Apologeticae sive Theologiae Fundamentalis, Tomus I: Demonstratio Christiana
Hilarin Felder (1867–1951)
Apologeticae sive Theologiae Fundamentalis
First published 1923
Hilarin Felder, O.M.Cap.'s Apologeticae sive Theologiae Fundamentalis, Tomus I—Demonstratio Christiana—is the Christian-demonstration half of a two-volume Latin manual of fundamental theology. First published at Paderborn in 1920 and revised in the second edition of 1923, it presents a neo-scholastic case for the historical revelation of Christ and the credibility of Christianity, using Scripture, history, and theological argument for classroom formation. Felder's work belongs to the mature manual tradition that shaped Catholic apologetics before the mid-century renewal. Schola presents the 1923 Latin edition with an English translation.
Praefatio
Epistola I: SS. D. Benedictus PP. XV (s. m.) opus collaudat
Introductio
§ I: Introductio theologica
Caput I: Theologiae notio
Caput II: Theologiae divisio
Caput III: Theologiae praestantia
§ II: Introductio apologetica
Caput I: Apologeticae definitio
Caput II: Apologeticae obiectum
Caput III: Apologeticae momentum
Caput IV: Apologeticae historia
Pars I: Demonstratio Christiana
§ I: Revelationis theoria
Caput I: De revelatione ontologice spectata
Articulus I: De natura revelationis
Subarticulus I: Notio revelationis
Subarticulus II: Divisio revelationis
Articulus II: De possibilitate revelationis
Subarticulus I: Possibilitas revelationis generatim
Subarticulus II: Possibilitas revelationis mysteriorum
Articulus III: De necessitate revelationis
Subarticulus I: Explicatur necessitas revelationis
Subarticulus II: Probatur necessitas revelationis
Caput II: De revelatione logice spectata
Articulus I: De criteriis revelationis in genere
Subarticulus I: Natura criteriorum
Subarticulus II: Expositio et aestimatio criteriorum
Subarticulus III: Criteria inepta
Articulus II: De miraculis
Subarticulus I: Natura miraculi
Subarticulus II: Possibilitas miraculi
Subarticulus III: Cognoscibilitas miraculi
Subarticulus IV: Simulacra miraculorum
Articulus III: De prophetiis
Subarticulus I: Natura prophetiae
Subarticulus II: Possibilitas prophetiae
Subarticulus III: Cognoscibilitas prophetiae
§ II: Revelationis exsistentia
Dissertatio I: Testimonium Iesu de messianitate et divinitate sua
Caput I: Testimonium Iesu de messianitate sua
Articulus I: Factum testimonii messiani Iesu
Subarticulus I: Factum professionis messianae Iesu generatim
Subarticulus II: Initium professionis messianae Iesu
Subarticulus III: Incrementum professionis messianae Iesu
Subarticulus IV: Complementum professionis messianae Iesu
Articulus II: Sensus testimonii messiani Iesu
§ I: Conceptus messianicus ante Iesum
Subarticulus I: Conceptus messianus Veteris Testamenti
Subarticulus II: Conceptus messianus recentioris iudaismi
§ II: Conceptus messianicus ipsius Iesu
Subarticulus I: Iesus reiecit messianismum rabbinicum et eschatologicum recentioris iudaismi
Subarticulus II: Iesus accepit et perfecit messianismum propheticum Veteris Testamenti
Caput II: Testimonium Iesu de divinitate sua
Articulus I: De divinitate Iesu manifestata ante ipsius mortem
Subarticulus I: Iesus se ipse confitetur esse Deum simpliciter
Subarticulus II: Iesus se ipse confitetur esse Filium Dei naturalem
Articulus II: De divinitate Iesu manifestata post ipsius mortem
Subarticulus I: Divinitas Iesu a resurrectione usque ad ascensionem
Subarticulus II: Divinitas Iesu in ecclesia primigenia
Subarticulus III: Divinitas Iesu apud S. Paulum
Subarticulus IV: Divinitas Iesu apud S. Ioannem
Dissertatio II: Argumenta Iesu pro messianitate et divinitate sua
Caput I: Character Iesu
Articulus I: Character intellectualis Iesu
Subarticulus I: Iesus nulla insaniae signa dedit
Subarticulus II: Iesus summa sapientiae signa praesetulit
Articulus II: Character moralis Iesu
Subarticulus I: Iesus immunis fuit ab omni peccato
Subarticulus II: Iesus insignis fuit summa virtute
Caput II: Vaticinia Iesu
Articulus I: Vaticinia Veteris Testamenti de Iesu Christo edita
Subarticulus I: Vaticinia de genealogia Christi
Subarticulus II: Vaticinia de chronologia Christi
Subarticulus III: Vaticinia de biographia Christi
Articulus II: Vaticinia Novi Testamenti a Iesu Christo edita
Subarticulus I: Vaticinia Christi quoad res simpliciter occultas
Subarticulus II: Vaticinia Christi quoad res simpliciter futuras
Caput III: Miracula Iesu
Articulus I: Veritas historica miraculorum Iesu
Subarticulus I: Documenta historica miraculorum Iesu
Subarticulus II: Critica historica miraculorum Iesu
Articulus II: Veritas philosophica miraculorum Iesu
Subarticulus I: Sanationes infirmorum
Subarticulus II: Eiectiones daemonum
Subarticulus III: Dominatio virium naturalium
Subarticulus IV: Resuscitationes mortuorum
By raising the dead, Jesus proves Himself the absolute lord both of natural powers and of the human soul. For the resuscitation of a dead man cannot be effected, unless both the collapsed bodily powers are restored and the soul, already entered into the house of eternity, is recalled from it. This work, to be sure, is divine both in itself and is performed by Christ in an altogether divine manner, namely, by an instantaneous command. But in order to deny this, the adversaries contend that Jesus did not raise the dead, but startled by a suggestive address those who were overcome by an apparent death (lethargy, stupor, syncope).1
But even if this opinion were true, the haters of miracles would gain nothing. For those overcome by "stupor," with many remedies applied and much time spent, at length return to full life. If Jesus had called back those touched by "stupor" at once and by a simple address, He would surely have wrought a miracle almost as stupendous as if He had brought the dead back to life.
Yet those three persons who are related in the Gospel as having been raised were truly dead, and by no means overcome by "stupor."
a) The daughter of Jairus was "at the point of death" when the ruler of the synagogue came to Jesus, beseeching Him earnestly to come and lay His hand upon the dying girl. But while they were on the way, word was brought to Jairus: "Thy daughter is dead: why dost thou trouble the master any further?" Jesus, however, nevertheless continues His journey. "And they come to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, and He seeth a tumult, and people weeping and wailing much. And going in He saith to them: 'Why make ye this ado, and weep? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth.' And they laughed Him to scorn. But He, having put them all out, taketh the father and the mother of the damsel, and them that were with Him, and entereth in where the damsel was lying. And taking the damsel by the hand, He saith to her: 'Damsel, arise.' And straightway the damsel rose up and walked. And she was twelve years old, and they were astonished with a great astonishment."2
The adversaries contend that the girl, afflicted with weakness and nervous depression, suffered a lethargic fainting fit, as even Jesus Himself says: "The damsel is not dead, but sleepeth." Yet Jesus manifestly meant only to say that the girl was not to be lamented as dead, since she was straightway to be roused as from sleep. For the circumstances of the reported fact altogether exclude an apparent death of the girl. Apparent death occurs from violent causes, e.g., poisons, blows, loss of blood, cold, etc. On the contrary, medicine knows of no stupor or lethargy arising from weakened nerves and gradually growing worse in such a way that the sick pass gradually from illness to the danger of death, and from the danger of death to the state of death, as we read of the daughter of Jairus.
b) The young man at Naim. When Jesus drew near to the gate of the city of Naim, "behold a dead man was carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow, and a great multitude of the city was with her. When the Lord saw her, being moved with mercy on her, He said to her: 'Weep not.' And He came near and touched the bier. And He said: 'Young man, I say to thee, arise.' And he that was dead sat up and began to speak. And He gave him to his mother."3
The rationalists readily interpret this event as follows: "Jesus, chancing upon a funeral procession, at once perceived that the young man, who was on the point of being buried, had been seized by lethargy, although he was believed dead by the whole mourning city and by his very widowed mother. Drawing near to the funeral, Jesus detected evident signs of life in the young man, although all those standing around detected only the marks of death. Moreover, He infallibly divined the critical moment at which alone the 'lethargic' man could be roused, and that a single little word sufficed to awaken him. This saving word, therefore, He confidently pronounces — and behold, he who was thought dead descends from the bier in good health and runs to his mother." It is plain that this explanation of the rationalists is utterly ridiculous, and that, having denied the one miracle of the resuscitation of a dead man, it posits two miracles, namely of divine knowledge, whereby Jesus infallibly discerned the lethargy, and of divine power, whereby He suddenly removed the lethargy.
c) Lazarus of Bethany, the friend of Jesus, was sick. On receiving the news of the illness, Jesus nevertheless waited several days before setting out for Judea. "Then He said to His disciples plainly: 'Lazarus is dead, and I am glad for your sakes, that you may believe, because I was not there. But let us go to him.' Jesus therefore came and found him already four days in the tomb ... Now it was a cave, and a stone was laid over it. Jesus saith: 'Take away the stone.' Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith to Him: 'Lord, by this time he stinketh, for he is four days old.' They took therefore the stone away. And Jesus, lifting up His eyes, said: 'Father, I give Thee thanks that Thou hast heard Me. And I knew that Thou hearest Me always, but because of the people who stand about have I said it, that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me.' When He had said these things, He cried with a loud voice: 'Lazarus, come forth.' And forthwith he that was dead came forth, bound feet and hands with winding bands, and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith to them: 'Loose him and let him go.' Many therefore of the Jews who had come to Mary and Martha, and had seen the things that Jesus did, believed in Him."4
How foolishly the rationalists contend that Lazarus was aroused by suggestion from an apparent death, there is no one who does not see. On this hypothesis once admitted, Jesus, far away, knew by prophetic light that Lazarus was not dead, whom He nevertheless affirmed to be dead by a wicked lie! Then, standing at the cave, He evidently detected signs of life in His friend, yet nonetheless fraudulently and impiously announced the impending resuscitation of a dead man as the criterion of His divine mission! Finally, He brought about a semblance of resuscitation, God helping, so that Lazarus, shaking off his stupor, forthwith and miraculously recovered his full health! All these things are so absurd that many rationalists, rejecting the hypothesis of apparent death, declare the whole narrative of Lazarus a fable (Strauß) or an allegory (Volkmar, Furrer), lest they be compelled to acknowledge the philosophical truth of the miracle of resuscitation. By this desperate venture they clearly show that an incredulous criticism attacks in vain the resuscitations of the dead wrought by Jesus. Jesus Christ is truly the lord of death and of life — God.