APOLOGY
304
APOLOGY
Reformed Churches led also to apologetic as well as controversial works. Among these, one of the earliest and most important is the AidoKeipig tie fundamentals dissensu Doctrine? Lutherans et Caloinianee (Viteb. 162G, etc. ; best edit. 1663). In the Romish Church the dif- ferences between the Jansenists and the Molinists, and afterward the Jesuits, led Blaise Pascal to -write his Penset s, which, although unfinished, is one of the ablest and most complete apologetic works of any time.
In the 17th century arose the so-called deism of England, under the leadership of Herbert of Cher- bury (f 1618) and Hobbes (j 1619), contemporaneous- ly with Descartes on the Continent. Spinoza follow- ed with his destructive criticism and with his panthe- istic philosophy. These were followed by crowds of less important deists, freethinkers, etc. The grounds, both of attack and defence, were now very different from those of the early ages. Then the advocates of Christianity had to defend it against pagan attacks, and, in turn, to show the absurdity and wickedness of poh-theism ; now, on the other hand, the deistic unbelievers not only professed to believe in one God, but also sought to show that no special revelation is necessary to man, but that he can learn both God and duty from the light of nature. The English deism passed over into France and Germany, and, coming in aid of the movement in philosophy and criticism led by Descartes and Spinoza, gave origin there to the movement which finally culminated in the so-called Rationalism, Naturalism, and Positivism (see these three heads ; see also Deism). We shall briefly sketch the history of apologies in this period, first, on the Con- tinent of Europe, leaving the English and American apologists to the close of this article.
1. German. — In Germany the Wolfian philosophy prepared the way for the English deism, which soon took root. The first open infidelity of the period we find in such writers as J. C. Dippcl (f 1734), author of Democritus Christianus, and J. C. Edelmann ( j 1767), who rejected all revealed religion to attach himself ex- clusively to conscience. Between these two extremes appeared Leibnitz, whose attempt at a reconciliation between philosophy and Christianity, by making rea- son the judge between them, had prepared the way for the Wolfian school. Among the German apolo- gists of that period we find Lilienthal (Die gute Sache d. gbttl. Offenbarung, 1772-'82), Koppen (Die Bibel ah ein Werk d. gottl. Weisheit, 1787, 1837), A. F. W. Sack ( 1'. rtfa idifftt r Glauhe d. Christen, 1773, 2 vols.), Nosselt ( Vertheidigung d. ckristl. Religion, 4th edit. 1774), Je- rusalem, of Wolfenbi'ittel (Betracht. it. d. Wahrheiien d. chr. Relig. 1776), G. Less (d. Religion, etc., 2d ed. 1786, 2 vols.), and J. G. Tollner (f 1774). But the most important of all the German apologists of that time was Friederich Kleukcr, who defended Christian- ity as the scheme of man's salvation, while the con- temporary theologians chiefly defended the doctrines and morals of the Gospel. His principal works are, Wdhrhdi it. gottl. Ursprung d. Christenthums (Riga, 1787-94) ; Untt rsuch. d. Griindef d. jEchtheit it. Glaub- wurd. d. 8chrifil. Urkunden d. Christenthums (Hamb. K'.'7 1800), 'and Yersuch v. d. Sohn <;,<1tes miter d. Menschen (2d ed. 17'.»5). In the German Roman Cath- olic Church we find the Wolfian P. Stattler (1771), P. Opfermann (1779). Beda Mayr (1781), and S. von Storchenau, author of the Philosopkie tier Religion (1772 89). The German theologians, however, allow- ed themselves to be led into a sort of Biblical deism, which was op] osed by Storr. and especially by J. C. Lavater ( + 180] I, who considered faith as the result of the inward feeling of the power of the Gospel, not to be attained by learned demonstrations. The fur- ther development of theology in Germany led to the strife between Rationalism and Supranaturalism, and thus apologetics were merged into polemics, in which the fundamental questions of the Christian faith were freely discussed. This is the time of Reinhard's Ge-
stdndnisse, and Rohr's anonymous Briefe ii. d. Ration- alismus (Aix la Chapelle, 1813, 1818); on the other side we find Steudel's IJaltbarkeit d. Glaulens (Stuttg. 1814), Zollich's Briefe ii. d. Supranaturalismus (1821), Sartorius's Religion ansserhalb d. Grenzen d. Vernvnft (Marb. 1822), and similar works by Tittmann (1816). The attempts at conciliation of Kiihler, of Konigsberg (1818), Klein (1819), Schott (1826), etc., proved un- availing. The number of works published on both sides increased daily. Most of them are, however, for- gotten now, and the only ones which have retained any importance are C. L. Nitzsch's De Rtvelatkne re- ligionis externa eademque jntblica (1808), and De dis- crimine revel, lmperatoiiaz el Didacticce. (1830), in which he separates religion and revelation, and attempts to give a complete theory of the latter, blending, to use C. J. Nitzsch's expression, " formal supranaturalism with material rationalism." In the school of Tubin- gen a new apologetic method, which we may call sci- entific, arose under the influence of Storr and of his followers. Its great defect, perhaps, is that it makes a science of faitb. Among the principal works in that line we find Peter Erasmus Muller's Kiistelig Apo'ogetik (Kopenh. 1810), G. S. Francke's Entwnrf einer Apo'og. der christlich. Religion (Altona, 1817). Next to these must be placed the articles of Heubner, of Wittenberg, in Ersch und Gruber's Allg. Encyhlo- padie (iv, 451-461), K. W. Stein's Apologetik d. Chris- tenthums ah Wissenschnft dargestellt (Ppz. 1824); and, in the Roman Catholic Church, the apologetic works of Stephen Wiest, of Ingolstadt, Patricius Zimmer, F. Brenner's Fundamcntirung d. katholischen specula- liven Theolcgie (Regens. 1837), and, more recently, the works of Klee (q. v.). Conceived in a different spirit, but fully as ingenious and methodical, are K. F. Bres- cius's, of Berlin, Apologien (1804), G. J. Planck's Ueber d. Behandlung, etc.,d. historischen Beweisesf. d. Gottlich- keit d. Christenthums (Gott. 1821), and especially K. H. Stirm's Apohgie d. Christenthums (1836). In most of the writers named, dogmatic teaching is combined with apologetical. This is still more true of the apol- ogetical works of Sehleiermacher and his school (see Schleiermacher, Darstellung d. Theol. Stud. § 40-44), and of the works of Staudenmaier and Sebastian von Drey, Apologetik als icissensclwftl. Xachceimng d. Gbtt- lichkeit d. Christenthums, etc. *(3 vols., Mainz, 1838- '47). Other German theologians considered apologet- ics as a scientific exposition of the fundamental prin- ciples of Christianity. Among them we find Steu- del, in his Grundzvge einer Apologetik (Tubing. 1830) ; Heinrich Schmid, of Heidelberg, in the Oppositionsschr. f. Theol. u. Philos. ii, 2 (Jena, 1829, p. 55 sq.); Tho- luck, Palmer, etc. Most of the introductory works to the studjr of dogmatics may be considered as apolo- getic. Such are Daub's Vorlesungen it. d. Prolegom- ena, z. Dogmatik (1829), Baumgarten-Crusius's ii. Re- Vgion, Offenbarung u. Christenihum (1820), F. Fischer, of Basle's, Religion, Offenbarung, etc. (Tubing. 1828), Twesten, Tor/, it. d. Dogm. (182(1, 18S8), Staudenmaier's Kittholicismus u. d. Neuschellingsche Schule (Freiburg, Z itsch.f. Theol. 1842, v). Klee also commences his Kaiholische Dogmatik with a Generaldogmatik, which is a regular demonstrate Christiana. Strauss himself prefaces his Dogmatik by the "formate Grm\dbegriffe d. ckristl. Gla/ubenslehre."