Apol'lyon ('AttoWviov'), the Greek equivalent (Rev. ix, 11) of the Ileb. title Abaddon (q. v.).
Apologetics, a branch of theology which has for its object the science of defending Christianity agains t the assaults of its enemies. A system of Christian doc- trines (dogmatics), as such, presupposes the truth of Christianity ; the proof of the truth of this presupposi- tion is not a part of the system, and a separate science is needed to establish this proof. Apologetics, as a science, is not identical with apology (q. v.), which is an actual defence of Christianity ; but it seeks and teaches the right method of apology ; nevertheless, the term is often used in practice to denote the apology itself, as well as the method. The name was first used in German theology (probably by Planck). The scope of apologetics in German theology is nearly the same as that of the evidences (q. v.) of Christianity in Eng- lish theology, with this difference, that the definition of apologetics lays a greater stress on its position as a separate branch of scientific theology.
I. Relation to Theology. — The true place of apolo- getics in the circle of theological sciences is not yet definitively settled. Schleiermacher makes it a branch of philosophical theology (Theol. Stud. § 32-42). Tho- luck, also, holds that apologetics should be incorpo- rated with systematic theology (Vermischte Schriften, i, 376). There is some reason for the view of other writers, who place it under the head of biblical criti- cism, as apologetics must show the genuineness and credibility of the Scriptures ; but yet this is only part of its function. Pelt gives it the leading place in systematic theology, as the science of first principles (EncyMopddie, § 62, where also a valuable history of apologetics may be found). Kienlen puts it under the head of practical theology (Encyklop. der Theolog. Wis- senschtften. § 84). Hagenbach contends that the study of apologetics cannot lie pursued before the student has
acquired the elements of exegetical and historical the- ology. He therefore places it in the third branch of theological science, viz., systematic theology (Ency- klapiidie, § 81). "Apologetics is treated by Prof. Dor- ner as an integral part of the system of Christian doc- trine, as the first part of dogmatic theology. Its ground lies in the claim of Christianity to be eternal truth — lies in Christianity itself. It is the justifica- tion of Christianity in its claim to be the final, abso- lute religion. It is the justification of Christianity to thought ; it shows, or tries to show, that there cannot be conceived a more perfect religion. Christian doc- trines, it attempts to prove, are to be received not merely as given, but as truth. The energy and con- vincing power of truth is an axiom of apologetics. It seeks to reconcile the Logos of the first creation with the historical work of the Logos in his absolute Reve- lation. Apologetics thus conceived differs from Chris- tian apologies. It started, indeed, with repelling at- tacks. But these attacks were merely the historical occasion of its existence. It exhibits the Christian religion as self-grounded — self-dependent. It has an offensive as well as defensive work. It seeks to show the inner lack of truth in all thinking which is not Christian. It differs also from a mere philosophy of religion, inasmuch as it draws from historical monu- ments" (Am. Presb. Rev. Oct. 18C2, p. 680). Sack, whose Apologeiik (1819) was one of the first to distin- guish between apologetics and apology, considers the science properly to be an apologetical handling of systematic theolog}'. "Dogmatics," he says, "is Christian doctrine set forth for Christian thinkers, who look at it as friends ; Apologetics (or more prop- erly Apology) is Christian doctrine set forth for non- Christian thinkers, who look at it as enemies." The English Avriters, who have not generally been careful of scientific form, but look more directly to practical ends, have generally made apologetics a separate branch of study, under the name of Evidences of Christianity. Thus, Watson (Institutes') divides the whole circle of theological sciences into— 1. The Ev- idences ; 2. The Doctrines ; 3. The Morals ; 4. The Institutions of Christianity; and thus makes apolo- getics the portal to the whole temple. So also does Hill, Lectures on Divinity (N. Y. 1847, 8vo).
II. Method of Apologetics. — There are two principal methods, the historical and the philosophical. The first method seeks to vindicate Christianity on the grounds («) of criticism, by showing the genuineness and authenticity of its sacred books ; (b) of history, by showing that the great facts of Christianity are part of human history ; and (c), having established these points, by arguing the credibility of the sacred looks and (d) their divine authority, and hence (e) the bind- ing power on the human intellect of their statements of fact and doctrine. Most English writers en evi- dence follow the historical method, and divide their material into (1) external evidence (miracles and prophecy); (2) internal evidence (philosophical). A line of evidence called presumptive is formed in this way: admitting the existence and attributes of God, it is unlikely that He would leave His creatures in ig- norance and wretchedness ; and it is likely, also, that, if He should communicate with them, His revelation would present analogies to His works in nature. This is the line of Butler's Analogy, of Ellis, and of Wat- son, in the first part of his Evidences. A convenient and scientific method is proposed by Warren (SysU- matische Theologie, Einleitung, § S), viz., that the task of the science is to show (1) that Christianity is a fact of history ; (2) that Christianity is a divine rev- elation ; (3) that Christianity is the power of God unto salvation. " Instead of attempting to deduce the truth of every part of Christianity from the exter- nal evidences alone, we have at last learned to begin with Christianity as an undeniable complex of phe- nomena, needing for its explanation nothing less than