14. § 14. The Historical-Apologetic Method.
§ 14. The Historical-Apologetic Method.
. Hardly had Christianity penetrated into the Greco-Roman world, when it saw itself called to a serious struggle. Jews and Heathens attacked it and raised all kinds of objections against it. Then in the 2nd century the Apologists arose, who sought to ward off these attacks and tried to defend Christianity. Justinus Martyr, Dialogus c. Tryphone, Tertullianus, adv. Judaeos, and Eusebius, Demonstratio evangelica wrote against the Jews. Much greater was the number of apologetic writings against the Heathens. The principal ones are Justinus Martyr, Apologia maior en minor;
Tatianus, Orat. adv. Graecos; Athenagoras, Legatio sive supplicatio pro Christianis; Theophilus, ad Autolycum; Clemens Alex., Coh. ad gentes;
Origenes, contra Celsum; Tertullianus, Apologeticus en Ad nationes; Arnobius, Disput. adv. gentes; Minucius Felix, Octavius; Eusebius,
Praeparatio evangelica; Athanasius, Orat. adv. gentes; Cyrillus, adv. impium Julianum; Augustinus, de civ. Dei. In these works, for the truth of Christianity the following arguments are advanced: a) it is safer, of two uncertain things, to believe that which quod aliquas spes ferat quam omnino
quod nullas, Arnobius, adv. gentes II 4; b) the agreement of Christianity with the best and finest, with the σπερματα ἀληθειας, which are also still found among the Heathens through the operation of the Logos, Athenag.
Leg. 6. Justinus, Apol. maior 20 sq. Minucius, Octav. 19, 20; c) the excellence of Christianity above the heathen religions, so that every human soul must involuntarily bear witness to it, Justinus, Apol. min. 10. Tertull. de testim. an. 1. Arnobius, adv. gentes II 2; d) the moral influence of Christianity on doctrine and life, so that the horrible sins of idolatry, sorcery, hatred, greed, cruelty etc. have disappeared through it, Epist. ad
Diognetum 5. Justinus, Apol. maior 14. Athen., Leg. 11. Orig., c. Cels. I 26.
Arnob., adv. gentes I 63. Lactant., Instit. div. III 16. Euseb., Praep. evang. I 4; e) the steadfastness of the martyrs, Just. M., Apol. II 12, and the holiness of the ascetics, Just., Apol. I 15. Athen., Leg. 33, 34. Euseb., Dem. Evang.
III 6; f) the predictions and their fulfillment, Just., Dial. c. Tryph. [424] 7, 8.
Just., Apol. I 31. Orig., c. Cels. I 2; g) the miracles, not only in earlier but also in the present time, Just., Dial. c. Tryph. 39, 82, 88. Iren., adv. haer. II 31, 32. Tertull., Apol. 23. Orig., c. Cels. III 24; h) the holy character and life of Jesus and the apostles, Arnob., adv. gentes I 63. Euseb., Dem. evang. III 3, 5; i) the testimony of Scripture, the agreement of the Scriptures among themselves, the simple language, the divine content, which could not be produced by any human reason, Just. M., Coh. ad Graec. 8. Orig., de princ.
IV 1, together with the wondrous origin, preservation, and spread of Scripture, Tertull., Apol. 19; and finally also j) the testimony of tradition and of the church, Iren., adv. haer. I 10, III 3. Tertull., de praescr. 20. Cypr., de unitate eccles. August., de civ. dei etc. Cf. Münscher-v. Coelln, Lehrb. der christl. Dogm. Gesch. I 1832 S. 103 f. Hagenbach, Dogm. Gesch. § 29 f. Harnack, Dogm. Gesch. I2 413 f. These arguments have since then
obtained general citizenship in Christian theology. The content of the supernatural truths was incomprehensible to reason, Thomas S. Theol. I qu.
32 art. 1, S. c. Gent. I c. 9. All the more, then, it came down to proving that God had revealed himself. All the proofs that could be adduced for that were summarized under the name of rationes inductivae or motiva credibilitatis, Thomas, S. Theol. II 2 qu. 2 art. 9 ad 3, art. 10. Duns Scotus,
Prol. Sentent. qu. 2. Ludovicus Vives, de veritate fidei christ. 1543. Cf.
Frohschammer, Die Philosophie des Thomas v. Aquino, Leipzig 1889 S.
130 f. After the Reformation, especially the argument derived from the church was further developed. The church then became at Rome more and more fundamentum et regula fidei. Augustinus had already said that he was moved by the church to believe in Scripture. The Roman Catholics after the Reformation made the church into the strongest ground for faith in Scripture, in revelation. The motiva credibilitatis were often divided into three kinds, Becanus, Theol. Schol. Tom. II pars. II tract. 1 cap. 6. Mogunt.
1623 p. 93, into such as are valid over against Jews and Heathens; into others that have significance especially for the Roman Catholics themselves; and into a third group that are of force over against the heretics.
To this last now belongs especially the church with its 15 notae, as they are enumerated by Bellarminus, de Conciliis et Ecclesia, [425] Lib. IV. What the Reformers said of Scripture is applied to the church. It is like the sun, which spreads its rays and can easily be known by its own light. Among the proofs for revelation the church takes the first and the highest place; it is of all the most powerful motive to faith. The Conc. Vatic. Sess. III cap. 3 de fide declared: ad solam enim catholicam Ecclesiam ea pertinent omnia, quae ad evidentem fidei christianae credibilitatem tam multa et tam mira divinitus sunt disposita. Quin etiam Ecclesia per se ipsa, ob suam nempe
admirabilem propagationem, eximiam sanctitatem et inexhaustam in omnibus bonis foecunditatem, ob catholicam unitatem invictamque stabililatem, magnum quoddam et perpetuum est motivum credibilitatis et divinae suae legationis testimonium irrefragabile. The value of all these proofs, also of that of the church, consists in this, that they can demonstrate the credibility of revelation. They are capable of producing a fides humana and of proving the reasonableness of believing. They make the truth of revelation clear to such a degree and to such a height that all reasonable doubt is excluded. If on the side of man no sinful self-interest and no hostility of the heart came into play, then those motives would be powerful enough to move to faith in revelation. They do not indeed make revelation evidenter veram, for if that were the case, then no faith would any longer be necessary and faith would also lack all merit; but yet indeed evidenter credibilem, Thomas, S. Theol. II 2 qu. 1 art. 4 ad 2, 4, art. 5 ad 2, qu. 2 art.
1 ad 1. Bellarm., de Conc. et Eccl. IV cap. 3. Billuart, Summa S. Thomae hodiernis acad. moribus accommodata, VIII p. 25 sq. P. Dens, Theologia ad usum seminariorum II 275 sq. The Roman theologians therefore usually take up all those arguments of apologetics into dogmatics and treat them at length, Perrone, Prael. Theol. I. Jansen, Prael. Theol. I 117 sq. Hake,
Handbuch der allgem. Religionswissenschaft, Freiburg 1887 II 1 f.
Heinrich, Dogm. I 279 f. Liebermann, Dogm. I p. 33 sq. etc. Some even went so far that they also considered these proofs sufficient for the unbeliever, Billuart, I p. 28, 29. Dens, II 292. But most acknowledged that all these proofs were nevertheless only motives and that they did not constitute the last and deepest [426] ground of faith. That could only be the authority of God, Thomas, S. Theol. II 2 qu. 2 art. 1 ad 3 en art. 10. S. c.
Gent. I c. 9. Billuart VIII p. 1 sq. Becanus ib. p. 3-17. Dens, II 280 sq.
Jansen, Prael. Theol. I 701-706. And that faith in revelation on the ground of God's authority does not come about through those proofs but through an auxilium dei, an instinctus interior, which moves the will to faith, Thomas II 1 qu. 109 art, 6, qu. 112 art. 2 en 3, qu. 113 art. 4. The Conc. Vatic. sess. III cap. 3 de fide, likewise recognized on the one hand that faith was a virtus supernaturalis, qua Dei aspirante et adjuvante gratia ab eo revelata vera esse credimus, non propter intrinsecam rerum veritatem naturali rationis lumine perspectam, sed propter auctoritatem ipsius Dei revelantis. But on the other hand it nevertheless attached great value to the apologetic arguments and therefore immediately added: ut nihilominus fidei nostrae obsequium rationi consentaneum esset, voluit Deus cum internis Spiritus Sancti auxiliis externa jungi revelationis suae argumenta..... quae.... divinae revelationis signa sunt certissima et omnium intelligentiae accommodata. It even condemned in canon 3, 3 the one who said, revelationem divinam externis signis credibilem fieri non posse, ideoque sola interna cujusque experientia aut inspiratione privata homines ad fidem moveri debere. This appreciation of apologetics at Rome in turn coheres with the whole system. The supernatural revelation is erected on the foundation of the natural. The former is reached only successively and by steps. Man in puris naturalibus first comes by proofs to theologia naturalis. This is praeambula fidei. Here even science is possible. The proofs are convincing. In itself there is as yet no question of faith here. Whoever has come so far and stands on the foundation of theol. naturalis, can now further, through the motiva credibilitatis, especially through the signa and notae ecclesiae, see the credibility of revelation, and recognize the reasonableness of believing. And when thus the fides humana has been obtained, and man has prepared himself through the actus praeparatorii, he is by the gratia infusa itself taken
up into the supernatural order and he prepares himself through good works again for heaven, for the visio Dei. Man goes out of the state of nature upward by steps. Each time he comes to stand a degree higher. The pura naturalia, theol. [427] naturalis, motiva credibilitatis, actus praeparatorii, gratia infusa, bona opera, visio Dei form the different rungs of the ladder, which stands on the earth and reaches into heaven.
2. The Reformation has indeed in principle combated this hierarchy of Rome and adopted another standpoint. It did not take its position in natural reason, in order to lead this successively up to faith, but in the Christian faith. And it declared as decisively as possible, as will be shown later, that that faith rested only on God's authority and was wrought only by the H.
Spirit. But the Protestant theologians have nevertheless not always strictly maintained this principle and have repeatedly returned to the doctrine of theologia naturalis and of the historical proofs for the truth of revelation.
Calvin says, Inst. I, 7, 3, that it would be easy for him to prove the divinity of the H. Scripture and in cap. 8 adduces various grounds for it. And thus also speak and act Ursinus, Tract. Theol. p. 1-33. Zanchius, Op. VIII col.
335 sq. Polanus, Synt. Theol. I c. 17 sq. c. 27, 28. Synopsis pur. theol. disp.
2, 10 sq. Du Plessis-Mornay, Traité de la vérité de la religion chrétienne contre les Athées etc. Anvers 1581. Abbadie, Traité de la vérité de la religion chrét. 1684 etc. Cf. Heppe, Dogm. der ev. ref. K. S. 20-22. Hase,
Hutt. Rediv. § 37. Schmid, Dogm. der ev. luth. K. S. 32, 33. The conviction that these proofs were sufficient to produce at least a fides humana has involuntarily contributed to emancipating reason from faith and to placing the dogmata of theol. naturalis and of the H. Scripture outside the fides salvifica. Therewith rationalism in the Protest. churches also began.
Socinianism rejected the testimonium Spiritus Sancti and grounded the truth
of Christianity on historical proofs, Catech. Racov. qu. 5-30. Fock, der Socin. 338 f. Remonstrantism went the same way, Episcopius, Instit. Theol.
Lib. IV cap. 2. Limborch, Theol. Christ. I c. 4. Id. De veritate relig. Christ. collatio cum erudito Iudaeo 1687. Hugo Grotius, de veritate relig. christ.
1627. Cf. Wijnmalen, Hugo de Groot as defender of the Christ. Utrecht 1869. Through Cartesius rationalism also penetrated into the Geref. churches. The theologia naturalis came to stand independently alongside the theologia revelata. And within this [428] latter, to reason was granted the right to investigation and explanation of the credentials of revelation, H. A.
Roëll, Dissert. de theol. naturali 1700 etc. Leibniz expressed the generally prevailing opinion, when he set revelation over against reason, as an extraordinary envoy stands over against a competent assembly. This examines his credentials and, when it has found these genuine, goes to listen to him respectfully. Discours sur la conformité de la foi avec la raison
§ 29. Deism in England and rationalism in Germany soon inferred from that that the theologia naturalis was completely sufficient. And supranaturalism, which conceded the emancipation of reason in the theol. naturalis and in the investigation into the truth of revelation, could appear before that reason with no other than historical and rational proofs. In that way Christianity was defended and dogmatics worked on by a number of men in England,
Germany, the Netherlands, of whom we here recall only the names of Butler, The analogy of religion natural and revealed 1736. Paley, View of the evidences of christianity 1794. Id. Natural Theology 1802. Chalmers,
The evidence and authority of the christ. revelation 1817. Id. Natural theology 1823; cf. Tholuck, Vermischte Schriften I S. 163-224. Reinhard,
Morus, Doederlein, Knapp, Storr e. a.; in this country by Van Nuijs Klinkenberg, Muntinghe, Heringa, Vinke etc. and the works of the Haagsch
Genootschap. And furthermore we also find later this standpoint still again with Pareau and Hofstede de Groot, Compendium Dogm. et Apolog. Christ.
3 ed. 1848 p. 179 sq.; Van Oosterzee, who at first adopted the standpoint of Schleiermacher Jaarb. v. wet. Theol. 1845 bl. 1-74, but later sought salvation in an apologetics that preceded dogmatics, Jaarb. v. wet. Theol. V bl. 406. The doctrine of the Herv. Church of J. H. Scholten considered 1851 bl. 51, 53. Dogmatics § 30-34, § 38 etc.; Doedes, who by unbiased, purely historical investigation wants to come to know Christianity, The right of the Christ. maintained over against philosophy 1847, Modern or Apost. Christ.
1860, The so-called modern Theol. somewhat elucidated 1862; abroad with Voigt, Fundamentaldogmatik 1874 S. 184 f. 232 f. Gretillat, Exposé de theol. systématique II 176 s. A. B. Bruce, Apologetics, Edinburgh, Clark
1892 p. 42. W. M. Mc. Pheeters, Apostolical sanction the test of canonicity, Presb. and Ref. Rev. [429] Jan. 1895. Ed. König, Der Glaubensact des
Christen, Erl. 1891, S. 143 f. and many other apologetic works, cf.
Christlieb, Art. Apologetik in Herzog2.
3. But this standpoint has proved untenable through the history of supranaturalism itself and through the sharp criticism of Rousseau and Lessing, of Kant and Schleiermacher. Apologetics undoubtedly has a right to exist; an important task has been entrusted to it. It has to maintain and to defend the truth of God over against all opposition both from within and from without. Through various circumstances it has undeservedly fallen into contempt. In the first place it lost the love of many through the weakness and subtlety of the arguments which it brought forward against the serious and scientific opposition to the Christian faith. Subsequently it began, more and more, to inspire aversion through the supposition from which it often proceeded, that Christianity was a doctrine which could be
demonstrated rationally. Further, fear of science, which often spoke in so lofty a tone and so infallibly proclaimed its dogmas, has often deterred believers from defence. People did indeed continue to believe, but withdrew anxiously, and avoided all contact with science; sometimes one eagerly took refuge in mysticism or agnosticism. Yet there is no reason to despise apologetics. The apologists of the second century, the church fathers, the scholastic theologians, the reformers, etc., they all stood in the firm faith that the truth of God, over against the opposition to which it was exposed from all sides, had to and could be defended. They did not leave the attacks unanswered. They sought out the enemy and did not rest until they had overcome him. That faith is already a power and almost half the victory.
Doubt and distrust in the cause which we champion makes us powerless in the struggle. But thereby, of itself, the standpoint is also already indicated, from which alone a good defence of the truth can be undertaken.
Apologetics cannot precede faith and does not attempt to prove the truth of revelation a priori. It presupposes the truth and faith in the truth; it stands on the foundation of dogmatics and now attempts to maintain and to defend the dogma against the opposition [430] to which it is subjected. If, however, the Christian revelation, which presupposes the darkness and error of the psychical man, were to submit itself beforehand to his reason for judgment, it would thereby contradict itself. It would thereby place itself before a tribunal whose competence it had first denied. And once, in the principia, recognizing the right of reason, it would soon no longer be able, in the articuli fidei, to contest that right. Supranaturalism must always lead to rationalism, because in principle it is already rationalistic. But apart from this principled objection, the historical-apologetic proof also does not lead to the desired result. It could still get a certain distance in a time when the
genuineness of the biblical books and the historical truth of their content still stood fairly generally. But the miracles and prophecies of Scripture themselves now stand in such need of defence, that they can no longer possibly serve as arguments. Apologetics, in order to prove something, would first have to treat the whole so-called introductory science and would have to take up numerous other disciplines into itself, before it could make a beginning with the exposition of the truth; it would never, in this way, come to faith, to dogmatics; the pars formalis would so expand that for the pars materialis no time and no place would remain. This long road could then still be taken by someone who possessed time and strength and gift enough to institute such an investigation into the truth of the Christian faith; but it would be wholly inaccessible to the simple person, who nevertheless just as much as the learned, and not first tomorrow but already now, at this moment, has need of the peace and the comfort of faith, and who therefore, for the salvation of his soul, would become dependent on an intellectual and therefore the more unbearable clericalism. And suppose even that this were still no predominant objection and that historical investigation were for all people the only way to the knowledge of the truth; then the result, which would be obtained in the most favourable circumstances, would nevertheless be no other than a fides humana, which tomorrow again could be shaken and overthrown by other and better investigations. Eternity indeed cannot hang on a spider's web. In religion no man and no creature may stand between God and my soul. To live and to die comforted and blessed [431] is not possible so long as I rest in a human, fallible testimony.
In religion there is need not of a lesser but of a much stronger and firmer certainty than in science. Here there is rest only in the testimony of God.
The testimony of the church is also insufficient. It is of great value not only
at the origin but also in the continuance of the Christian faith. It remains a support up to the end of life. It is indeed a motivum perpetuum to faith. We are bound in our whole life to a community. A human being is a ζωον πολιτικον. The community keeps us standing, each time we threaten to stumble. The cloud of witnesses, lying around us, encourages us in the struggle. There is required an unusual courage and strength of spirit, to remain steadfast when all abandon us and stand over against us. But community strengthens one's own conviction. Yet for that reason the testimony of the church cannot be the last and deepest ground of faith.
Roman theologians also recognize that themselves, as will later appear. In the investigation into the grounds of faith they are in no way in a better condition with their infallible church than the Protestants. For they too must pose the question: on what does faith in the church rest? If on apologetic proofs, then the same objections arise against that which have been raised above. And if on the testimonium Spiritus Sancti, then this doctrine is the cornerstone of the Christian faith.