Book x

., from binomial to multinomial and from _ordered_ to _unordered_ irrationals (see extracts from Pappus' comm. on Eucl. x., preserved in Arabic and published by Woepcke, 1856). Lastly, in astronomy he is credited by Ptolemy with an explanation of the motion of the planets by a system of epicycles; he also made researches in the lunar theory, for which he is said to have been called Epsilon ([epsilon]).

The best editions of the works of Apollonius are the following: (1) _Apollonii Pergaei Conicorum libri quatuor, ex versione Frederici Commandini_ (Bononiae, 1566), fol.; (2) _Apollonii Pergaei Conicorum libri octo, et Sereni Antissensis de Sectione Cylindri et Coni libri duo_ (Oxoniae, 1710), fol. (this is the monumental edition of Edmund Halley); (3) the edition of the first four books of the Conics given in 1675 by Barrow; (4) _Apollonii Pergaei de Sectione, Rationis libri duo: Accedunt ejusdem de Sectione Spatii libri duo Restituti: Praemittitur, &c., Opera et Studio Edmundi Halley_ (Oxoniae, 1706), 4to; (5) a German translation of the _Conics_ by H. Balsam (Berlin, 1861); (6) the definitive Greek text of Heiberg (_Apollonii Pergaei quae Graece exstant Opera_, Leipzig, 1891-1893); (7) T.L. Heath, _Apollonius, Treatise on Conic Sections_ (Cambridge, 1896); see also H.G. Zeuthen, _Die Lehre van den Kegelschnitten im Altertum_ (Copenhagen, 1886 and 1902). (T. L. H.)

APOLLONIUS OF RHODES (RHODIUS), a Greek epic poet and grammarian, of Alexandria, who flourished under the Ptolemies Philopator and Epiphanes (222-181 B.C.). He was the pupil of Callimachus, with whom he subsequently quarrelled. In his youth he composed the work for which he is known--_Argonautica_, an epic in four books on the legend of the Argonauts. When he read it at Alexandria, it was rejected through the influence of Callimachus and his party. Disgusted with his failure, Apollonius withdrew to Rhodes, where he was very successful as a rhetorician, and a revised edition of his epic was well received. In recognition of his talents the Rhodians bestowed the freedom of their city upon him--the origin of his surname. Returning to Alexandria, he again recited his poem, this time with general applause. In 196, Ptolemy Epiphanes appointed him librarian of the Museum, which office he probably held until his death. As to the _Argonautica_, Longinus' (_De Sublim_. p. 54, 19) and Quintilian's (_Instit_, x. 1, 54) verdict of mediocrity seems hardly deserved; although it lacks the naturalness of Homer, it possesses a certain simplicity and contains some beautiful passages. There is a valuable collection of scholia. The work, highly esteemed by the Romans, was imitated by Virgil (_Aeneid_, iv.), Varro Atacinus, and Valerius Flaccus. Marianus (about A.D. 500) paraphrased it in iambic trimeters. Apollonius also wrote epigrams; grammatical and critical works; and [Greek: Ktiseis] (the foundations of cities).

_Editio Princeps_ (Florence, 1496); Merkel-Keil (with scholia, 1854); Seaton (1900). English translations: Verse, by Greene (1780); Fawkes (1780); Preston (1811); Way (1901); Prose by Coleridge (1889); see also Couat, _La Poesie alexandrine_; Susemihl, _Geschichte der griech. Lit. in der alexandnnischen Zeit._

APOLLONIUS OF TRALLES (in Caria), a Greek sculptor, who flourished in the 2nd century B.C. With his brother Tauriscus, he executed the marble group known as the Farnese Bull, representing Zethus and Amphion tying the revengeful Dirce to the tail of a wild bull.

See GREEK ART, pl. i. fig. 51.

APOLLONIUS OF TYANA, a Greek philosopher of the Neo-Pythagorean school, born a few years before the Christian era. He studied at Tarsus and in the temple of Asclepius at Aegae, where he devoted himself to the doctrines of Pythagoras and adopted the ascetic habit of life in its fullest sense. He travelled through Asia and visited Nineveh, Babylon and India, imbibing the oriental mysticism of magi, Brahmans and gymnosophists. The narrative of his travels given by his disciple Damis and reproduced by Philostratus is so full of the miraculous that many have regarded him as an imaginary character. On his return to Europe he was saluted as a magician, and received the greatest reverence from priests and people generally. He himself claimed only the power of foreseeing the future; yet in Rome it was said that he raised from death the body of a noble lady. In the halo of his mysterious power he passed through Greece, Italy and Spain. It was said that he was accused of treason both by Nero and by Domitian, but escaped by miraculous means. Finally he set up a school at Ephesus, where he died, apparently at the age of a hundred years. Philostratus keeps up the mystery of his hero's life by saying, "Concerning the manner of his death, _if he did die_, the accounts are various." The work of Philostratus composed at the instance of Julia, wife of Severus, is generally regarded as a religious work of fiction. It contains a number of obviously fictitious stories, through which, however, it is not impossible to discern the general character of the man. In the 3rd century, Hierocles (q.v.) endeavoured to prove that the doctrines and the life of Apollonius were more valuable than those of Christ, and, in modern times, Voltaire and Charles Blount (1654-1693), the English freethinker, have adopted a similar standpoint. Apart from this extravagant eulogy, it is absurd to regard Apollonius merely as a vulgar charlatan and miracle-monger. If we cut away the mass of mere fiction which Philostratus accumulated, we have left a highly imaginative, earnest reformer who laboured to infuse into the flaccid dialectic of paganism a saner spirit of practical morality.

See L. Dyer, _Studies of the Gods in Greece_ (New York, 1891); A. Chassang, _Le Merveilleux dans l'antiquite_ (1882); D.M. Tredwell, _Sketch of the Life of Apollonius of Tyana_ (New York, 1886); F.C. Baur, _Apollonius von Tyana und Christus_, ed. Ed. Zeller (Leipzig, 1876,--an attempt to show that Philostratus's story is merely a pagan counterblast to the New Testament history); J. Jessen, _Apollonius v. Tyana und sein Biograph Philostratos_ (Hamburg, 1885); J. Gottsching, _Apollonius von Tyana_ (Berlin, 1889); J.A. Froude, _Short Studies_, vol. iv.; G.R.S. Mead, _Apollonius of Tyana_ (London, 1901); B.L. Gildersleeve, _Essays and Studies_ (New York, 1890); Philostratus's _Life of Apollonius_ (Eng. trans. New York, 1905); O. de B. Priaulx, _The Indian Travels of Apollonius_ (1873); F.W.G. Campbell, _Apoll. of Tyana_ (1908); see also NEO-PYTHAGOREANISM.

APOLLONIUS OF TYRE, a medieval tale supposed to be derived from a lost Greek original. The earliest mention of the story is in the _Carmina_ (Bk. vi. 8, II. 5-6) of Venantius Fortunatus, in the second half of the 6th century, and the romance may well date from three centuries earlier. It bears a marked resemblance to the _Antheia and Habrokomes_ of Xenophon of Ephesus. The story relates that King Antiochus, maintaining incestuous relations with his daughter, kept off her suitors by asking them a riddle, which they must solve on pain of losing their heads. Apollonius of Tyre solved the riddle, which had to do with Antiochus's secret. He returned to Tyre, and, to escape the king's vengeance, set sail in search of a place of refuge. In Cyrene he married the daughter of King Archistrates, and presently, on receiving news of the death of Antiochus, departed to take possession of the kingdom of Antioch, of which he was, for no clear reason, the heir. On the voyage his wife died, or rather seemed to die, in giving birth to a daughter, and the sailors demanded that she should be thrown overboard. Apollonius left his daughter, named Tarsia, at Tarsus in the care of guardians who proved false to their trust. Father, mother, and daughter were only reunited after fourteen years' separation and many vicissitudes. The earliest Latin MS. of this tale, preserved at Florence, dates from the 9th or 10th century. The pagan features of the supposed original are by no means all destroyed. The ceremonies observed by Tarsia at her nurse's grave, and the preparations for the burning of the body of Apollonius's wife, are purely pagan. The riddles which Tarsia propounds to her father are obviously interpolated. They are taken from the _Enigmata_ of Caelius Firmianus Symposius. The many inconsistencies of the story seem to be best explained by the supposition (E. Rohde, _Der griechische Roman_, 2nd ed., 1900, pp. 435 _et seq_.) that the Antiochus story was originally entirely separate from the story of Apollonius's wanderings, and was clumsily tacked on by the Latin author. The romance kept its form through a vast number of medieval rearrangements, and there is little change in its outlines as set forth in the Shakespearian play of _Pericles_.

The Latin tale is preserved in about 100 MSS., and was printed by M. Velser (Augsburg, 1595), by J. Lapaume in _Script. Erot_. (Didot, Paris, 1856), and by A. Riese in the _Bibl. Teubneriana_ (1871, new ed. 1893). The most widespread versions in the middle ages were those of Godfrey of Viterbo in his _Pantheon_ (1185), where it is related as authentic history, and in the _Gesta Romanorum_ (cap. 153), which formed the basis of the German folk-tale by H. Steinhowel (Augsburg, 1471), the Dutch version (Delft, 1493), the French in _Le Violier des histoires romaines_ (Paris, 1521), the English, by Laurence Twine (London, 1576, new ed. 1607), also of the Scandinavian, Czech, and Hungarian tales.

In England a translation was made as early as the 11th century (ed. B. Thorpe, 1834, and J. Zupitza in _Archiv fur neuere Sprachen_, 1896); there is a Middle English metrical version (J.O. Halliwell, _A New Boke about Shakespeare_, 1850), by a poet who says he was vicar of Wimborne; John Gower uses the tale as an example of the seventh deadly sin in the eighth book of his _Confessio Amantis_; Robert Copland translated a prose romance of _Kynge Apollyne of Thyre_ (Wynkyn de Worde, 1510) from the French; _Pericles_ was entered at Stationers' Hall in 1607, and was followed in the next year by George Wilkins's novel, _The Painfull Adventures of Pericles, Prynce of Tyre_ (ed. Tycho Mommsen, Oldenburg, 1857), and George Lillo drew his play _Marina_ (1738) from the piece associated with Shakespeare; _Orendel_, by a Middle High German minnesinger, contains some of the episodes of _Apollonius_; Heinrich von Neustadt wrote a poem of 20,000 lines on _Apollonius von Tyrland_ (c. 1400); the story was well known in Spanish, _Libre de Apolonio_ (verse, c. 1200), and in J. de Timoneda's _Patranuelo_ (1576); in French much of it was embodied in _Jourdain de Blaives_ (13th cent.), and it also appears in Italian and medieval Greek. See A.H. Smyth, _Shakespeare's Pericles and Apollonius of Tyre_ (Philadelphia, 1898); Elimar Klebs, _Die Erzahlung van A. aus Tyrus_ (Berlin, 1899); S. Singer, _Apollonius van Tyrus_ (Halle, 1895).

APOLLOS ([Greek: Apollos]; contracted from Apollonius), an Alexandrine Jew who after Paul's first visit to Corinth worked there in a similar way (1 Cor. iii. 6). He was with Paul at a later date in Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 12). In 1 Cor. i. 10-12 we read of four parties in the Corinthian church, of which two attached themselves to Paul and Apollos respectively, using their names, though the "division" can hardly have been due to conflicting doctrines. (See PAUL.) From Acts xviii. 24-28 we learn that he spoke and taught with power and success. He may have captivated his hearers by teaching "wisdom," as P.W. Schmiedel suggests, in the allegorical style of Philo, and he was evidently a man of unusual magnetic force. There seems to be some contradiction between Acts xviii. 25 a b and Acts xviii. 25 c, 26 b c; and it has been suggested that these latter passages are subsequent accretions. Since Apollos was a Christian and "taught exactly," he could hardly have been acquainted only with John's baptism or have required to be taught Christianity more thoroughly by Aquila and Priscilla. Martin Luther regarded Apollos as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and many scholars since have shared his view.

Jerome says that Apollos was so dissatisfied with the division at Corinth, that he retired into Crete with Zenas, a doctor of the law; and that the schism having been healed by Paul's letter to the Corinthians, Apollos returned to the city, and became its bishop. Less probable traditions assign to him the bishopric of Duras, or of Iconium in Phrygia, or of Caesarea.

See the articles in the _Encyclopaedia Biblica_; Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklopadie_; _The Jewish Encyclopaedia_; Hastings' _Dictionary of the Bible_; and cf. Weizsacker, _Das apostolische Zeitalter_; A.C. McGiffert, _History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age_.

APOLLYON, the "foul fiend" who assaulted Christian on his pilgrimage through the Valley of Humiliation in John Bunyan's great allegory. The name (Gr. [Greek: Apollyon]), which means "destroyer" ([Greek: apollyein], to destroy), is taken from Rev. ix. 11, where it represents the Hebrew word _Abaddon_ (lit. "place of destruction," but here personified). The identification with the Asmodeus (q.v.) of Tobit iii. 8 is erroneous.

APOLOGETICS, in theology, the systematic statement of the grounds which Christians allege for belief in (at least) a _supernatural revelation_ and a _divine redemption_ (cf. e.g. Heb. i. 1-3). The majority of apologists in the past have further believed in an _infallible Bible_; but they admit this position can only be reached at a late stage in the argument. We should note, however, that even a liberal orthodoxy, while saying nothing about infallibility, is pledged to the _essential_ authority of the Bible; it cannot e.g. simply ignore the Old Testament with F.E.D. Schleiermacher. Catholic apologetics must further give a central position to _Church_ authority, which Roman Catholics explicitly define as infallible; but this position too is debated in a late section of their system. On the other hand, there may be a Christianity which seeks to extricate the "spiritual" from the "supernatural" (Arnold Toynbee, characterizing T.H. Green). It would only lead to confusion, however, if we called this method "apologetic." Any _single_ effort in apologetics may be termed "an apology." More elaborate contrasts have been proposed between the two words, but are of little practical importance.

I. _The Word itself._--In Greek, [Greek: apologia] is the defendant's reply (personally, not through a lawyer) to the speech for the prosecution--[Greek: kataegoria]. Sometimes defendants' speeches passed into literature, e.g. Plato's splendid version of the _Apology_ of Socrates. Thus, in view of persecution or slander, the Christian church naturally produced literary "Apologies," The word has never quite lost this connotation of standing on the defensive and rebutting criticism; e.g. Anselm's _Apologia contra insipientem Gaunilonem_ (c. 1100); or the Lutheran _Apology for the Augsburg Confession_ (1531); or J.H. Newman's _Apologia pro vita sua_ (1864); or A.B. Bruce's _Apologetics; or Christianity Defensively Stated_ (1892). Of course, defence easily passes into counterattack, as when early apologists denounce Greek and Roman religion. Yet the purpose may be defence even then. And there is perhaps a reason of a deeper kind for holding Apologetics to the defensive. Christianity is a prophetic religion. Now a prophet does not argue; he declares what he feels to be God's will. For himself, he rests, like the mystic, upon an immediate vision of truth; but he differs from most mystics in having a message for others; and--again unlike most mystics--he addresses the hearer's _conscience_, which we might call (in one sense) the mystic element in every man--or better, perhaps, the prophetic. Can the positive grounds for a prophet's message be analysed and stated in terms of argument? If so, apologetics is literally a science, and it is pedantry to claim the defensive and pretend to throw the _onus probandi_ upon objectors. But, if not, then apologetics is a mere auxiliary, and is only "a science" in so far as it presents a _conscious_ and _systematic_ plea. Bruce's title, and his programme of "succouring distressed faith," imply the latter alternative; the moral appeal of Christianity, primary and essential; its confirmation by argument, secondary. The view has its difficulties; but it is hignly suggestive.

The word [Greek: apologia] is used by Origen (_Contra Cel._ ii. 65, v. 19) of the general Christian defence. But the introduction of the adjective "apologetic" and of the substantive "apologetics" is recent. They are serviceable as bracketing together (1) Natural Theology or Theism, (2) Christian Evidences--chiefly "miracles" and "prophecy"; or, on a more modern view, chiefly the character and personality of Christ. The lower usage of Apology (as expression of regret for a fault) has tipped many a sarcasm besides George III.'s on the occasion of Bishop Watson's book, "I did not know that the Bible needed an apology!"

II. _Apologetics in the Bible._--The Old Testament does not argue in support of its beliefs, unless when (chiefly in parts of the Wisdom literature) it seeks to rebut moral difficulties (cf. T.K. Cheyne, _Job and Solomon_; A.S. Peake, _Problem of Suffering in the Old Testament_, 1904). The New Testament reflects chiefly controversy with Jews. Great emphasis is laid upon alleged fulfilments--striking or fanciful, but very generally striking to that age--of Old Testament prophecy (Matt. especially; rather differently Ep. to Heb.). The miracles of Jesus are also canvassed. Jews do not deny their wonderful character, but attribute them to black art (Mark iii. 22 &c., &c.). On the other hand, Christians and Jews are pretty well agreed on natural theology; so the New Testament tends to take its theism for granted. However, Rom. i. 20 has had great influence on Christian theology (e.g. Thomas Aquinas) in leading it to base theism upon reason or argument. One apologetic contention, aimed at Gentile readers, is found among the motives of Acts. Christianity is not a lawless but an excellent law-abiding faith. So (it is alleged) rulers, both Jewish and Gentile, have often admitted (xviii. 14; xix. 37; xxiii. 9; xxvi. 32).

III. _Early Christian._--When we leave the New Testament, apologetics becomes conspicuous until the political triumph of Christianity, and even somewhat later. The atmosphere is no longer Jewish but fully Greek. True there are, as always, Jewish controversialists. Justin Martyr writes a _Dialogue with Trypho_; Origen deals with many anti-Christian arguments borrowed by Celsus from a certain nameless Jew. Yet Greece was the sovereign power in all the world of ancient culture. And so Christianity was necessarily Hellenized, necessarily philosophized. One result was to bring natural theology into the forefront. A pure morality, belief in one God, hopes extending beyond death--these appealed to the age; the Church taught them as philosophically true _and_ divinely revealed. But, further still, philosophy offered a vehicle which could be applied to the contents of Christianity. The Platonic or eclectic theism, which adopted the conception of the Logos, made a place for Christ in terms of philosophy within the Godhead. (John i. 1 may or may not be affected by Philo; it is almost or quite solitary in the N.T.) Similarly, the immortality of the soul may be maintained on Platonic or quasi-Platonic lines, as by St Athanasius (_Contra Gentes_, S 33)--a writer who repeatedly quotes the Alexandrian Book of Wisdom, in which Platonism and the Old Testament had already joined partnership. This phase of Platonism, however, was much more slowly adopted. The earlier apologists dispute the natural immortality of the soul; Athanasius himself, in _De Incarnatione Dei_, SS 4, 5, tones down the teaching of _Wisdom_; and the somewhat eccentric writer Arnobius, a layman--from Justin Martyr downwards apologetics has always been largely in the hands of laymen--stands for what has recently been called "conditional immortality"--eternal life for the righteous, the children of God, alone.

Allied with this more empiricist stand-point is the assertion that Greek philosophy borrowed from Moses; but in studying the Fathers we constantly find that groundless assertion uttered in the same breath with the dominant Idealist view, according to which Greek philosophy was due to incomplete revelation from the divine Logos.

On purely defensive lines, early apologists rebut charges of cannibalism and sexual promiscuity; the Christians had to meet in secret, and the gossip of a rotten age drew malignant conclusions. They make counter attacks on polytheism as a folly and on the shamefulness of obscene myths. Here they are in line with non-Christian writers or culture-mockers like Lucian of Samosata; or graver spirits like Porphyry, who champions Neo-Platonism as a rival to Christianity, and does pioneer work in criticism by attacks on some of the Old Testament books. Turning to Christian evidence proper, we are struck with the continued prominence of the argument from prophecy. The Old Testament was an immense religious asset to the early church. Their enemies had nothing like it; and--the N.T. canon being as yet but half formed--the Old Testament was pushed into notice by dwelling on this imperfect "argument," which grew more extravagant as the partial control exercised by Jewish learning disappeared. An argument from miracles is also urged, though with more reserve. Formally, every one in that age admitted the supernatural. The question was, whose supernatural? And how far did it carry you? Miracle could not be to a 3rd century writer what it was to W. Paley--a conclusive and well-nigh solitary proof. Other apologies are by Aristides (recently recovered in translation), Athenagoras ("elegant"), Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Alexandria; in Latin by Minucius Felix, Tertullian (a masculine spirit and phrase-coiner like T. Carlyle, if bitterer still), Lactantius Firmianus, &c., &c.[1]

As Christianity wins the day, a new objection is raised to it. The age is full of troubles; Christianity is ruining the empire! Besides notices elsewhere, we find the charge specially dealt with by St Augustine and his friends. Paulus Orosius argues that the world has always been a vale of tears. Salvian contends that not the acceptance of Christianity, but the sins of the people are bringing trouble upon them; and he gives ugly evidence of the continued prevalence of vice. Most impressive of all was Augustine's own contribution in _The City of God_. Powers created by worldliness and sin are crumbling, as they well may; "the city of God remaineth!" Whether he meant it so or not, the saint's argument became a programme and an apologia for the imperializing of the Western Church under the leadership of Rome during the middle ages.

IV. _Middle Ages._--From the point of view of apologetics, we may mass together the long stretch of history which covers the period between the disappearance and the re-appearance of free discussion. When emperors became converts, the church, so lately a victim and a pleader for liberty, readily learned to persecute. Under such conditions there is little scope for apologetics. Force kills argument and drives doubt below the smooth surface of a nominal conformity. But there were two influences beyond the bounds or beyond the power of the christianized empire. The Jew remained, as always, stubbornly unconvinced, and, as often, fond of slanders. Many of the principal medieval attempts in apologetics are directed chiefly against him, e.g. the _Pugio Fidei_ of Raymond Martini (c. 1280), which became one of Pascal's sources (see V. below), or Peter Abelard's _Dialogus inter Judaeum Philosophum et Christianum_. And the Moslem came on the scenes bringing, as a gift for Christendom, fuller knowledge of classical, especially Aristotelian, texts. The Jews, less bitterly opposed to Mahommedanism than the Christians were, caught fire more rapidly, and in some cases served as an intermediate link or channel of communication. These two religions anticipated the discussion of the problem of faith and reason in the Christian church. According to the great Avicenna and Maimonides, faith and the highest reason are sure to coincide (see ARABIAN PHILOSOPHY). According to Ghazali, in his _Destruction of Philosophers_, the various schools of philosophy cancel each other; reason is bankrupt; faith is everything. (So nearly Jehuda Halevi.) According to Averroes, reason suffices, and faith, with (what he considers) its dreams of immortality and the like, is useful only for the ignorant masses. Christian theology, however, strikes out a line of its own. Moslems and Jews were applying Aristotelian philosophy to rigorously monotheistic faiths; Christianity had been encouraged by Platonism in teaching a trinity of divine persons, and Platonism of a certain order long dominated the middle ages as part of the Augustinian tradition. In sympathy with this Platonism, the medieval church began by assuming the entire mutual harmony of faith and reason. Such is the teaching, along different lines, alike of St Anselm and of Abelard. But, when increased knowledge of Aristotle's texts (and of the commentaries) led to the victory of a supposed Aristotelianism over a supposed Platonism, Albertus Magnus, and his still more distinguished pupil Thomas Aquinas, mark certain doctrines as belonging to faith but not to reason. They adhere to the general position with exceptions (in the case of what had been considered Platonic doctrines). From the point of view of philosophy, this was a compromise. Faith and reason partly agree, partly diverge. The tendency of the later middle ages is to add to the number of the doctrines with which philosophy cannot deal. Thomas's great rival, Duns Scotus, does this to a large extent, at times affirming "two truths." The latter position, ascribed by the schoolmen to the Averroists, becomes dominant among the later Nominalists, William of Occam and his disciples, who withdraw _all_ doctrines of faith from the sphere of reason. This was a second and a more audacious compromise. It is not exactly an attempt to base Christian faith on rational scepticism. It is a consistent policy of harbouring inconsistencies in the same mind. A statement may be true in philosophy and false in theology, or vice versa. To the standpoint of Aquinas, however, the Church of Rome (at least in regard to the basis of doctrine) has more and more returned. The councils of Trent and of the Vatican mark the Two Truths hypothesis as heretical, when they affirm that there _is_ a natural knowledge of God and natural certainty of immortality. Along with this affirmation, the Church of Rome (if less decisively) has adopted the limitations of the Thomist theory by the condemnation of "Ontologism"; certain mysterious doctrines are beyond reason. This cautious compromise sanctioned by the Church does not represent the _extremest_ reaction against nominalism. Even in the nominalistic epoch we have Raymond of Sabunde's _Natural Theology_ (according to the article in Herzog-Hauck, not the title of the oldest Paris MS., but found in later MSS. and almost all the printed editions) or _Liber Creaturarum_ (c. 1435). The

## book is not what moderns (schooled unconsciously in post-Reformation

developments of Thomist ideas) expect under the name of natural theology. It is an attempt once more to demonstrate _all_ scholastic dogmas out of the book of creation or on principles of natural reason. At many points it follows Anselm closely, and, of course, very often "makes light work" of its task.

The Thomist compromise--or even the more sceptical view of "two truths"--has the merit of giving filling _of a kind_ to the formula "supernatural revelation"--mysteries inaccessible to reason, beyond discovery and beyond comprehension. According to earlier views--repeatedly revived in Protestantism--revelation is just philosophy over again. Can the choice be fairly stated? If revelation is thought of as God's personal word, and redemption as his personal deed, is it reasonable to view them either as open to a sort of scientific prediction or as capricious and unintelligible? Even in the middle ages there were not wanting those--the St Victors, Bonaventura--who sought to vindicate mystical if not moral redemption as the central thought of Christianity.

V. _Earlier Modern Period._--It will be seen that apologetics by no means reissued unchanged from the long period of authority. The compromise of Aquinas, though not unchallenged, holds the field and that even with Protestants. G.W. Leibnitz devotes an introductory chapter in his _Theodicee_, 1710 (as against Pierre Bayle), to faith and reason. He is a good enough Lutheran to quote as a "mystery" the Eucharist no less than the Trinity, while he insists that truths _above_ are not _against_ reason. Stated thus baldly, has the distinction any meaning? The more celebrated and central thesis of the book--this finite universe, the best of all such that are possible--also restates positions of Augustine and Aquinas.

Before modern philosophy began its career, there was a great revival of ancient philosophy at the Renaissance; sometimes anti-Christian, sometimes pro-Christian. The latter furnishes apologies by Marsilio Ficino, Agostino Steuco, J.L. Vives.

Early in the modern period occurs the great name of Blaise Pascal (1623-1662). A staunch Roman Catholic, but belonging to a school of Augustinian enthusiasts (the Jansenists), whom the Church put down as heretics, he stands pretty much apart from the general currents. His _Pensees_, published posthumously, seems to have been meant for a systematic treatise, but it has come to us in fragments. Once again, a lay apologist! A layman's work may have the advantage of originality or the drawback of imperfect knowledge. Pascal's work exhibits both characters. It has the originality of rare genius, but it borrows its material (as industrious editors have shown) from very few sources--the _Pugio Fidei_, M. de Montaigne, P. Charron. Ideas as well as learning are largely Montaigne's. The latter's cheerful man-of-the-world scepticism is transfigured in Pascal to a deep distrust of human reason, in part, perhaps, from anti-Protestant motives. But this attitude, while not without parallels both earlier (Ghazali, Jehuda Halevi) and later (H.L. Mansel), has peculiarities in Pascal. It is _fallen_ man whom he pursues with his fierce scorn; his view of man's nature--intellect as well as character--is to be read in the light of his unflinching Augustinianism. Again, Pascal, unlike most apologists, belongs to the small company of saintly souls. This philosophical sceptic is full of humble joy in salvation, of deep love for the Saviour.

Another French Roman Catholic apologist, P.D. Huet (1630-1721)--within the conditions of his age a prodigy of learning (in apologetics see his _Demonstratio Evangelica_)--is not uninfluenced by Pascal (_Traite de la faiblesse de l'esprit humaine_).

As we might expect, Protestant lands are more busily occupied with apologetics. Intolerant reliance upon _force_ presents greater difficulties to them; soon it grows quite obsolete. Benedict Spinoza, the eminent Jewish pantheist (1632-1677), to whom miracle is impossible, revelation a phrase, and who renews pioneer work in Old Testament criticism, finds at least a fair measure of liberty and comfort in Holland (his birth-land). Bayle, the historical sceptic, lectured and published his learned _Dictionnaire_ (1696) at Rotterdam. From Holland, earlier, had proceeded an apologetic work by a man of European fame. Hugo Grotius's _De Veritate Christianae Religionis_ (1627) is partly the medieval tradition:--Oppose Mahommedans and Jews! It is partly practical:--Arm Christian sailors against religious danger! But in its cool spirit it forecasts the coming age, whose master is John Locke. His _Reasonableness of Christianity_ (1695) is the thesis of "a whole century" of theologians. And his _Essay on the Human Understanding_ (1690) is almost a Bible to men of education during the same period; its lightest word treasured. Locke does not break with the compromise of Aquinas. But he transfers attention from _contents_ to _proof_. Reason proves that a revelation has been made-and then submits. Leibnitz has to supplement rather than correct Locke on this point.

In such an atmosphere, deism readily uttered its protest against mysterious revelation. Deism is, in fact, the Thomist natural theology (more clearly distinguished from dogmatic theology than in the middle ages, alike by Protestants and by the post-Tridentine Church of Rome) now dissolving partnership with dogmatic and starting in business for itself. Or it is the doctrine of unfallen man's "natural state"--a doctrine intensified in Protestantism--separating itself from the theologians' grave doctrine of sin. If Socinianism had challenged natural theology--Christ, according to it, was the prophet who first revealed the way to eternal life--it had glorified the natural powers of man; and the learning of the Arminian divines (friends of Grotius and Locke) had helped to modernize Christian apologetics upon rational lines. Deism now taught that reason, or "the light of nature," was all-sufficient.

Not to dwell upon earlier continental "Deists" (mentioned by Viret as quoted first in Bayle's _Dictionary_ and again in the introduction to Leland's _View of the Deistical Writers_), Lord Herbert of Cherbury (_De Veritate_, 1624; _De Religione Gentilium_, 1645?--according to J.G. Walch's _Bibliotheca Theologica_ (1757) not published complete until 1663) was universally understood as hinting conclusions hostile to Christianity (cf. also T. Hobbes, _Leviathan_, 1651, ch. xxxi.; Spinoza, _Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_, 1670, ch. xiv.). Professedly, Herbert's contention merely is that non-Christians feeling after the "supreme God" and the law of righteousness must have a chance of salvation. Herbert was also epoch-making for the whole 18th century in teaching that _priests_ had _corrupted_ this primitive faith. During the 18th century deism spread widely, though its leaders were "irrepressible men like Toland, men of mediocre culture and ability like Anthony Collins, vulgar men like Chubb, irritated and disagreeable men like Matthew Tindal, who conformed that he might enjoy his Oxford fellowship and wrote anonymously that he might relieve his conscience" (A.M. Fairbairn). More distinguished sympathizers are Edward Gibbon, who has the deistic spirit, and David Hume, the historian and philosophical sceptic, who has at least the letter of the deistic creed (_Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion_), and who uses Pascal's appeal to "faith" in a spirit of mockery (_Essay on Miracles_). In France the new school found powerful speaking-trumpets, especially Voltaire, the idol of his age--a great denier and scoffer, but always sincerely a believer in the God of reason--and the deeper but wilder spirit of J.J. Rousseau. Others in France developed still more startling conclusions from Locke's principles, E.B. Condillac's sensationalism--Locke's philosophy purged of its more ideal if less logical elements--leading on to materialism in J.O. de la Mettrie; and at least one of the Encyclopedists (P.H. von Holbach) capped materialism with confessed atheism.

In Germany the parallel movement of "illumination" (H.S. Reimarus; J.S. Semler, pioneer in N.T. criticism; and a layman, the great Lessing) took the form of "rationalism" within the church--interpreting Bible texts by main force in a way which the age thought "enlightened" (H.E.G. Paulus, 1761-1851, &c.).

Among the innumerable English anti-deistic writers (see W. Law, The _Case of Reason_; R. Bentley, or "Phileleutherus Lipsiensis"; &c., &c.), three are of chief importance. Nathaniel Lardner (Arian, 1684-1768) stands in the front rank of the scholarship of his time, and uses his vast knowledge to maintain the genuineness of all books of the New Testament and the perfect accuracy of its history. Joseph Butler, a very original, careful and honest thinker, lifts controversy with deists from details to principles in his _Analogy of Religion both Natural and Revealed to the Constitution and Course of Nature_ (1736). This title introduces us to a new conception. Deists and orthodox in those days agreed in recognizing not merely natural theology but natural religion--"essential religion," Butler more than once styles it; the expression shows how near he stood intellectually to those he criticized. But morally he stood aloof. In