as in physical conflict the offensivt and the defensivi op- erations. In practice, however,il is impossible always to separate the apologetic and the polemical elements, art Apology. In the ages of the Church fathers no greal difficulty was encountered, because their object was to combat the Jewish or the heathen -\ stems of religion, and their writings thereto predominant polemical coloring. Bui it is one thing to combat a single religious system like paganism, and i: i- quite another to attack heresy -within the- Church, or to make war on religious systems claiming a like foundation. Polemics, then, narrowed down to its prop- er sphere, is the controversy within the Christian fold regarding the essentials of the Church faith. In the
Reformatio I lis early Church the polemical activity was confined to
- anno M I • I .\ I K heresies and schismatics. Indeed, from the death of
"i the mosl elegant pieces of composi- Origen to John ol Damascus (A.D. 254 730) the time
lion in the Latin language, and which, for perspicuity, which elapsed between the Sabellian and the Monothe-
ense, and aolid reasoning, is equal to the irapor- lite controversies the polemics of the Church were de-
i which it was written (Phillips, veloped much more prominently than either the apolo-
rtifices Christi in getic tendency, as in the preceding period, or the Bys-
/ tematii tendency, as in the next period. The heresies
ofJustific ttion I.mv -niii. 1569, Ito i : this work is report- which called out polemical activity from 730 till the out-
•• found among the « ritings of cardinal break of the Reformation differed in tendency from these
P v- • Hume, /list, < England, ch. xxxvii (very of the preceding period in their opposition to the whole
favorable); Froude, Hist, of England, vi, 3G I li uastical system rather than to any particular doc-
i lex in vol. vii); trines. But with the establishment of Protestantism
Ref. ii, 575 sq. ; Soames, the polemical activity began in real earnest, and from
■: i. 251 Bq.; ii. 185 -|.. 229 Bq., 327 sq., thai time to this has continued to develop and expand
iv, 66 Bq., 77. 238, 195, 545 Bq., 577 Bq., 595; in Btrength both among Romanists and Protestants.
l I hristendom, i. § 63; Hook, Lives Among the former ii has been specially cultivated by
v l Lond. 1869), voL iii ; the. I, suits, who, on account of the many methods which
Hardwick, Hist, of the Reformation, p. 64, et al. ; See- they have proposed for attack of Protestants, have
bohm,/i , p. 194,206, 212; Pforth been given the appellation "Methodists" (com p. Pelt,
ister Rev. April. Theol. Encyklopadie, § 63, p. 386 sq.). Thej even pub-
1871, p. ially the references in Allibone, lished large works containing the modus operandi for
J. H.W. controversies of a confessional nature, under the title
Pole-axes w.re the ensigns of legates " latere, Theologia Polemica (Vitus Pichler, 17.".:!: Gazzaniga,
carried with Bilver pillars (Gal. ii, 9) before cardinals 1778 sq.). The Protestants were not far behind, and
id Pole. provided material under the more appropriate title of a
Synopsis Controversiarum (Abraham Calow, 1685; Mu- saeus, 1701 I, to which may be added Walch, Eitdeitung nischi Gottesgelahrtheit (Jena, 1752, 8vo), and hi> other writings; Schubert, Instituti
1756 58 : Baumgarten, Untersuchung theo-
Polehampton, Henry Stedman, an English
'■
He took h..ly orders, and was ordained
in the year following became assistant
• ' - ' wsbun : in 1855 chaplain in
I, fe_ hgischer Streiligkeiten (1762-64) ; Mosheim, Streiitheo-
shot through the body in the insurrec- /"-' C1763 80.-)i Bock, Lehrb.fiirdu neuesti PolemUs lion at Lucknow. and died Juh
a (1782). No work of importance on the science ofpo-
. i. and his loss was greatly deplored in all Eng- le.mica ■PPeared Ul,,il Schleiermacher treat, d of it in
i among the English of India. See \fe. |"s Darstellung destheoL Studiums (Berl. 1811); and his
;■ ,• ideas found further and fuller elucidation by hi
'ehampton ples Sack '" "" Christlicht Polemik (Bonn, 1838), and
(Loud. ,ften); Londot lv|' '" ,,is Theol EncyUopadv (1843); Hagenbach,
l„ 1*7. Theol Encyklop. \ 1864, and since); Hill. System of Di- vinity (N. V. 1847, 8vo); McClintock, Encyclop. and
Polehampton, Thomas Stedman. bn
i lesser n
IMPTOS, III m:1 S.
died at l.nekn
5
Polemics \ the < ro-
ll U also Bome- . and dif- . v.) iii that it i- nol Bimply in- l hristianity in general, but aims to al- io particular, and is the
"hi. h aims tablish
■' m ill- This distinction has ■ observed in Christian theolopv, but
i rule, i he 1 1 logians
urch mixed the polemical and apologetical ele- ments in all theological controversy. In our own cen- l,irv- '"' ; Schlci-
istatuu
Method of Theol Sciena (N. Y. 1873). 'I he literal ure of polemics is divided property into:
the Controversy between P
uii-ts.
I. Gem tises by writers of the Chnrchof ]:■ me
astPi pi i i i>\ Protestant Di- <
e Aii.in Controversy. HI. Tn i he Socinlnn C ntroversy.
i bythei i of England, and between them and D • uiL'oii.iii Controversy. - t.i the 89 Ai' i. eratiou Conl
oversini Treatises on Disseut v. rrentises on Hen -
The various publications on those divisions - Bought tor under their respective headings. We will "MM'''1 "I "efer the reader here for general treatises to the works