A General Introduction to Fundamental Theology

§ I. Definition and Object of Fundamental Theology

1. Definition.—Fundamental Theology, also called Apologetics, or General Dogmatic Theology, or Demonstratio Christiana et Catholica,¹1The word apologia (ἀπολογία) means defense, justification, in word and writing. From it is derived ἀπολογητική, i. e., ἐπιστήμη, apologetics, i. e., strictly speaking, “the science of the defense of the faith,” which appellation, however, is apt to give a one-sided and therefore incorrect idea of the nature of apologetics. Apologia has the general meaning of defense (cfr. Newman’s Apologia pro Vita Sua), and the apology of the Christian religion is merely a particular species of defense. is that branch of theological science which has for its object the demonstration and defense of the Catholic religion from the standpoint of reason and supernatural revelation.

Fundamental Theology is a science, i. e., a systematically arranged series of organically connected and objectively established theses. It became a science in this sense only in the seventeenth century. The efforts which were made before that time to demonstrate and defend the Christian religion, did not succeed in bringing into being a special science, either because they were conceived from a purely theological point of view and consequently had nothing to distinguish them from dogmatic treatises except their subject-matter, or because they neglected to deal with some of the questions which properly belong to our science.²2Cfr. C. Gutberlet, Lehrbuch der Apologetik, Vol. I, 4th ed., p. 3, Münster i. W., 1914; Ign. Ottiger, S.J., Theologia Fundamentalis, Vol. I, p. 1, Freiburg i. B., 1897.

Fundamental Theology as a science owes its existence, however, to the attacks that were made from the earliest times against the underlying foundations of Christianity (which are mainly three, to wit, natural religion, revelation, and the Church), and to the replies which these attacks evoked. It was from these “apologetics” that the science of Apologetics was later developed.

2. Object of Fundamental Theology.—For its material object this science has the religious foundations of the Catholic faith. We say, the religious foundations, in order to exclude those remoter postulates of faith (the existence of God, the spirituality and immortality of the human soul, free will, the moral law of nature) which are commonly called praeambula fidei and treated with considerable detail in our manuals of Scholastic philosophy, thus leaving for Fundamental Theology only those essential truths which stand in a closer connection with the Catholic faith, namely, natural religion, supernatural revelation, and the Church of Christ.³3Fr. Brunsmann is devoting a special volume of his Lehrbuch to these praeambula fidei, which will, however, not appear as a part of this Handbook of Fundamental Theology, since the subject does not strictly belong to Fundamental Theology, but which we are willing, Deo volente, to adapt into English if there is a sufficient demand for such a work.—A. P.

The object of Fundamental Theology is more closely determined by the phrase, “from the standpoint of reason and supernatural revelation.” This phrase clearly describes the formal object of our science, i. e., the aspect under which Fundamental Theology considers the foundations of the faith. Until it has demonstrated the existence of a supernatural revelation, Fundamental Theology is guided solely by the principles of reason; but after it has established the existence of revelation and the infallibility of the Church, it appeals also to these truths in order to solidify the Catholic position on every side.

What we have just said explains the relation of Fundamental Theology to philosophy on the one hand, and to dogmatic theology on the other. In its initial portions, Fundamental Theology is a purely rational science, partly historical and partly philosophical in character. In its concluding portions, however, it must be counted as one of the theological disciplines, for it draws on supernatural revelation as a principal source, though only in so far as is necessary to determine the nature of the Church and to establish the conformity of faith with reason.⁴4Cfr. Chr. Pesch, S.J., Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Vol. I, 5th ed., n. 70, Freiburg, 1915; Ottiger, Theol. Fund., Vol. I, pp. 12 sqq. Father Brunsmann here seems to straddle two alternatives. To consider these truths under the light of revelation is a legitimate procedure indeed, but this automatically incorporates such parts into theology proper. The entire subject-matter can be considered in this way, as Garrigou-Lagrange does in his able work. The restriction to evidence of the natural order is necessary if Apologetics is to be considered as a science distinct from theology proper. The matter has been argued out by Bainvel, Gardeil, Poulpiquet, and others.

The purpose of Fundamental Theology is expressed in our definition by the words demonstrate and defend. To demonstrate the foundations of the Christian religion is the main and a positive task; to defend these foundations against attack is a supplementary task of a rather negative kind.

§ II. Division of Fundamental Theology

The ratio divisionis of our science is furnished by its object, namely, the foundations of the faith. Fundamental Theology must demonstrate with scientific accuracy that the religion which is embodied in the Catholic Church is based on divine supernatural revelation and that, consequently, the belief which the Church demands in the revealed truths which she proposes, can be fully justified before the tribunal of reason.

Therefore, Fundamental Theology in Part I deals with the nature, necessity, and origin of natural religion and shows that the duty of practicing religion is deeply rooted in human nature and that man cannot attain his last end and destiny, namely, the perfection of his nature, without the aid of religion.

Part II vindicates the nature, possibility, necessity, and knowability of supernatural revelation, and demonstrates its actual existence. Then the obligation to accept revealed truth is shown to flow from the very essence of natural religion, which demands complete submission of the intellect and will to the ordinances and commandments of God.

Part III demonstrates that Jesus Christ founded a church, and that the Catholic Church alone has the properties and marks which identify that foundation. Thus the Catholic Church appears as the legitimate organ of supernatural revelation, and all who wish to be saved must believe with divine faith in that revelation as set forth by her.

Since the first part of Fundamental Theology demonstrates the existence of a religious obligation, the second the truth of the Christian religion, and the third the claims of the Catholic Church, they are sometimes called, respectively, Demonstratio Religiosa, Demonstratio Christiana, and Demonstratio Catholica.

§ III. Necessity and Importance of Fundamental Theology

1. Fundamental Theology or Apologetics is necessary for the rational demonstration of the Christian religion. This proposition can be proved as follows: Belief in supernatural revelation is not rational unless the credibility of that revelation has been demonstrated with sufficient evidence. Before we can make an act of faith in divine revelation, we must be certain that such a revelation has actually taken place. Fundamental Theology presents in scientific form solid and convincing proofs of this fact, the acceptance of which is a necessary condition of real faith.⁵5Cfr. A. Schill-Straubinger, Theologische Prinzipienlehre, 5th ed., pp. 6 sqq., Paderborn, 1923.

Of course, in saying this we do not mean to assert that the act of faith is a necessary sequel from the arguments adduced by this science. Such an assertion would be compatible neither with the supernatural character nor with the liberty of faith, as will be shown in the final volume of this Handbook.

2. Fundamental Theology is necessary also for theological science. Every science which offers to furnish certain knowledge presupposes a firm grounding of its object (both formal and material). The theological sciences deal with supernaturally revealed truths and postulate revelation as a historically demonstrated fact. Now, it is the task of Fundamental Theology to furnish scientific evidence for the existence of supernatural revelation, and consequently, the other theological disciplines receive their adequate grounding from this science.⁶6Cfr. Jos. Kleutgen, S.J., Theologie der Vorzeit, Vol. IV, 2nd ed., n. 165 sqq., Münster i. W., 1873.

3. Fundamental Theology is particularly necessary amid present-day conditions. The enemies of the Catholic Church are now directing their attacks against the basic principles of religion, and hence these basic principles must be defended in a scientific manner.

It is not so much particular dogmas that are being assailed to-day, as the foundations of the faith itself, to wit, the reality of revelation, nay, the very existence of the supernatural order. The question which if any of the so-called Christian denominations is in possession of the revealed truth, has been relegated to the background by another, namely, Was Christ really and truly the Son of God and are His teachings divine? or is Christianity merely a phase of the natural development of religion? Either faith or complete unbelief is the alternative. Whoever wishes to be consistent must either join the Catholic Church, which alone can justify its teaching before the tribunal of reason, or reject the whole supernatural order.⁷7H. Hurter, S.J., Theologia Generalis, 4th ed., p. 9, Innsbruck, 1903.—A typical example of the “Credo” of infidels see apud V. Cathrein, S.J., Glauben und Wissen, pp. 112 sqq., Freiburg, 1911.

A recent writer⁸8A. von Schmid, Apologetik, Freiburg, 1900, p. 108. justly says: “The development of Apologetics as an independent discipline appears to be demanded by the interests of the modern age, for the supernatural principle which moves the world must be conceived, safeguarded, and appreciated not only here and there, obiter and incidentally, but independently, in its totality and full significance, in view of the modern tendency to obliterate this principle consciously and consistently from science and education, both higher and lower, from art, politics, society, and family life.”⁹9Cfr. Chas. F. Aiken, s. v. “Apologetics” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. I, pp. 618 sqq.; P. Schanz, Die moderne Apologetik, Hamm i. W., 1903, pp. 4 sqq.

4. The knowledge of Fundamental Theology is not necessary in an equal degree for all Catholics. The pastor of souls must be well grounded in this science in order to set forth his religious teaching convincingly and to instruct the faithful so that they will be able to give an account of their religious convictions when they are questioned. For the ordinary layman, however, this theological discipline is not a strict necessity; nay, as a rule he is not even in a position, for lack of proper training, to employ its arguments effectively.

Generally speaking, the mixed method, which appeals partly to authority and partly to reason, is the only feasible one, and entirely sufficient where the faith is supported by adequate training and tradition.¹⁰10Cfr. A. von Schmid, Apologetik, p. 109. Cultured Catholics, of course, should endeavor to acquire a deeper and more scientific knowledge of their faith, so that they may understand it better and be able to defend it more effectively when it is attacked.

§ IV. The Method of Fundamental Theology

1. The Traditional Method.—a) By the method of Fundamental Theology we mean the manner in which this science demonstrates the fundamental truths of religion.

The traditional method is primarily historical and philosophical. It begins by ascertaining the historical facts of religion and revelation and then proceeds to prove the necessity and universality of natural religion and the possibility, necessity, demonstrability, and existence of supernatural, divine revelation.

After these truths are fully established, the method becomes prevailingly theological, demonstrating the nature of the Church and of faith by means of revelation itself, though the employment of historical and philosophical arguments is not by any means excluded.

b) The application of this twofold method makes it necessary to prescind, at least theoretically, from the Catholic point of view. This does not, of course, mean that we suspend our faith, but is merely a methodical device calculated to render the demonstration clearer and more convincing. This modus procedendi, by subjecting the faith of the convinced Catholic to a searching analysis, raises it to the rank of a clear and scientifically founded conviction, while it demands nothing of the truth-seeking inquirer but that he follow the dictates of his reason and conscience.¹¹11Cfr. S. Weber, “Die Grenzen des apologetischen Beweises in der Lehre von der Kirche,” in the Katholik, Mayence, 1910, pp. 1 sqq.; K. A. Kneller, S.J., “Kritische Schwierigkeiten in der Apologetik,” in the Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, 1910, pp. 486 sqq.; A. W. Hunzinger, Problem und Aufgabe der gegenwärtigen systematischen Theologie, Leipsic, 1909; A. de Poulpiquet, “Apologétique et Théologie,” in the Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques, 1911, pp. 708 sqq.; T. J. Walshe, The Principles of Christian Apologetics, London, 1919; J. P. Steffes, “Die Bedeutung der Religionspsychologie für die Apologetik,” in Theologie und Glaube, Paderborn, 1919, pp. 25–33; R. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., “L’Apologétique et la Théologie Fondamentale,” in Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques, 1920, pp. 352–359.

Merely for the purpose of orientation and comparison, not as an argument, we shall briefly state at the very outset the declarations of the ecclesiastical teaching office touching upon the truths here under consideration and which embody articles of faith.

2. Some Modern Methods.¹²12Cfr. P. von Schanz, Neue Versuche der Apologetik, Ratisbon, 1897, pp. 63 sqq.; Chr. Pesch, S.J., Theologische Zeitfragen, Freiburg i. B., 1900, Vol. I, pp. 86 sqq.; Le Bachelet, L’Apologétique Traditionelle et l’Apologétique Moderne; Paris, 1900.—Besides the traditional method explained above there are some newer methods employed by various modern writers on Fundamental Theology.

A. The Empirical Method.—This method owes its existence to the fact that many prominent savants, puffed up with pride over the accomplishments of natural science, have proclaimed an irreconcilable antagonism between faith and knowledge. The description of certain natural phenomena given by Holy Scripture, they assert, cannot be harmonized with the results of modern science. The Catholic faith represents an obsolete and antiquated world-view, which may have satisfied medieval believers, but is apt to repel modern inquirers. From these assertions certain Catholic apologists have deduced the necessity of employing the empirical method and starting from the standpoint of natural science in defending the faith. In their opinion the task of Fundamental Theology is to show that the ascertained results of science in no wise conflict with Sacred Scripture. The champions of this method maintain that it is fully justified by tradition, inasmuch as the principle that natural science and religious faith cannot contradict each other and the certain conclusions of the former must be duly considered in interpreting the corresponding portions of Holy Writ, has always had theoretical defenders and has been practically employed in the Catholic Church since the early days. This principle, they say, was held by the Fathers and Scholastics,¹³13A. Schöpfer, Bibel und Wissenschaft, Brixen, 1896, pp. 40 sqq. by the founders of the Copernican world system, and by the most prominent workers in all departments of natural science,¹⁴14K. A. Kneller, S.J., Das Christentum und die Vertreter der neueren Naturwissenschaft, 3rd ed., Freiburg i. B., 1912; English translation by T. M. Kettle, under the title, Christianity and the Leaders of Modern Science: A Contribution to the History of Culture in the Nineteenth Century, with Preface by T. A. Findlay, S.J., Freiburg and St. Louis, 1911; E. Dennert, Die Religion der Naturforscher, 7th ed., Berlin, 1908; M. J. Scott, S.J., The Credentials of Christianity, New York, 1920, pp. 213 sqq. and it has lately been reaffirmed with special emphasis by Pope Leo XIII.¹⁵15Encyclical “Providentissimus Deus,” of Nov. 18, 1893; cfr. A. Schöpfer, Bibel und Wissenschaft, pp. 20 sqq.

Criticism.—It is quite true that some of the questions involved in the relation of God and man to the world cannot be solved satisfactorily without regard to natural science. But these questions are beyond the scope of Fundamental Theology and are more properly dealt with in Dogmatic Theology and Biblical Introduction. It would certainly be a mistake to make the points of contact between faith and natural science the chief object of Fundamental Theology. To do so would mean to harmonize faith and knowledge without regard to the question whether faith has a sufficient foundation in reason. To demonstrate that it has such a foundation always was and still is the first and foremost task of this science. Hence it is not correct to say, as F. Duilhé de Saint-Projet does,¹⁶16Apologie Scientifique de la Foi Chrétienne, 5th ed., Paris, 1899. that Apologetics or Fundamental Theology to-day must concern itself first of all with natural science. This objection is purely negative. The essential point, the existence of revelation, would still remain to be proved.

B. The Historical Method.—This method is based on the fact that supernatural revelation made its appearance in the world as a historical phenomenon. Both in the Old and in the New Testament divine revelation is intimately bound up with human conditions and exerts a profound and lasting influence on the development of the race. This historical character of revelation, in the opinion of some writers, constitutes the point of view from which the supernatural origin of Christianity can be most effectively demonstrated. Now-a-days nothing is more strongly emphasized in the study of historical facts than their many-sided inter-relations with similar phenomena and the influence exerted by outside factors on their origin and development. According to the Abbé De Broglie, founder of the historical method in apologetics,¹⁷17A. Th. P. De Broglie, Problèmes et Conclusions de l’Histoire des Religions, Paris, 1885; IDEM, Religion et Critique, Paris, 1898. the demonstration of the divine origin of Christianity should begin with a historical exposition of all the religions known among civilized nations and furnish convincing proof that Christianity surpasses all its rivals, not only in degree, but also in essence, and consequently cannot possibly owe its existence to a purely human cause. After thus excluding the hypothesis of the natural origin of Christianity, the apologist, according to Broglie, should employ the positive criteria of supernatural revelation, especially prophecies and miracles, to show that Christianity can truly claim a supernatural origin.

Criticism.—The historical method deserves to be highly regarded at the present time, when the desire to trace all phenomena back to their causes plays such an important rôle in every sphere of human knowledge. Its application to Fundamental Theology will prove particularly fruitful if we do not content ourselves with the simple collocation of facts and testimonials, but endeavor to trace the causal connections in the religious development of humanity. However, it would be a mistake to relinquish the time-honored historico-philosophical and adopt the purely historical method. It cannot be the primary task of Fundamental Theology to refute the errors of unbelievers, but its principal aim must ever be to give the believing Christian a rational grounding in his faith. To set forth the foundations of the Catholic religion in a manner which will appeal to its opponents, is indeed also a task of this science; but it is of secondary importance, and in accomplishing it, any method that serves the purpose may be made use of. But the rule must be not to build the walls before the foundation has been securely laid.¹⁸18What is said in the text applies also to the labors of the missionary in pagan countries. He has to deal with men who have not yet got the faith and must, therefore, begin by studying the customs and morals, the views and religious practices of the natives, in which he will, as a rule, find quite a few points of contact with the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Msgr. A. Le Roy well says on this point (Anthropos, Vienna, 1906, I, 4): “In order to attain this aim [namely, to convert the primitives], it is necessary for the missionary,—and particularly for the superior of a mission,—to map out a plan of campaign, based on a careful study of the country and its inhabitants, their customs, laws, religious beliefs, languages, etc. This study is not something foreign to the accomplishment of the missionary’s work; it is rather a necessity, and the better he is acquainted with the environment in which he has to work, the less likely will he be to make mistakes, the more will his human chances of success be multiplied.”

C. The Psychologico-Moral Method.—This method is based upon the belief that since religion exercises its influence more in the domain of the will than in the sphere of the intellect, the principal task of Apologetics is to penetrate, influence, and govern the will, and the truth and necessity of supernaturally revealed religion must be capable of being demonstrated from the conduct of its adherents. The advocates of this method further argue that once supernatural revelation is established as the necessary foundation of religion in private life as well as in society, it will not be difficult to persuade men of good will to accept it. It is, they assert, not so much belief in the revealed truths of Christianity as the observance of the moral law of nature that constitutes the main difficulty for non-believers.¹⁹19A. M. Weiss, O. P., Apologie des Christentums, Vol. I, 4th ed., pp. 87 sqq., Freiburg, 1905. Apologists must keep this object steadily in view, and must take special pains to show the value of the Christian religion from this standpoint.

The moral method has two distinct forms. Léon Ollé-Laprune²⁰20Prix de la Vie, 6th ed., Paris, 1899. and his followers begin with a detailed examination of the intellectual, moral, and social needs of human nature, and then proceed to show that all these needs are most adequately satisfied by the Christian religion as embodied in the Catholic Church. Therefore, whoever wishes to develop his rational nature to the full, must become a practical Catholic.

Criticism.—The writers of this school justly stress the value of religion as a moral factor in life, but they are one-sided in devoting their attention almost exclusively to its practice. Religion must be firmly founded on reason in order to create a sufficiently strong intellectual conviction. This aspect of the matter is not sufficiently recognized by Ollé-Laprune and his school, and hence their work is one-sided and defective. Whilst their method may be a practical and justifiable procedure in a given case, it is not a sound method of dealing with the subject as a science.

D. M. Blondel’s Theory of Immanence.—Maurice Blondel²¹21Annales de Philosophie Chrétienne, 1896; IDEM, Lettre sur les Exigences de la Pensée Contemporaine en Matière d’Apologétique, Paris, 1896. holds that the idea of immanence plays an important rôle in modern thought, and therefore must be duly considered in explaining and defending the faith. In its ultimate analysis every object and every phenomenon, no matter what its origin, is autonomous and autochthonous, and possesses truth and importance for the mind only in so far as it has been produced by the mind. The Christian, however, must regard the supernatural as something which cannot be produced by the human intellect, but is imposed on that intellect from without, yet commands assent and obedience as a strict duty. How is this opposition to be overcome? Blondel answers: The desire for the supernatural is rooted in nature. Man, in striving to realize within himself the ideal of humanity, soon feels his impotence. His conscience tells him what he must do to attain that ideal, whereas his consciousness assures him that he cannot achieve it by his own power. This realization of weakness gives rise to an ardent desire for redemption, i. e., for some external help by means of which human impotence may become potent. Christianity meets this desire for the transcendental by offering man a supernatural revelation and the means necessary for attaining salvation. Thus autonomy leads of necessity to heteronomy. Immanent thought and feeling show what man needs, and transcendental Christianity adequately meets the need.

Criticism.—M. Blondel’s method is useless for the following reasons:

a) It rests upon the philosophical assumptions of Kantism, which are untenable because they render knowledge of the outside world impossible and deprive the concept of law of its ethical character.

b) It offers no evidence for the existence of a supernatural revelation and gives no indication of the form which that revelation may be expected to take.

c) It arbitrarily assumes that the assistance which we expect from God because of our weakness must needs be supernatural. The supernatural, it is true, perfects nature, but it does not constitute its necessary complement. God could conceivably enable us to keep the moral law by purely natural means. That we are created for a supernatural end, i. e., the immediate possession of God through knowledge and volition, and that we need supernatural assistance to attain this end, is a truth which cannot possibly be deduced from the natural necessities of our moral life.²²22A good criticism of “Immanence” in Tanquerey’s Synopsis Theologiæ Dogmaticæ, Vol. I, pp. 56–63 (20th ed., Paris, 1925).

E. “Americanism.”—The modern tendencies which Leo XIII condemned under the generic term “Americanism” cannot claim to be a new method of Apologetics, because they are based on postulates which openly contradict Catholic teaching. The champions of this movement demand that the Church, in order to facilitate the conversion of non-Catholics, should relax her traditional strictness and abolish, or at least dilute certain of her doctrines so that they assume a different meaning than that which they had in the past. “Americanism” was formally condemned by Leo XIII in his famous Brief “Testem Benevolentiæ,” 22 Jan., 1899.²³23A. Egger, Katholizismus im 20. Jahrhundert, 3rd ed., pp. 82 sqq., Freiburg i. B., 1902; Leo XIII’s Brief “Testem Benevolentiae” to Cardinal Gibbons, quoted in Denzinger-Bannwart’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, Definitionum, et Declarationum, 14th and 15th ed., by J. B. Umberg, S.J., Freiburg, 1922, n. 1967 sqq.; Chs. Maignen, Le Père Hecker est-il un Saint, Rome, 1896; A. J. Delattre, S.J., Un Catholicisme Américain, Namur, 1898; Américanisme: une Planche de Salut, Paris, 1898; G. Péries, La Liquidation du Consortium “Américaniste,” Paris, 1899 (contains the full text of the Brief “Testem Benevolentiae,” pp. 67–77); H. Delassus, L’Américanisme et la Conjuration anti-Chrétienne, Lille, 1899.

F. Modernism.—Modernism arose almost simultaneously in France, Italy, and England (A. Loisy, Ed. Le Roy, G. Bartoli, A. Fogazzaro, G. Tyrrell). Its avowed object was to adapt the Catholic religion to the intellectual, moral, and social needs of the present age, and to that extent Modernism may be regarded as the successor of “Americanism” and of the New Apologetic. Philosophically it is partly based on the Agnosticism of Kant, Huxley, and Spencer, which regards the supra-sensible world as unknowable, and partly on the Pragmatism of William James, which would substitute practical utility for truth. Theologically, Modernism leans to the ultra-Protestant conception of religion, exegesis, and history of dogmas as propagated by Ritschl, Sabatier, Harnack, and other recent writers of the so-called “Liberal” school.

Modernism teaches that human knowledge is limited to external phenomena; the human intellect cannot penetrate to the essences of things (noumena), and hence man can know nothing about God and the supernatural. Yet he keenly feels the need of union with God. This need usually lies hidden in the subconscious mind, but not infrequently it crosses the threshold of the conscious mind in the form of an emotional experience of the Absolute. This experience, according to the Modernists, is divine revelation on the part of God and postulates divine faith on the part of man. There is no other revelation and no other faith. Man’s whole religious life begins and ends within his own soul. This is what is meant by religious immanentism. When the reflecting mind forms a concept of the Absolute as manifested in the emotions, man has the idea of God, which is raised to the rank of a dogma by the authority of the Church. A dogma is true only in so far as it correctly represents the religious experience of the individual, and its value for others consists in this, that it may serve to awaken similar religious aspirations in their hearts. No dogma has received a definitive formulation, but as religious development advances, the different dogmas are cast into new forms, which may and do differ essentially from those handed down by the Church.

This congeries of heresies is utterly subversive of the traditional Catholic teaching and was, therefore, justly condemned by Pius X in the decree “Lamentabili” and the so-called New Syllabus (1907).²⁴24Decree “Lamentabili,” of July 3, 1907 (Denzinger-Bannwart-Umberg, n. 2001 sqq.); F. Heiner, Der neue Syllabus Pius X., Mayence, 1907; Encyclical “Pascendi,” Sept. 7, 1907 (Denzinger-Bannwart-Umberg, n. 2071 sqq.); Chr. Pesch, S.J., Glaube, Dogmen und geschichtliche Tatsachen, Freiburg, 1908; A. Gisler, Der Modernismus, 4th ed., Einsiedeln, 1913, pp. 301 sqq.; A. Vermeersch, S.J., art. “Modernism” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. X, pp. 415-421; J. Lebreton, L’Encyclique et la Théologie Moderniste, Paris, 1908; T. J. Walshe, The Principles of Catholic Apologetics: A Study of Modernism Based Chiefly on the Lectures of Père Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., De Revelatione per Ecclesiam Catholicam Proposita, London, 1926; Jos. Hontheim, S.J., Theodicea, Freiburg, 1926, pp. 40–52; J. V. Bainvel, S.J., De Vera Religione, Paris, 1914, pp. 39 sqq.; C.S.B., Modernism, What It Is and Why It Was Condemned, London, 1908; A. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiæ Dogmaticæ, 20th ed., Paris, 1925, pp. 702–711.

§ V. The Development of Fundamental Theology²⁵25This is not intended to be an exhaustive account, but merely a rapid survey. For more detailed information the student is referred to K. Werner, Geschichte der apologetischen und polemischen Literatur der christlichen Theologie, 5 vols., Schaffhausen, 1861–67; A. Langhorst, S.J., “Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Apologetik,” in the Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, Vols. XVIII, XIX, and XX (1880–81); P. von Schanz, Apologie des Christentums, Vol. I, 4th ed., Freiburg i. B., 1910; O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, Freiburg, Vol. I, 2nd ed., 1913; Vol. II, 2nd ed., 1914; Vol. III, 1912; A. von Schmid, Apologetik, Freiburg, 1900, with a good bibliography; Chas. F. Aiken, article “Apologetics” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. I, pp. 618 sqq.; A. N. Bellwald, S.M., article “Apologetics” in Universal Knowledge, Vol. I, cc. 1045–1063, New York, 1927; Ign. Ottiger, S.J., Theologia Fundamentalis, Vol. I, pp. 24–34; F. Hettinger, Fundamentaltheologie, pp. 31–42; J. V. Bainvel, S.J., De Vera Religione, Paris, 1914, pp. 3 sqq.; A. E. Dorsch, S.J., Inst. Theol. Fund., Vol. I, Innsbruck, 1916, pp. 79 sqq.; L. Maisonneuve, article “Apologétique—Histoire” in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, Vol. I, Paris, 1924, cols. 1533–80; X. M. Le Bachelet, S.J., article “Apologétique—Apologie” in Dict. Apologétique de la Foi Catholique, Paris 1914, Vol. I, cols. 189–225; Pullan, L. (Prot.), Religion since the Reformation, Oxford, 1923 (Bampton Lectures, 1922); F. W. Macran (Prot.), English Apologetic Theology, London, 1905.

The history of Fundamental Theology may be divided into three periods.

The First Period (1st to 8th century) was devoted to the defense of Christianity against the ancient world-view, as represented on the one hand by Judaism, and by Paganism on the other.

The Second Period (8th to 15th century) was essentially one of conflict waged by Christianity against the Arabian philosophers and the Humanists, who tried to counterfeit the teaching of the Church.

The Third Period (15th to 20th century) was characterized by the Church’s warfare against the Protestant Reformation and against Deism, Materialism, and Rationalism, which followed in the wake of that unfortunate movement.

1. First Period (1st to 8th Century)

A. The Beginnings.—The aged Simeon foretold that the Founder of Christianity would be “a sign which shall be contradicted.”²⁶26Luke II, 34. Christ’s life and work bore out this prophecy. The Person of the crucified Redeemer was “a stumbling-block unto the Jews and foolishness unto the Gentiles.”²⁷271 Cor. I, 23. His teaching as well as the Church which He established became objects of violent attack even before His Ascension. For this reason Christ in preaching His doctrine at the same time demonstrated its divine origin and defended it against the attacks of His enemies.²⁸28Matt. XI, 5; John X, 38. The Apostles followed the example of their Divine Master and made the demonstration of His mission and the defense of His Person, doctrine, and work their chief concern. Thus St. Paul cites the Resurrection of Christ as an argument for his own belief and preaching,²⁹291 Cor. XV, 14 sqq. and St. Peter urges his followers to be “ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.”³⁰301 Pet. III, 15.

The need for an effective defense of Christianity became more urgent in the post-Apostolic period, when the Church was attacked not merely in word and writing, but by brute force. At this juncture there arose men who made the demonstration and defense of the Christian religion their life-work. They not only preached and debated, but prepared written apologies, which, while differing greatly from one another in form and content, all served the one purpose of proving and defending the truths of revelation and establishing the historical facts connected therewith.³¹31Cfr. Schill-Straubinger, Theol. Prinzipienlehre, 5th ed., pp. 1 sq., Paderborn, 1923.

Here we have the beginning of the scientific defense of Christianity, out of which in course of time grew the science of Apologetics, as the rational basis of Christian theology. The first apologists of the Christian religion defended only those truths which were attacked by their opponents, without regard to the doctrinal system of the Church as a whole. Though they conducted their defense mainly in a negative way, their writings contain many elements for a positive demonstration of Christian faith and theology.

B. Christianity in Conflict with Judaism.—The Mosaic Dispensation was destined by Divine Providence to prepare humanity for the Christian Church and to be finally absorbed by the latter as its higher fulfilment. The Jews resisted this plan because they misconceived their true vocation and interpreted the utterances of their prophets concerning Christ and His Kingdom in a narrow, nationalistic sense.

There could be no controversy between Jews and Christians with respect to the Messianic implications of the Old Testament prophecies, but there was room for dispute regarding the question whether Jesus of Nazareth was the man in whom these predictions were fulfilled and whether the Christian concept of the Messias was compatible with the Old Testament.

The most ancient and detailed discussion that has come down to us of this and similar questions is contained in St. Justin Martyr’S Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon.³²32Migne, P. G., VI, 471 sqq.; Justin, Dialogue avec Tryphon, Texte Grec, Traduction Française, Introduction, Notes et Index par Georges Archambault (Textes et Documents pour l’Étude Historique du Christianisme, Vol. 8 & 11), Paris 1909; Goodspeed, Die ältesten Apologeten, pp. 90–265 Leipzig, 1915. This work,³³33Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, Freiburg and St. Louis, 1908, pp. 51 sq.; a fuller account in O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 206 sqq., Freiburg, 1913; J. Tixeront, A Handbook of Patrology, St. Louis, 1920, pp. 38 sq. composed about the middle of the second century (150–155), sums up a disputation held at Ephesus between Justin and a learned rabbi. The introduction (ch. 1–9) describes the genesis of Justin’s philosophical and religious opinions. In the first part (chapters 10–47) he proves from the Old Testament that the law of Moses has been abrogated in favor of the law of Christ. In the second part (chapters 48–108) he shows from the Old Testament prophecies that the worship given to Jesus does not conflict with the fundamental doctrine of Monotheism. In the third part (chapters 109–141) he proves that the true Chosen People are those who have accepted Christianity; they are the heirs of the Old Covenant and its promises.

Tertullian (died about 258) proves in his treatise Adversus Iudæos that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias because the prophecies of the Old Testament were fulfilled in Him.³⁴34Migne, P. L., II, 595 sqq.; Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 183.

Under the name of St. Cyprian (d. 258) the unknown writer of a work called Testimoniorum Libri adversus Iudæos³⁵35Ed. Hartel, P. III, 133 sqq. (Migne, P. L., IV, 675 sqq.); cfr. O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, Vol. II, 2nd ed., pp. 491 sqq.; Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 199. has collected a number of texts to show that the Old Testament expectations of the Messias were realized in Christ.³⁶36A. Langhorst, S.J., loc. cit. (note 25, supra), Vol. XVIII, 171.

C. Christianity in Conflict with Paganism.—To form a correct judgment of the relation of Christianity to paganism during the early Christian centuries it is necessary to study the circumstances of that time. Christianity’s right to exist was not yet generally admitted. The individual followers of the new cult were intensely hated as “contemners of the gods.” In consequence of the intimate connection that existed between the worship of the gods and the pagan State, the Christians were looked upon as enemies of the government, and, since the Romans identified their Empire with the whole human race, they held the followers of Jesus to be “enemies of humanity.” In the bloody persecutions that ensued, the Christians suffered patiently. They were not permitted to use violence in defending themselves, and therefore had to depend solely on intellectual weapons.

The early apologetes, who undertook the defense of Christianity in word and writing, were encouraged by the conduct of those among the Roman emperors who regarded it as their greatest glory to deserve the name of just, humane, and liberal rulers. They were chiefly: Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius (who loved to be called “The Philosopher”). To these rulers the first apologetes addressed their appeals on behalf of the Christian religion. St. Justin Martyr dedicated his First Apology to Antoninus Pius (138–161), to his adopted sons Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, to the Roman Senate, and to the entire people.³⁷37Migne, P. G., VI, 327 sqq.; Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 50. He appeals to their wisdom, love of truth, and humane sentiments, and reminds them of Plato’s saying that, “Unless princes and people are true philosophers, a nation cannot be happy.” He asks above all that the Christians be not punished merely because of their name, and shows how unfounded are the accusations raised against them. The Second Apology, addressed to the Senate, concludes with the wish: “May you pass a fair judgment, for your own sake, as it behooves pious men and philosophers.”

The first comprehensive and systematic defense of the Christian religion was undertaken by Eusebius Of Cæsarea (d. 340).³⁸38Migne, P. G., XXI and XXII, 13–794. In the first part of his Evangelical Preparation he demonstrates the incomparable superiority of Christianity to all the religious and philosophical systems of the heathen nations. In the second part he expounds the thesis that Christianity is the divine development of Judaism, and its truth can be shown from the prophetical books of the Old Testament.³⁹39Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 248; on the Greek apologists in general see A. Seitz, Die Apologie bei den Griechen des 4. und 5. Jahrhunderts in historisch-systematischer Darstellung, Würzburg, 1895.

The apologetical activity of the Fathers reached its climax in the De Civitate Dei of St. Augustine (d. 430). This famous and important treatise was composed between 413 and 426 and published piecemeal. It owed its origin to the renewal of the pagan accusations against the Christians. Thus, the responsibility for the sack of Rome by Alaric (410) was laid at the door of the latter. The overthrow of Polytheism, it was said, had irritated the gods, under whose protection the Eternal City had grown to be the mistress of the world. A Spanish priest, Orosius,⁴⁰40On Orosius and his writings see W. M. T. Gamble in P. Guilday’s Church Historians, New York, 1926, pp. 30–70, with a good bibliography. had written a historical refutation of this reproach at the instigation of St. Augustine. However, the latter was not satisfied with his friend’s Historiarum adversus Paganos Libri Septem,⁴¹41Migne, P. L., XXXI, 663–1174. but undertook to establish for all time the true relationship of Christianity to paganism. His view in the De Civitate Dei embraces not only the present, but also the past and the future; the whole course of history lies open before him, and from beginning to end he interprets it with great power and insight. His study rises to the dignity of a magnificent philosophy of history and towers “like an Alpine peak” above all the other apologies of Christian antiquity. In the first part (books 1 to 10) Augustine demonstrates the hollowness of Polytheism. The second part (books 11 to 22) is speculative and metaphysical. It deals with the two great kingdoms (civitates) in and through which the development of life and humanity goes on: the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world, which struggle with each other for the supremacy. The origin, development, and end of the two kingdoms reveal the instability of this world, whose main representative is paganism, and the divine truth of Christianity, in which the Kingdom of God finds its earthly consummation.

2. Second Period (8th to 15th Century)

A. Christianity in Conflict with the Arabic Philosophers.—Towards the end of the eighth century the power of paganism was broken throughout the greater portion of Europe. Christianity had triumphed, and, as a result, there was no longer such urgent need of apologetical writing as there had been in the earlier centuries. The Catholic philosophers and theologians of the Middle Ages devoted more time and attention to the doctrinal contents of Christian revelation. As a result, apologetical treatises grew scarce, and such as were composed were of no great importance. But during the Middle Ages, too, the Church had her enemies. The rôle of defeated paganism was taken over by Islam, and the Jews continued to attack Christianity, some of them with profound erudition.

The principal apologetic work of this period is the Summa contra Gentiles of St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274). Its later title, Summa Philosophica de Veritate Catholica contra Gentiles, sufficiently indicates its content, method, and purpose. The treatise was written at the instigation of St. Raymond of Peñaforte primarily as an aid to the missionaries working among the Moors in Spain. The motive which inspired St. Thomas in composing this work was to demonstrate the truth of Catholic theology by refuting the errors opposed to it. In performing this task he proceeded on the principle that those who will not admit arguments from authority must be convinced by arguments drawn from reason. Holy Scripture does not impress pagans and Mohammedans, and against the Jews one can argue only from the Old Testament.⁴²42Summa c. Gentiles, l. I, c. 2. St. Thomas does not proceed in a purely philosophical manner from the creature to the Creator, but follows the way of faith by descending from God to His creatures; he employs all the resources of medieval philosophy to establish his theses.⁴³43Op. cit. l. II, c. 4. The Summa contra Gentiles has been largely translated into English and furnished with valuable notes by Jos. Rickaby, S.J., under the title God and His Creatures, London, 1905.

The Summa contra Gentiles is divided into four books, of which the first three treat of the truths accessible to unaided human reason (the existence and nature of God, the origin and destiny of creatures), and consequently more readily admitted by those who deny supernatural revelation. The fourth book exhibits the principal dogmas of the Christian religion (the Trinity, the Incarnation, the supernatural end of man), and demonstrates them in the light of revelation.

The Summa contra Gentiles is characterized by an inexhaustible wealth of ideas, which are set before the reader in a clear and succinct style, with a wonderful depth and clarity of reasoning. A great modern theologian, M. J. Scheeben,⁴⁴44Dogmatik, Vol. I, p. 434, Freiburg, 1873. says that no other human treatise contains so great a wealth of ideas within such a small compass as the Summa contra Gentiles of St. Thomas, that classic work in which medieval Apologetics reached its highest speculative development.

B. Christianity in Conflict with Humanism.—The exaggerated esteem in which the Humanists of the Renaissance period held the literature and art of classical antiquity led to a one-sided and in some respects erroneous conception of the Christian religion. The revival of classical learning and the renascence of the Platonic philosophy resulted in a twofold opposition to Scholasticism. The Humanists not only condemned the harsh and barbarous Latin of the Schoolmen, but also strove to supplement their prevailing Aristotelianism by the idealistic philosophy of Plato. In the second half of the fifteenth century these movements produced some apologetical works which bore a distinct anti-Scholastic, nay, in some instances even an anti-Christian, stamp. Thus Marsilio Ficino (d. 1499) wrote a book, De Religione Christiana et Fidei Pietate (1478), in which more attention is devoted to the defense of the Platonic philosophy than to that of the Christian religion, and his gifted pupil, Pico Della Mirandola (d. 1494), lost his way in a maze of Neo-Platonic and Kabbalistic errors.⁴⁵45On these noted writers cfr. the respective articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

In the writings of the Humanists, especially of Pico, Christianity is represented as the revival of an ancient system of thought, which had been preserved in the books of the Old Testament, in the religions of the Orient, and particularly in the works of Plato and the Kabbala. It is the most perfect expression of the truths revealed by God to the human race in the early stages of its history, and which continued to live on among men, though periodically obscured by errors.

The endeavors of the Humanists to justify Christianity from the historical point of view marked a step forward in the development of the science of Apologetics. A more thorough and comprehensive study of various religions and a comparison of Christianity with other religious systems, especially those of the Orient, mark the first beginnings of the science of comparative religion.

The intended goal, it is true, was indicated rather than attained during the period with which we are dealing, for on the one hand, philological criticism was not yet sufficiently developed and too many Christian elements were carried into the pagan systems, while, on the other hand, the specific content of the Christian world-view was more or less evaporated.⁴⁶46Cfr. A. von Schmid, Apologetik, p. 34.

3. Third Period (15th to 20th Century)

A. Catholicism in Conflict with the Protestant Reformation.—Martin Luther, the father of the so-called Reformation, did not start out by proposing an entirely new system of religious doctrine, but at first contented himself with combating real or alleged disciplinary abuses within the Church. In course of time, however, he was led to oppose Catholic dogma and violently attacked the ecclesiastical magisterium; he ended by denying the existence of a divinely ordained ecclesiastical order and of a supernaturally constituted teaching authority.

The Catholic apologists of his day met him step by step, and in their defense of the doctrines impugned, employed the same method against the other “reformers” of the sixteenth century.

Distinct progress followed in the wake of the historical method, which made possible a more extended positive demonstration of the events connected with the establishment and growth of the Catholic Church. Protestantism could be effectively refuted only from the historical point of view and with arguments derived from Holy Scripture. As against the formal principle of the “Reformers” (“the Bible alone”) the Catholic apologists emphasized the importance of ecclesiastical tradition and the legitimacy and infallibility of the teaching office of the Church.

The tactics of the Protestant opposition led to a more complete development and a deepening of the Catholic doctrine concerning the Church. This was mostly achieved by means of controversial treatises and innumerable pamphlets.

The leading defender of Catholicism against Protestant aggression was Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, of the Society of Jesus, whose acute and comprehensive Disputationes de Controversiis Christianæ Fidei contra huius Temporis Hæreticos (1581) were written mainly from the point of view of Biblical exegesis.⁴⁷47On Bellarmine see the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, pp. 411–413.

Bellarmine’s learned contemporary, Cardinal Cesare Baronius, a priest of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri, tried to accomplish the same object historically by his Annales Ecclesiastici (1588–1607), in twelve massive volumes, directed against the “Magdeburg Centuriators,” a group of Lutheran scholars who, in a work entitled Ecclesiastica Historia … secundum Singulas Centurias (i. e., A History of the Church according to Centuries), had sought to destroy Catholicism with historical weapons.⁴⁸48Cfr. Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. III, p. 534 sq.; Ths. Plassmann, O.F.M., in P. Guilday, Church Historians, New York, 1926, pp. 153–189, with a bibliography.

Another epoch-making work on the Catholic side was the Loci Theologici of Bishop Melchior Cano, O.P., first published in 1562 and often reprinted. It deals with the (ten) sources or fountain-heads of theological knowledge and for the first time formally discusses the necessity of developing the almost exclusively speculative theology of the Middle Ages along more positive lines of Biblical exegesis and history, without in any way severing its connection with the older theology of the Patristic and early Scholastic periods.⁴⁹49On Cano and his famous Loci Theologici see the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. III, pp. 251 sq.; A. Lang, Die Loci Theologici des Melchior Cano, Munich, 1925.

The Huguenot Philip De Mornay deserves mention as the first apologist who discarded Latin and wrote a popular defense of Christianity in his native French.⁵⁰50Cfr. A. von Schmid, Apologetik, p. 35; Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. I, p. 621. De Mornay’s apologia is entitled De la Vérité de la Religion Chrétienne (1579).

Of more lasting importance than De Mornay’s defense of the Protestant faith is the treatise De Veritate Religionis Christianæ (1627) of Hugo Grotius, who was the first writer to delimit the field of Apologetics more narrowly by excluding all materials belonging to the other theological disciplines and assigning them to a separate discipline, which we have come to know as Fundamental Theology.⁵¹51Cfr. Catholic Encyclopedia, I, 621.

B. Catholicism in Conflict with Deism.—Deism, founded by Herbert Of Cherbury (d. 1648), is a philosophico-religious system which admits the existence of a personal God, distinct and separate from the universe, but holds that, after creating the world, He left it to shift for itself. The Deists regarded the positive preservation and government of the world as incompatible with the unchangeability of a perfect Being and held that any supernatural interference on God’s part with the development of His creatures, such as would be involved in revelation, is impossible. Hence they acknowledged a natural, but no supernatural religion.⁵²52On Deism see the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, pp. 679–683 (with bibliography); Bergier, Le Déisme Réfuté par soi-même, Paris, 1765 sq.

Against this heresy Catholic Apologetics had to demonstrate above all the possibility and reality of supernatural revelation.

C. Catholicism in Conflict with Materialism.—Voltaire (d. 1778) and Rousseau (d. 1778) transplanted Deism to France, where the ground had been prepared for it by Pierre Bayle (d. 1706) and Baruch Spinoza (d. 1677). In this fertile soil Deism soon degenerated into crass Materialism. Baron Holbach in his Système de la Nature (c. 1780) rejected the belief in a personal God and denied the spirituality and immortality of the soul as well as free will, reducing all being and activity to sheer matter. Catholic apologists combatted this new error by demonstrating the existence and necessity of natural religion and its different presuppositions.

D. Catholicism in Conflict with Rationalism.—The same tendency which in France had developed Materialism, bred Rationalism in Germany. Rationalism regards the human intellect as the sole source of truth and teaches that what man cannot grasp with his reason, he can never embrace by an act of faith. This school of thinkers was headed by Semler (d. 1791) and counted among its chief protagonists Samuel Reimarus, the author of the Wolfenbütteler Fragmente, and the editor of this nefarious work, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing.

Against this school Catholic Apologetics upheld man’s ability to receive a supernatural revelation, showing that there are truths which exceed the grasp of reason and that these truths can and must be accepted by an act of faith.

E. The Recent Development of Fundamental Theology.—Seventeen centuries had passed since the beginning of Christianity, and Apologetics had not yet been received as a separate and independent science among the theological disciplines. However, it would be unfair to blame the theologians for this state of affairs. The writings of the Christian apologists show that the defense of Christianity throughout its entire history was conducted in such a thorough and comprehensive manner that the subject-matter of this science, now at last come of age, had been thoroughly canvassed before the work of rigid scientific organization was undertaken.

The first writer who treated supernatural revelation and the Catholic Church together and designated his work as “fundamental,” was the Jesuit Vitus Pichler (1713); but for the first complete treatment of the entire body of truths now embraced by Fundamental Theology we are indebted to Martin Gerbert, O.S.B., abbot of St. Blaise in the Black Forest (1760).

The most important apologetical treatise of this period, considered from the standpoint of method, is the Demonstratio Evangelica et Catholica of Benedict Stattler, S.J. (1770–1775). The Apology of Bede Mayr, O.S.B., (1787–1789) marks another step forward, inasmuch as it treats not only of Christianity and Catholicism, but likewise, in great detail, of natural religion, develops the theory of the criteria of revelation to a point never reached before, and emphasizes the importance of the infallible teaching office of the Church.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century Fundamental Theology, which had but just emerged as an independent theological discipline, was forced into new paths by Idealism. Though but few Catholic theologians accepted the philosophy of Kant, some of them sought to meet its attacks by requisitioning its method and forms of expression for the defense of truth.

The powerful impulse which Catholic theology received from the interest in Patrology and Church History aroused by J. A. Möhler made itself felt in a beneficial way also in the field of Apologetics. Johann Sebastian Von Drey (1777–1853) was the first writer who assigned to Apologetics the rôle of a separate theological discipline, which he called Fundamental Theology, because it supplies the foundations for the science of dogmatic theology. Drey was the head of the Catholic Tübingen school and is regarded as the founder of our science. His Apologetik was published in three volumes between 1838 and 1847. In its first part it offers a philosophy of revelation, while in its second it gives a survey of the historical development of religion up to its perfection by Christ, and in its third it presents an exposé of the Christian religion as embodied in the Catholic Church.⁵³53M. Buchberger, Kirchliches Handlexikon, Freiburg, 1907, Vol. I, 1185; K. Werner, Geschichte der kath. Theologie seit dem Trienter Konzil bis zur Gegenwart, 2nd ed., Munich and Leipsic, 1889, pp. 234, 365, 381, 460 sqq., 467, 483 sq., 1561.

The historico-philosophical method employed by Drey was adopted by the great majority of Catholic apologists in the second half of the nineteenth century, and what was formerly called Apologetics is now quite generally designated as Fundamental Theology and dealt with by way of introduction to dogmatic theology proper.

In spite of the progress thus achieved, however, Fundamental Theology cannot yet claim complete uniformity of procedure. Some authors combine dogmatic arguments with the traditional historico-philosophical demonstrations, without, however, denying the possibility of developing Fundamental Theology into an independent science. Others, especially in France, regard the strictly philosophical method as inadequate to convince modern unbelievers and strive to substitute the moral method in its place.

The views of present-day apologists diverge also with regard to the delimitation of Fundamental Theology from philosophy on the one hand, and from the remaining theological disciplines on the other. Some do not hesitate to embody in their treatises large sections of metaphysics and of the philosophy of religion, whereas others hold that this mode of procedure is excusable only where the requisite preparatory training is wanting on the part of the prospective student.⁵⁴54Cfr. Chr. Pesch, S.J., Theol. Zeitfragen, IV, pp. 73 sq. Some regard the General Introduction to Sacred Scripture as a part and parcel of Fundamental Theology, or at least demand that the latter discipline furnish a survey of the chief results of Scripture study. Others omit all these details on the ground that Introduction to Sacred Scripture forms a separate branch of every seminary course. Finally, there are those who advocate a complete amalgamation of fundamental with dogmatic theology, in order that the truth of the Catholic religion may exert its full force on the minds of men, whereas others regard such an amalgamation as dangerous on account of the unclearness which it inevitably involves.

For further reading, see page 126.