the natural order of the world; theology, however, insofar as He is knowable by reason enlightened by faith from revelation. Although therefore they agree with respect to the primary material object, they differ specifically in formal object. A fortiori, theology is distinguished from all other sciences. For all of them are occupied with created matters alone, and investigate them solely by the light of natural reason. Hence they are also called natural or profane sciences.

(c) Corollaries. 1°. On the various denominations of theology. From what has been said we readily understand why theology is often called: the supernatural habit, sacred doctrine, Sacred Scripture, the sacred Page, the science of faith. It is called the supernatural habit because, although it is not infused supernaturally but is acquired by natural effort, nonetheless the habit of theology is radically supernatural, since it is learned by reason enlightened by faith and is nourished from the sources of revelation. It is called sacred doctrine because it learns divine things with God Himself teaching through revelation, "so that sacred doctrine is like a certain impression of divine knowledge."³ It is called Sacred Scripture or the Page by denomination from the more important part, because in the time of the holy Fathers and in the Middle Ages the text of Sacred Scripture was read above all in the theological schools and was explained with the help of the holy Fathers, theologians, and philosophers.⁴ Theology is therefore called the science of faith because it cultivates faith taken objectively (the revealed truths) and is governed subjectively by the principle of faith (the light of revelation). For the rest, the second corollary is to be noted:

2°. On the relation between theology and faith: 1°. Theology cannot be identified (converted) with faith. For faith is a habit infused by God disposing one to assent to revealed truths on account of the authority of God revealing, and therefore it differs from theology, which is a habit acquired by human study, on four counts: α) In matter; for theology embraces not only the revealed truths, as faith does, but also the conclusions deduced from them and the controversies arising from them. β) In motive; for faith assents to revealed truths on account of the sole authority of God revealing, whereas theology admits its propositions on account of the goodness of the inference or reasoning by force of which they are drawn from revealed principles. γ) In method; for faith indeed neither argues nor reasons, but adheres to revealed truths by a simple assent of the mind, whereas theology scientifically deduces, proves, and defends its propositions from revelation. δ) In certainty; for the certainty of faith is supreme and absolute, because by faith we hold only those things which, and insofar as they, are revealed by God; the certainty of theology, however, is inferior and relative, because many things are argued theologically which are not formally revealed by God, and all things are affirmed insofar as they are understood by human reason.

2°. Theology cannot be separated from faith. For there is no science where one does not have certainty of a thing discussed and established. Therefore a theologian who denies the revealed truths with an incredulous mind, or at least calls them into doubt, does not possess theological science. Hence one versed in sacred doctrine who falls into heresy indeed retains the notions he acquired by theological study; he can also treat of theological matters materially; nevertheless his theology is reduced to a merely opinionative habit. Moreover, anyone lacking faith is usually affected with such blindness regarding divine things that he becomes incapable of seeing even the most evident theological conclusions, just as a defective eye becomes incapable of adequately apprehending the most brilliant colors. Hence the scholastics rightly say that there is no true theology among heretics. To this the Anselmian maxim looks: "I believe in order to understand": whoever wishes to acquire the theological science of the revealed truths must begin from humble faith, and the more humbly he believes, the more apt he becomes to investigate the revealed truths deeply.

Although theology is one science on account of the unity of its formal object.¹ It is nevertheless divided by reason of matter and method.

a) By reason of its matter, theology is divided into principal and subsidiary disciplines. For theology is likened to a spiritual edifice, for the building of which materials are first collected and prepared in their place, that they may afterwards be fitted together and united from the foundation of the building even to its summit. Now indeed: the subsidiary disciplines, as it were, work the sources or seats (loci) of revelation and supply the materials collected and prepared from them for the spiritual house to be built. Since there are two seats of revelation (holy Scripture and divine Tradition), there are also two subsidiary disciplines of theology, namely: biblical study, which is directed to understanding holy Scripture by handing on an introduction to the inspired books and an exposition (exegesis) of them, and historical study, which is ordered to understanding the divine Tradition, which is unfolded in the history of the Church and is contained especially in the writings of the Fathers (whence patrology).

The principal disciplines, by arranging and joining together the materials thus supplied, build the theological edifice from the lowest to the highest. And indeed theology: apologetic (fundamental) theology lays the principles or foundations upon which the whole theological house rests; dogmatic theology treats of the truths to be believed and of what follows from them; moral theology (moral theology simply, and also ascetical and mystical) teaches the virtues to be practiced and the life to be instituted after the Christian manner;² hierarchical theology vindicates the rights and offices of ecclesiastical governance and therefore is subdivided into canon law, which embraces the rights and laws of the Church, and pastoral theology, which sets forth the duties of pastors and the offices to be duly performed. To pastoral theology, therefore, liturgical and homiletic theology are also added.

b) By reason of method, theology is divided into positive and speculative or scholastic.

Positive theology draws and proves the several truths from the sources of revelation (holy Scripture and Tradition); speculative (scholastic) theology explains and illustrates more deeply the nature and causes of the truths, shows their mutual connection among themselves and their agreement with reason, and also deduces from them the consequences and conclusions. The former teaches that something is true; the latter, how something is true.

That positive theology is always to be associated with scholastic, S. Thomas thus admonishes: "Disputation can be ordered to a twofold end. For one kind of disputation is ordered to removing the doubt whether a thing is so, and in such disputation one must chiefly use the authorities [of holy Scripture and divine Tradition] which are received by those with whom one disputes. Another kind of disputation, however, is the magisterial one in the schools, not for removing error but for instructing the hearers, that they may be led to the understanding of the truth which the [master] intends; and then one must rely upon reasons that search out the root of the truth and make one know how that which is said is true. Otherwise, if the master determines the question by bare authorities, the hearer will indeed be certified that it is so, but will acquire nothing of science or of understanding, but will depart empty."³

Although both, however, are to be joined, nevertheless either one can prevail. And indeed in the Middle Ages, when the truth of the faith was impugned by almost no one, speculative theology prevailed in the Catholic schools, which on that account also received the name of "scholastic." But with heresy growing more serious, from the sixteenth century positive theology began to be cultivated with greater diligence. For the authors and champions of the pseudo-Reformation, imbued with the greatest hatred against scholasticism, using only holy Scripture, attempted to restore the primitive Christian religion and to subvert the Church. To refute these, Catholics gave themselves indefatigably to the study of positive theology. Nay more, in the eighteenth century and in the first half of the nineteenth century many of our own, favoring liberalism, held scholasticism in hatred, as though it were swollen with curiosities and futilities. But although certain of the scholastics, especially of later times, indulged too much in subtle and idle questions, scholastic theology itself has greatly deserved and deserves well of the faith. Its princes — Alexander of Hales, Albert the Great, Thomas, Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, and many others — like lights of heaven illuminate the Church of all times. Whence the councils and the Roman pontiffs have often extolled scholasticism with the highest praises and have earnestly commended its study to both the masters and the disciples of sacred science.

In our days both methods are equally necessary, namely positive and scholastic. Positive theology is needed for refuting theological liberalism and modernism, which prate that the Catholic dogmas were born gradually by historical evolution, and also for preparing the minds of our beginners, that they may be able to cultivate scholastic theology perfectly. Scholastic theology, however, is necessary, both because the study of holy Scripture and of the Fathers destitute of the scholastic method led many into error, since they did not understand the terms, were ignorant of the state of the questions, falsely explained the opinions, and deduced insipid conclusions; and because in our "scientific" age a fuller and deeper understanding of sacred doctrine is urged. Whence Pius X: "Indeed greater account is to be taken than before of positive theology; yet let this be done in such a way that scholastic theology suffers no detriment, and let those be reproved, as those who carry on the business of the modernists, whoever so extol positive theology as to seem to despise scholastic theology."⁴

Theology excels all other sciences in dignity, because it treats of God; in certitude, because it comes from God; in utility, because it leads to God.

a) In dignity, because it treats of God. The higher the object of a science, the higher the science itself. But the object of theology is manifestly the highest of all. For if you except philosophy, all other sciences treat only of created things. Nay, even that highest part of philosophy which has God as its object considers Him as knowable solely by merely natural light. Theology, however, reaches even to the objects of all the sciences, but under a higher respect, inasmuch as they are referred to God and become, as it were, divine realities.¹ God, however, she considers by supernatural light, by which He is known not only as one God, but as triune, as creating, as incarnate, as redeeming, as sanctifying, as glorifying. Therefore theology surpasses all sciences in dignity or elevation. It is itself the highest of all, the science of sciences, the queen of the sciences.

Nay, it is itself also the highest wisdom. For wisdom is defined as the science that considers the highest causes of things. But theology contemplates the highest cause of all, namely God, and Him in the most perfect manner, namely inasmuch as He can be known through the help of supernatural and divine light. Therefore it deserves to be called the highest wisdom.² "That wisdom alone is perfect which begins from the highest cause, as it is the principle of things caused, where philosophical knowledge terminates, and passes through it, as it is the remedy of sins, and leads back to it, as it is the reward of merits and the end of desires. And in this knowledge there is perfect savor, life, and salvation of souls; and therefore to learn it the desire of all Christians ought to be inflamed."³

b) In certitude, because it comes from God. We already know that theology does not simply offer the absolute certitude of faith, both because it embraces many things which are not formally revealed, and because it apprehends all its objects inasmuch as they are understood by reason, not inasmuch as they are believed by faith. Nevertheless theology is more certain than all the profane sciences. For the certitude of any science is the greater the more certain are the principles from which it derives its conclusions, and the more certain are the reasonings by which it derives them. But the principle or foundation from which theological assertions are derived is divine revelation, whose existence is proven by the invincible arguments of apologetics and is held by the infallible assent of faith; the theological reasoning, however, by which theological assertions are derived from revelation, proceeds not from merely natural reason, but from reason illuminated by faith. Therefore theological certitude, all things considered as to both principles and reasonings, is intermediate between natural and supernatural certitude, between the certitude of the profane sciences and that of faith.

It is evident, however, that this more excellent certitude of theology arises, in a word, from the fact that sacred science proceeds from the science of God revealed to us. Theology "learns from God what is to be understood concerning God, because it is known only with Himself as author"⁴ "The other sciences have certitude from the natural light of human reason, which can err; this one, however, has certitude from the light of divine science, which cannot be deceived."⁵

Hence the theologian ought to adhere as closely as possible to revelation, striving that his assertions be strictly proven from revelation, that his conclusions be always compared with the revealed truths, and that he think with the Catholic Church, the authentic and infallible interpreter of revelation, in all things. As long as he remains in the bosom of this revelation, he is altogether immune from the danger of error; the farther he recedes from it, mingling profane with sacred things, trusting to the natural sciences and to the light of mere reason, the greater the danger to which he is exposed of erring in divine matters.

c) In utility, because it leads to God. And indeed theology leads to God, our last end and eternal beatitude, in a threefold manner: as a means of beatitude, as a foretaste of beatitude, as an increase of beatitude.

As a means of beatitude. The natural sciences pursue by themselves only a natural end. For they impart natural knowledge of creatures and of the Creator, and therefore supply an insufficient means for attaining a supernatural end, such as eternal life is. On the contrary, "the end of this doctrine is eternal beatitude".⁶ For theology, since it is a science of God from revelation, sharpens the intellect by heavenly light and thereby perfects faith. And since the will follows the intellect, theology by its innate office also tends to excite the supernatural love of God. For the theological and the philosophical light are compared to each other as the light of the sun and of the moon. The theological light is sent forth directly by God, the sun of justice; the philosophical light only reflectively. Wherefore, while the pale illumination of the latter chills the night-faring wayfarer, the vivid light of theology sets hearts aflame in the daylight of revelation. "All Scripture is ordered to charity."⁷

And would that both those who teach and those who learn theology never forgot this! Of sacred theology "he alone is the true doctor who can imprint a species and infuse light and give virtue to the heart of the hearer. And hence it is that he has his chair in heaven who teaches hearts within"⁸ Likewise of theological science he alone is the true disciple who, the more he advances in the knowledge of God, advances so much the more in love and piety; for "theological science is the pious knowledge of credible truth"⁹

As a foretaste of beatitude. As a means to beatitude sacred theology is at the same time a certain beginning of beatitude. For beatitude consists in the vision, that is, the contemplation, of the divine essence. There is, however, a certain proportion of the way to the fatherland, of preparation to the crown. Hence the contemplation of the way, or the theology of the wayfarers on earth, is the preparation of the contemplation of the fatherland, that is, of the theology of the blessed in heaven. Wherefore the Seraphic Master: "Scripture not only has a most lofty matter, by which it delights and by which it lifts the intelligence of the mind on high; verily it is also most beautiful, and in a marvelous way it delights our intellect, and so, delighting more and more, it accustoms us to the contemplation of divine spectacles."¹⁰ And the Angelic Doctor: "The act of wisdom [i. e. of theology] is a certain beginning or participation of future happiness."¹¹

As an increase of beatitude. The more one progresses on earth in the contemplation of divine things, the greater the increase of eternal glory he will merit. For theology especially perfects the theological virtues of faith and charity, as has been proven, and therefore also increases the eternal reward due to these virtues. Moreover, the intellectual habit of theology itself, since it is a good habit, nay, radically supernatural, will adorn with eternal beauty the glorified soul and will increase its proper glory. Finally, the distinguished cultivators of sacred doctrine (masters, writers, preachers) will inherit that privileged reward which they call the aureole.¹²

Wherefore, as truly as piously, St. Bonaventure concludes: "The fruit of sacred Scripture is not any fruit whatsoever, but the fullness of eternal happiness ... With this end, then, with this intention, sacred Scripture must be searched, taught, and heard. And that we may arrive at this fruit and term by a right progress along the straight way of the path of Scripture, we must begin from the beginning, that is, that we approach the Father of lights with pure faith, bending the knees of our heart, that He through His Son in the Holy Spirit may give us the true knowledge of Jesus Christ, and with knowledge His love, that so, knowing and loving Him, and being as it were strengthened in faith and rooted in charity, we may be able to know the breadth, length, height, and depth of sacred Scripture itself, and through this knowledge arrive at the fullest knowledge and the exceeding love of the most blessed Trinity, to which the desires of the saints tend, in which is the state and complement of all good and true."¹³

Before undertaking a treatment of apologetic theology in particular, it will be useful first to outline its definition, object, importance, and history.

Sacred theology draws its knowledge from revelation and considers all truths in the light of revelation. Only that is theologically true which has been divinely revealed or is inferred from divinely revealed truths. Revelation, therefore, is the supreme principle and the deepest foundation of all theology.

That revelation exists is established neither of itself—since it is not an intrinsically evident thing—nor has it yet been proved from elsewhere, since philosophy only points to natural religion.¹

Between philosophy and theology, therefore, an intermediate science is required, whose office is to establish the supernatural, that is, revealed religion. This science is rightly called apologetics or fundamental theology.

Apologetics (ἀπολογητική, sc. ἐπιστήμη, τέχνη) by the force of the word simply designates the "science of defense" of anything whatsoever. Yet by force of usage that science is especially called apologetics which defends the Christian-Catholic religion as revealed by God.

This science is called fundamental theology because it lays down the foundation or principle on which all theology rests, namely the supernatural revelation given by Christ and preached by the Church of Christ.

If we join both names, the real definition of this discipline is clear: Apologetics, or fundamental theology, is that science which establishes the principles of all theology by showing that the Christian-Catholic religion has been revealed by God.

From this definition it is clear:

a) Material object. According to its definition, apologetics is wholly occupied with proving that the Christian-Catholic religion was revealed by God. For Christ, while He dwelt on earth, completing and enlarging the revelation of the Old Testament, founded that religion which we ourselves call Christian. And upon returning to heaven, He established for the custody of this His religion at all times and for its administration among all men that ecclesiastical society which we call Catholic. The revelation made by Christ is accordingly the constitutive principle, the Church founded by Christ the regulative principle, of faith and theology.

Yet the fact that we rightly hold this view of the origin and office of the Christian religion and of the Catholic Church must not be presupposed, but proven, by a twofold apologetic demonstration.

The Christian demonstration argues that the religion of this name is revealed by showing that Jesus Christ, its author, is the legate and Son of God.

The Catholic demonstration proves that the Christian religion is to be found in the Catholic Church alone by showing that this Church was founded by Christ as the custodian and dispenser of revealed truth.

b) Formal object. It is evident and clear that apologetics, lest it fall into a vicious circle, does not consider its materials in the light of revelation, but investigates them by the aid of pure reason. The arguments, therefore, which it employs are drawn partly from philosophy, partly from history. It also makes use of Sacred Scripture not as an inspired book, but as a merely historical one; likewise it does not yet regard Tradition as a divine source of revelation, but as a merely human source of historical truth.

Nevertheless, step by step apologetics solves certain questions by also employing revealed truths. E.g., once it has first been proven by rational arguments that the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is a revealed truth, we shall further use this very authority of the Roman Pontiffs to establish other revealed truths. This manner of arguing and concluding in no way contradicts the rational method. For reason itself teaches us to derive other conclusions logically from those things which have been scientifically proven.

Nor does the fact that we very often add dogmatic definitions and censures of the Church to our philosophical-historical arguments, even before the authority of the Church herself in matters of faith has been proven, stand in the way of this rational method. For such ecclesiastical definitions and censures are adduced not for the sake of proof, but for the sake of complement. And rightly so. For all, or nearly all, of the things that are scientifically treated in apologetics are also objects of faith. Therefore, lest they have to be treated twice, first apologetically and afterwards dogmatically, it will be said at once in apologetics what the Church thinks about these questions. This manner of proceeding befits us Catholic apologists especially, because we already hold the revelation by faith, which we deliberately defend against unbelievers by rational arguments.

c) Corollaries. Having weighed the material and formal object of apologetics, these corollaries are easily understood:

1°. Apologetics is distinguished from apology (apologia). Both indeed defend religion by using rational arguments. They differ, however, in material object. Apologetics systematically defends religion with respect to its total object, that is, with respect to the principles and foundations of the whole religion, vindicating its divine origin. Apology, on the other hand, defends religion with respect to certain partial objects, that is, with respect to individual dogmatic, moral, historical, etc. truths, according to that saying of St. Peter: "Always ready to give satisfaction (πρὸς ἀπολογίαν) to every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you."¹

This difference is already sufficiently suggested by the words "apology" and "apologetics": for ἀπολογία signifies defense simply, ἀπολογητική the science of defense. Apologetics, therefore, is the science of apology, just as catechetics is the science of catechesis.

2°. Apologetics also differs greatly from dogmatics (dogmatic theology). The material object of apologetics is the fact of revelation (the foundations and principles of faith and theology); the material object of dogmatics, however, is the content of revelation (the individual truths of faith and theology). Likewise, the formal object of apologetics is natural reason; the formal object of dogmatics, however, is supernatural revelation, or reason enlightened by faith. In apologetics reason precedes faith (through understanding to faith); in dogmatics faith precedes reason (through faith to understanding). Of the former it holds: "I understand that I may believe"; of the latter: "I believe that I may understand."

3°. Apologetics differs from theodicy, or natural theology. Both indeed investigate divine things by the same light of reason, but in such a way, however, that they are concerned with distinct material objects. For theodicy demonstrates natural religion, treating of the existence and nature of God and of the worship to be rendered to Him; apologetics, on the other hand, presupposing natural religion, establishes supernatural revelation. Grasping philosophy with the left hand and reaching forth theology with the right, it joins both harmoniously and organically. Nevertheless, in schools in which the serious study of philosophy does not precede apologetics, the apologists themselves are compelled to preface the demonstration of natural religion to the demonstration of the Christian revelation and of the Catholic Church.

4°. Apologetics is a science of its own kind, distinct from all disciplines, both profane and theological. For it is distinguished from philosophy and the other profane sciences by its material object; from theology, however, by its material object already and then by its formal one. Since, nevertheless, nearly all of the material objects of apologetics are, under a different respect, also materials of theology; and since the whole of theology is built upon the apologetic foundation, apologetics itself is likewise commonly numbered among the theological disciplines. This is so with about the same right by which a foundation can be called a part of a building, indeed its principal part, although otherwise it is far different from the building.

From what has been said thus far it is clear that apologetics is of great importance objectively for the true religion. Hence it is also concluded that apologetics is of remarkable value subjectively for those who either seek or cultivate the true faith and religion.

a) For infidels seeking religion, it paves the way to faith. Indeed, no one can believe unless he has first certainly known the fact of revelation. Innocent XI condemned the thesis: "The supernatural assent of faith, which is useful for salvation, is compatible with a merely probable knowledge of the revelation, and even with the fear by which one fears that God has not spoken."¹

Reasonably, therefore, no one can embrace the faith unless he is persuaded that the Christian-Catholic revelation is given by God.

On the contrary, no one who is persuaded of this foundation of the true religion can reasonably repel the faith. For if it stands by irrefutable arguments that God is the author of the revelation, it also stands that this revelation is reasonably credible. Accordingly, in proving the fact of revelation the apologist leads the infidel by the hand as far as the very gates of faith.

Nevertheless, he cannot compel the unwilling to enter, nor can he bring the willing into the temple of faith. He cannot compel the unwilling to believe. For reason alone is compelled to assent by the evidence of the thing. The fact of revelation, however, is proved in apologetics as certain indeed, but not evident. He cannot endow the willing with faith. For apologetics alone sets forth rational motives, supported by which the intellect forms the natural judgment of the credibility of the faith. Faith itself, however, is the assent given to revelation from a supernatural motive, that is, on account of the authority of God revealing. Hence, to produce the act of faith, grace must concur with human reason.

Human reasoning about credibility is a condition sine qua non of faith;² divine aid, however, is the cause that causes faith.³

The infidel, therefore, should indeed devote himself to study, but let him pray much more earnestly that he may obtain the gift of faith from God.⁴

b) The faithful also profit much from apologetic study. Indeed, the apologetic arguments do not directly and intrinsically increase the power and firmness of faith. For its supernatural certainty infinitely exceeds every certainty acquired by mere reason. Indirectly, however, and extrinsically, faith is greatly aided by the apologetic motives of credibility. These motives remove the obstacles to faith heaped up by adversaries; they build bulwarks around the citadel of faith; they show the excellence, sublimity, and beauty of faith, and thereby fill the minds of the faithful with reverence, love, gratitude, and alacrity for performing those things that belong to faith.

The faithful need this apologetic aid the more, the more they advance in profane sciences. Indeed, the unlearned and those who are ignorant of the subtleties of unbelieving science do not require a learned foundation of faith. By the testimony of parents and by common religious discipline they are fully convinced of the credibility of the faith. But the higher scientific erudition, the deeper also the motives of credibility reason requires, and the more frequent the communion with learned infidels, the more that saying of St. Peter urges: "Let us be always ready to give satisfaction (πρὸς ἀπολογίαν) to every one that asketh us a reason of that hope which is in us."⁵

Above all, however, of all men the theologian ought to be perfect in apologetics. This is evident both from the nature of theology and from the circumstances of our time.

For theology is the science of divine things drawn from revelation. Revelation is the principle and source of all theological truth. But since only apologetics proves the scientific certainty of revelation, theology without apologetics lacks a source, lacks a principle, lacks a foundation, lacks the character of a true science.

The circumstances of our time still further increase the necessity of the study of fundamental theology. Nearly all the enemies of the true religion today do not so much attack the individual dogmas of the faith as rather the very foundation of the faith. Modern men no longer call into doubt the individual truths which Christ preached and which the Church of Christ proposes; rather, they deny the very authority and infallibility of the Church, they deny the very divine legation and nature of Christ, they deny the very fact of revelation, not to say natural religion itself. Accordingly, we likewise must be wholly engaged in so establishing and defending these foundations of our faith on every side.

Apologetics as a special discipline, such as we have described it, is of recent origin. Arising at the beginning of the eighteenth century, it entered the theological schools only gradually. Before that, either mere apologiae flourished, or only certain questions of fundamental theology were treated, as the difficulties of the times and the progress of theology demanded.

1. In the first centuries the Christian religion was attacked by the Jews and the pagans. The Jews, indeed, not only denied that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, but also pursued both him himself and his disciples with calumnies. The pagans, adding other calumnies to these, accused the Christians of being atheists, haters of the human race, enemies of the state, and devotees of every error and crime.

These objections were refuted in the second century by those fathers of the Church who are significantly called apologists: Quadratus,¹ Aristides of Athens, Justin Martyr (First and Second Apology; Dialogue with Trypho the Jew), Tatian (Address to the Greeks), Athenagoras (Supplication for the Christians), Theophilus of Antioch (Three Books to Autolycus), the unknown author of the Epistle to Diognetus, Minucius Felix (Octavius), Hermias (The Ridicule of the Gentile Philosophers), Tertullian (Apologeticum; Ad nationes).

2. With the Christian religion by now widely spread, the pagans no longer dared to put forward those absurd calumnies. All the more, however, did they strive by philosophical arguments to attack the teaching, the miracles, and the books of the Christians and to whitewash the pagan institutions, above all Celsus, Hierocles, Porphyry, and Julian the Apostate.

Accordingly, from the third to the fifth century very many distinguished men defended the Christian cause with the pen, whether negatively, by refuting those polemical writings and ridiculing the superstitions of the pagans, or positively, by expounding the revealed religion and proving its divine origin. The foremost of these apologists are: in the East, those three Alexandrians, Clement (Exhortation to the Greeks; The Instructor; Stromata), Origen (Against Celsus), and Cyril (Against Julian), as well as Eusebius of Caesarea (Preparation for the Gospel; Demonstration of the Gospel) and Athanasius (Against the Heathen); in the West, Cyprian (To Donatus; On the Vanity of Idols), Arnobius (Against the Pagans), Lactantius (Divine Institutes; On the Deaths of the Persecutors), and Augustine (The City of God).

3. From the seventh to the twelfth century rabbinic Jews revived and Arab philosophers attacked the Christian religion. The Jews did not cease to assail the messiahship, the life, and the teaching of Christ in talmudic schools and writings; the Arabs, above all the expositors and corrupters of Aristotle, Avicenna (1037) and Averroës (1198), not only spurned the Christian revelation, but also professed grave errors against the natural religion.

The Jews were refuted from the Old Testament and from the Talmud itself by Isidore of Seville († 636), Rabanus Maurus († 856), Peter Damian († 1072), and Jerome of the Holy Faith, a Jew converted to the faith of Christ, afterwards surnamed Hebraeomastix.

The Muslim Arabs were refuted by John of Damascus († 754), Peter the Venerable († 1156), Peter of Blois († 1200), and St. Thomas Aquinas († 1274). Against both — namely, Jews and Arabs — there fought Raymond Martin O.P. (Pugio fidei against the Moors and the Jews) and Alphonsus de Spina O.M. (Fortalitium fidei against the Jews, Saracens, and others).

The most celebrated of these works is St. Thomas's Summa contra Gentiles, which confounds not only the errors of the Arabs, but also those of other philosophers of that time. It presupposes the truths conceded by them, above all the fundamental ones, and defends those not conceded or ill understood. From this it is clear that this Summa too constitutes an apologia rather than an apologetics.

4. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, in the time of humanism and of the rebirth of letters and of the liberal arts, many, stirred by love of the pagan Greeks and Romans, blushed at the Christian religion; some even attacked it, e.g. Giordano Bruno, Pomponazzi, Marsilius of Padua, Ockham, Wyclif, Hus, and others, the forerunners of the pseudo-Reformation.²

Others, however, strove to defend the revealed truths fervently. And indeed, in order to wrest the weapons from their adversaries, they themselves very often also appealed to the philosophy and literature of the classical authors. Whence at times the champions of divine truth went astray in the same way as their adversaries. The more distinguished apologists of this time are: St. Bernardine of Siena O.M. († 1444; De religione christiana), Pico della Mirandola († 1494; Heptaplus), Savonarola O.P. († 1498; Triumphus crucis, or On the Truth of the Faith), Marsilio Ficino († 1499; De religione christiana et fidei pietate).

5. From the sixteenth century heretics gradually strove to undermine all the foundations of the divine religion. The pseudo-Reformers attacked above all the authority of the supreme pontiff, of the councils, and of sacred Tradition, and finally the whole doctrine concerning the Church of Christ and the truths that flow from it. Hence was first born that part of apologetics which is called the demonstratio catholica. And indeed, since the Protestants rejected both the rational and the ecclesiastical arguments, the Catholics defended the Church almost solely from the biblical books and the historical documents.

From then on, in the period of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, very many polemico-apologetic works appeared from the pens of Cochlaeus, Eck, Hosius, the brothers Adrian and Peter van Walenburch, and others. Among them all there stand out Baronius (Annales ecclesiastici), who defended the Church by means of history, Melchior Cano O.P., who wrote the celebrated work "De locis theologicis", and Bellarmine S.I., who published the "Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei".

6. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries most Protestant theologians, as well as the unbelieving philosophers, progressed from the denial of the Church to the denial of revelation. Monistic, deistic, and rationalistic naturalism (see below, p. 25) called the fact of Christian revelation into doubt (seventeenth century) and finally simply rejected its knowability, usefulness, and possibility (eighteenth century). From this both orthodox Protestants and Catholics were compelled to devote themselves also to that part of apologetics which is entitled the demonstratio christiana.

For the defense of the Christian religion there labored, among the Protestants, Hugo Grotius, Leibniz, Mosheim, Haller, Less, Lilienthal, and Jerusalem; among the Catholics, Bossuet (Discours sur l'histoire universelle), Daniel Huet (Demonstratio evangelica; he favors fideism), Pascal (Les pensées; he favors apologetic voluntarism and sentimentalism), Bergier (Traité historique et dogmatique de la vraie religion), Chateaubriand (Le génie du christianisme), Paolo Segneri (L'incredulo senza scusa), and St. Alphonsus de Liguori (Verità della fede).

Yet even at this time, for the most part, either the whole apologetic object was not treated, or it was not treated systematically. The first to cultivate fundamental theology in the sense defined by us were Vitus Pichler S.I. (Theologia polemica 1713), Martin Gerbert O.S.B. (Demonstratio verae religionis veraeque ecclesiae 1760), Sardagna S.I. (1770), Kilber S.I. (1771), Mayer S.I. (1772), Stättler S.I. (1775), Gazzaniga O.P., Wiest O.Cist., and Beda Mayr O.S.B.

7. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the discipline of apologetics obtained its greatest importance and growth in the theological schools. To the old enemies of Christian revelation and of the Catholic Church there were added new ones, namely philosophical and biblical neo-rationalism, positivism, agnosticism, socialism, Old Catholicism, and finally modernism, the refuge and receptacle of all recent errors. Their efforts were curbed by apologetics, intimately joined to the "perennial philosophy" and to biblical science, in almost innumerable books. Passing over very many, let us mention only those which even today are either in use in the schools or at least can be usefully consulted by theologians.³

Those who treat apologetics systematically: Liebermann (Institutiones theol. 1831); Berlage (Apologetik der Kirche 1834), Drey (Apologetik 1838/47), Perrone S.I. (De vera religione; De locis theologicis 1835/42), Schwetz (Theol. generalis 1850), Albertus (Knoll) a Bulsano O.M.C. (Institutiones theol. dogm. generalis 1852), Murray (De ecclesia 1860/66), Reinerding (Theol. fundamentalis 1864), Jungmann (De vera religione 1874), Hacke (Handbuch der allgemeinen Religionswissenschaft 1875), Hurter S.I. (Theol. generalis 1876), Sprinzl (Fundamentaltheologie 1876), Palmieri (De romano pontifice 1877), Hettinger (Fundamentaltheologie 1879), Mazzella (De religione et ecclesia 1880), Zigliara O.P. (De ordine supernaturali 1884), Bautz (Apologetik 1887), Franzelin S.I. (Theses de ecclesia Christi 1885; De divina Traditione et Scriptura, 3. ed., 1882), Gutberlet (Apologetik 1888), Lambrecht (Theologiae fund. lib. I, 1889; Demonstratio cath. 1890; De locis theologicis 1890), De Groot (De ecclesia 1890), Norbertus (Stock) a Tux O.M.C. (Theol. fund. 1891), Egger (Enchiridion theol. dogm. generalis 1893), Dalponte (Theol. fund. 1894), Chr. Pesch S.I. (Instit. propaedeuticae ad s. theol. 1894), Schill (Theol. Prinzipienlehre 1895), Stöckl (Apologetik 1895), Tanquerey (Synopsis theol. dogm. fund. 1896), Wilmers S.I. (De relig. revelata; De Christi ecclesia 1897/98), Ottiger S.I. (Theol. fund. I/II 1897. 1911), Schmid (Apologetik 1900), Michelitsch (Elementa apologeticae 1901/4), Minges O.M. (Compendium theol. dogm. generalis 1902), Billot S.I. (De ecclesia Christi 1903), Reinhold (Praelectiones de theol. fund. 1905), De San (Tractatus de ecclesia et romano pontifice 1906), Van Noort (De vera rel.; De eccles. Christi; De fontibus revelationis 1907), Weber (Christliche Apologetik 1907), Angelus Stummer O.M.C. (Theol. fund. 1907), Kneib (Apologetik 1912), Specht (Apologetik 1912), Straub (De Ecclesia Christi, 2 vol., 1912), Garrigou-Lagrange (De revelatione per ecclesiam catholicam proposita, 2 vol., 1918), Virgilius Wass O.M.C. (Repetitorium theol. fund. 1921).

Others cultivate an apologia more than an apologetics, many other distinguished men and books being passed over: In English: Wiseman, Twelve lectures on the connection between science and revealed religion 1838; Manning, The grounds of faith 1852; Newman, Grammar of assent 1870.

In French: Nicolas, Etudes philosophiques sur le christianisme 1842; L'art de croire 1866; Migne, Démonstrations évangéliques, 20 vol., 1843—1853; Dechamps, Entretiens sur la démonstration catholique de la révélation 1857; Bougaud, Le christianisme et les temps présents 1884; Jaugey, Dictionnaire apologétique 1889; A. D'Alès, Dictionnaire apologétique de la foi catholique, 1909 ff.; Cardinal Dechamps, Œuvres, Malines t. I, III, IV, XVI;⁴ Lacordaire, Conférences;⁵ Lepin, Jésus Messie et Fils de Dieu 1906; Sertillanges O.P., L'Eglise, 2 vol., 1916.

In German: Denzinger, Vier Bücher von der rel. Erkenntnis 1857; Vosen, Das Christentum 1861; Der Katholizismus 1866; Hettinger, Apologie des Christentums, 5 vol., 1863—1867; Weiß O.P., Apologie des Christentums, 5 vol., 1878—1889; Hammerstein S.I., Begründung des Glaubens 1891—1894; Schanz, Apologie des Christentums, 3 vol., 1895—1898; Schell, Apologie des Christentums, 2 vol., 1901/05; Seitz, Das Evangelium vom Gottessohn 1908; Reinhold, Der alte und der neue Glaube 1908; Klug, Gottes Wort und Gottes Sohn 1909; Straubinger, Grundprobleme der christlichen Weltanschauung 1911; Sawicki, Wahrheit des Christentums 1911; Esser-Mausbach, Religion, Christentum und Kirche, 3 vol., 1911—1913; H. Felder O.M.C., Jesus Christus, eine Apologie seiner Messianität und Gottheit, 2 vol., 2. ed. 1920—1921.

Particular apologetic questions are almost always treated individually by different authors in monographic books or in various periodicals and apologetic dictionaries. Some of these authors will be indicated in their places and chapters in the course of the present treatment, though few of them, as the character of a compendium requires. The names of non-Catholics are marked with an asterisk.