← catalogue

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Apollodorus" to "Aral"

by Various · English · Gutenberg #34047 · 1,168,226 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Apollodorus" to "Aral"
    
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Apollodorus" to "Aral"

Author: Various


        
Release date: October 8, 2010 [eBook #34047]
                Most recently updated: January 7, 2021

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34047

Credits: Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the Online
        Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 11TH EDITION, "APOLLODORUS" TO "ARAL" ***




Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net









Transcriber's notes:

(1) Numbers following letters (without space) like C2 were originally
      printed in subscript. Letter subscripts are preceded by an
      underscore, like C_n.

(2) Characters following a carat (^) were printed in superscript.

(3) Side-notes were relocated to function as titles of their respective
      paragraphs.

(4) Macrons and breves above letters and dots below letters were not
      inserted.

(5) The following typographical error has been corrected:

    ARTICLE ARACHNIDA: "The coxal glands do not establish any special
      connexion between Limulus and Scorpio, since they also occur in the
      same somite in the lower Crustacea...." 'they' amended from 'thay'.




          ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA

  A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE
           AND GENERAL INFORMATION

              ELEVENTH EDITION


            VOLUME II, SLICE III

            Apollodorus to Aral




ARTICLES IN THIS SLICE:


  APOLLODORUS (Athenian painter)    APPREHENSION
  APOLLODORUS (Athenian grammarian) APPRENTICESHIP
  APOLLODORUS (of Carystus)         APPROPRIATION
  APOLLODORUS (Greek architect)     APPURTENANCES
  APOLLONIA                         APRAKSIN, THEDOR MATVYEEVICH
  APOLLONIUS (the Surly)            APRICOT
  APOLLONIUS (Greek rhetorician)    APRIES
  APOLLONIUS (the Sophist)          APRIL
  APOLLONIUS MOLON                  APRIL-FOOLS' DAY
  APOLLONIUS OF PERGA               A PRIORI
  APOLLONIUS OF RHODES              APRON
  APOLLONIUS OF TRALLES             APSARAS
  APOLLONIUS OF TYANA               APSE
  APOLLONIUS OF TYRE                APSE and APSIDES
  APOLLOS                           APSINES
  APOLLYON                          APT
  APOLOGETICS                       APTERA
  APOLOGUE                          APTERAL
  APOLOGY                           APTIAN
  APONEUROSIS                       APULEIUS, LUCIUS
  APOPHTHEGM                        APULIA
  APOPHYGE                          APURE
  APOPHYLLITE                       APURIMAC (river of Peru)
  APOPHYSIS                         APURIMAC (department of Peru)
  APOPLEXY                          APYREXIA
  APOROSE                          'AQIBA BEN JOSEPH
  APOSIOPESIS                       AQUAE
  APOSTASY                          AQUAE CUTILIAE
  APOSTIL                           AQUAMARINE
  APOSTLE                           AQUARELLE
  APOSTLE SPOONS                    AQUARII
  APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS         AQUARIUM
  APOSTOLIC CANONS                  AQUARIUS
  APOSTOLIC FATHERS                 AQUATINT
  APOSTOLICI                        AQUAVIVA, CLAUDIO
  APOSTOLIC MAJESTY                 AQUEDUCT
  APOSTOLIUS, MICHAEL               AQUILA
  APOSTROPHE                        AQUILA, CASPAR
  APOTACTITES                       AQUILA, SERAFINO DELL'
  APOTHECARY                        AQUILA (city of Italy)
  APOTHEOSIS                        AQUILA (constellation)
  APPALACHIAN MOUNTAINS             AQUILA ROMANUS
  APPANAGE                          AQUILEIA
  APPAREL                           AQUILLIUS, MANIUS
  APPARITIONS                       AQUINAS, THOMAS
  APPARITOR                         AQUINO
  APPEAL                            AQUITAINE
  APPEARANCE                        ARABESQUE
  APPENDICITIS                      ARABGIR
  APPENDICULATA                     ARABIA
  APPENDINI, FRANCESCO MARIA        ARABIAN PHILOSOPHY
  APPENZELL (canton of Switzerland) ARABIAN SEA
  APPENZELL (city of Switzerland)   ARABICI
  APPERCEPTION                      ARABI PASHA
  APPERLEY, CHARLES JAMES           ARABISTAN
  APPERT, BENJAMIN NICOLAS MARIE    ARABS
  APPIAN                            ARACAJU
  APPIANI, ANDREA                   ARACATY
  APPIA, VIA                        ARACHNE
  APPIN                             ARACHNIDA
  APPLAUSE                          ARAD
  APPLE                             ARAEOSTYLE
  APPLEBY                           ARAEOSYSTYLE
  APPLETON, NATHAN                  ARAGO, DOMINIQUE FRANCOIS JEAN
  APPLETON (city of U.S.A.)         ARAGON
  APPOGGIATURA                      ARAGONITE
  APPOINTMENT, POWER OF             ARAGUA
  APPOMATTOX COURT HOUSE            ARAGUAYA
  APPONYI, ALBERT                   ARAKAN
  APPORTIONMENT                     ARAKCHEEV, ALEKSYEI ANDREEVICH
  APPORTIONMENT BILL                ARAL
  APPRAISER




APOLLODORUS, an Athenian painter, who flourished at the end of the 5th
century B.C. He is said to have introduced great improvements in
perspective and chiaroscuro. What these were it is impossible to say:
perspective cannot have been in his day at an advanced stage. Among his
works were an Odysseus, a priest in prayer, and an Ajax struck by
lightning.




APOLLODORUS, an Athenian grammarian, pupil of Aristarchus and Panaetius
the Stoic, who lived about 140 B.C. He was a prolific and versatile
writer. There is extant under his name a treatise on the gods and the
heroic age, entitled [Greek: Bibliothaekae], a valuable authority on
ancient mythology. Modern critics are of opinion that, if genuine, it is
an abridgment of a larger work by him ([Greek: Peri theon]).

  Edition, with commentary, by Heyne (1803); text by Wagner (1894)
  (_Mythographi Graeci_, vol. i. Teubner series). Amongst other works by
  him of which only fragments remain, collected in Muller, _Fragmenta
  Historicorum Graecorum_, may be mentioned: [Greek: Chronika], a
  universal history from the fall of Troy to 144 B.C.; [Greek:
  Periaegaesis], a gazetteer written in iambics; [Greek: Peri Neon], a
  work on the Homeric catalogue of ships; and a work on etymology
  ([Greek: Etymologiai]).




APOLLODORUS, of Carystus in Euboea, one of the most important writers of
the New Attic comedy, who flourished at Athens between 300 and 260 B.C.
He is to be distinguished from an older Apollodorus of Gela (342-290),
also a writer of comedy, a contemporary of Menander. He wrote 47
comedies and obtained the prize five times. Terence borrowed his
_Hecyra_ and _Phormio_ from the [Greek: Hekyra] and [Greek:
Epidikazomenos] of Apollodorus.

  Fragments in Koch, _Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta_, ii. (1884); see
  also Meineke, _Historia Critica Comicorum Graecorum_ (1839).




APOLLODORUS, of Damascus, a famous Greek architect, who flourished
during the 2nd century A.D. He was a favourite of Trajan, for whom he
constructed the stone bridge over the Danube (A.D. 104-105). He also
planned a gymnasium, a college, public baths, the Odeum and the Forum
Trajanum, within the city of Rome; and the triumphal arches at
Beneventum and Ancona. The Trajan column in the centre of the Forum is
celebrated as being the first triumphal monument of the kind. On the
accession of Hadrian, whom he had offended by ridiculing his
performances as architect and artist, Apollodorus was banished, and,
shortly afterwards, being charged with imaginary crimes, put to death
(Dio Cassius lxix. 4). He also wrote a treatise on _Siege Engines_
([Greek: Poliorkaetika]), which was dedicated to Hadrian.




APOLLONIA, the name of more than thirty cities of antiquity. The most
important are the following: (1) An Illyrian city (known as Apollonia
[Greek: kat Epidamnon] or [Greek: pros Epidamno]) on the right bank of
the Aous, founded by the Corinthians and Corcyraeans. It soon became a
place of increasing commercial prosperity, as the most convenient link
between Brundusium and northern Greece, and as one of the
starting-points of the Via Egnatia. It was an important military post in
the wars against Philip and during the civil wars of Pompey and Caesar,
and towards the close of the Roman republic acquired fame as a seat of
literature and philosophy. Here Augustus was being educated when the
death of Caesar called him to Rome. It seems to have sunk with the rise
of Aulon, and few remains of its ruins are to be found. The monastery of
Pollina stands on a hill which probably is part of the site of the old
city. (2) A Thracian city on the Black Sea (afterwards Sozopolis, and
now Sizeboli), colonized by the Milesians, and famous for its colossal
statue of Apollo by Calamis, which Lucullus removed to Rome.




APOLLONIUS, surnamed [Greek: ho dyskolos] ("the Surly or Crabbed"), a
celebrated grammarian of Alexandria, who lived in the reigns of Hadrian
and Antoninus Pius. He spent the greater part of his life in his native
city, where he died; he is also said to have visited Rome and attracted
the attention of Antoninus. He was the founder of scientific grammar and
is styled by Priscian _grammaticorum princeps_. Four of his works are
extant: _On Syntax_, ed. Bekker, 1817; and three smaller treatises, on
_Pronouns_, _Conjunctions_ and _Adverbs_, ed. Schneider, 1878.

  _Grammatici Graeci_, i. in Teubner series; Egger, _Apollonius Dyscole_
  (1854).




APOLLONIUS, surnamed [Greek: ho malakos] ("the Effeminate"), a Greek
rhetorician of Alabanda in Caria, who flourished about 120 B.C. After
studying under Menecles, chief of the Asiatic school of oratory, he
settled in Rhodes, where he taught rhetoric, among his pupils being Mark
Antony.




APOLLONIUS, surnamed "the Sophist," of Alexandria, a famous grammarian,
who probably lived towards the end of the 1st century A.D. He was the
author of a Homeric lexicon ([Greek: Lexeis Homaerikai]), the only work
of the kind we possess. His chief authorities were Aristarchus and
Apion's Homeric glossary.

  Edition by Villoison (1773), I. Bekker (1833); Leyde, _De Apollonii
  Sophistae Lexico Homerico_ (1885); E.W.B. Nicholson on a newly
  discovered fragment in _Classical Review_ (Nov. 1897).




APOLLONIUS MOLON (sometimes called simply MOLON), a Greek rhetorician,
who flourished about 70 B.C. He was a native of Alabanda, a pupil of
Menecles, and settled at Rhodes. He twice visited Rome as an ambassador
from Rhodes, and Cicero and Caesar took lessons from him. He endeavoured
to moderate the florid Asiatic style and cultivated an "Atticizing"
tendency. He wrote on Homer, and, according to Josephus, violently
attacked the Jews.

  See C. Muller, _Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum_, iii.; E. Schurer,
  _History of the Jewish People_, iii. (Eng. tr. 1886).




APOLLONIUS OF PERGA [PERGAEUS], Greek geometer of the Alexandrian
school, was probably born some twenty-five years later than Archimedes,
i.e. about 262 B.C. He flourished in the reigns of Ptolemy Euergetes and
Ptolemy Philopator (247-205 B.C.). His treatise on _Conics_ gained him
the title of The Great Geometer, and is that by which his fame has been
transmitted to modern times. All his numerous other treatises have
perished, save one, and we have only their titles handed down, with
general indications of their contents, by later writers, especially
Pappus. After the _Conics_ in eight Books had been written in a first
edition, Apollonius brought out a second edition, considerably revised
as regards Books i.-ii., at the instance of one Eudemus of Pergamum;
the first three books were sent to Eudemus at intervals, as revised,
and the later books were dedicated (after Eudemus' death) to King
Attalus I. (241-197 B.C.). Only four Books have survived in Greek; three
more are extant in Arabic; the eighth has never been found. Although a
fragment has been found of a Latin translation from the Arabic made in
the 13th century, it was not until 1661 that a Latin translation of
Books v.-vii. was available. This was made by Giovanni Alfonso Borelli
and Abraham Ecchellensis from the free version in Arabic made in 983 by
Abu 'l-Fath of Ispahan and preserved in a Florence MS. But the best
Arabic translation is that made as regards Books i.-iv. by Hilal ibn Abi
Hilal (d. about 883), and as regards Books v.-vii. by Tobit ben Korra
(836-901). Halley used for his translation an Oxford MS. of this
translation of Books v.-vii., but the best MS. (Bodl. 943) he only
referred to in order to correct his translation, and it is still
unpublished except for a fragment of Book v. published by L. Nix with
German translation (Drugulin, Leipzig, 1889). Halley added in his
edition (1710) a restoration of Book viii., in which he was guided by
the fact that Pappus gives lemmas "to the seventh and eighth books"
under that one heading, as well as by the statement of Apollonius
himself that the use of the seventh book was illustrated by the problems
solved in the eighth.

The degree of originality of the _Conics_ can best be judged from
Apollonius' own prefaces. Books i.-iv. form an "elementary
introduction," i.e. contain the essential principles; the rest are
specialized investigations in particular directions. For Books i.-iv. he
claims only that the generation of the curves and their fundamental
properties in Book i. are worked out more fully and generally than they
were in earlier treatises, and that a number of theorems in Book iii.
and the greater part of Book iv. are new. That he made the fullest use
of his predecessors' works, such as Euclid's four Books on Conics, is
clear from his allusions to Euclid, Conon and Nicoteles. The generality
of treatment is indeed remarkable; he gives as the fundamental property
of all the conics the equivalent of the Cartesian equation referred to
_oblique_ axes (consisting of a diameter and the tangent at its
extremity) obtained by cutting an oblique circular cone in any manner,
and the axes appear only as a particular case after he has shown that
the property of the conic can be expressed in the same form with
reference to any new diameter and the tangent at its extremity. It is
clearly the form of the fundamental property (expressed in the
terminology of the "application of areas") which led him to call the
curves for the first time by the names _parabola_, _ellipse_,
_hyperbola_. Books v.-vii. are clearly original. Apollonius' genius
takes its highest flight in Book v., where he treats of normals as
minimum and maximum straight lines drawn from given points to the curve
(independently of tangent properties), discusses how many normals can be
drawn from particular points, finds their feet by construction, and
gives propositions determining the centre of curvature at any point and
leading at once to the Cartesian equation of the evolute of any conic.

The other treatises of Apollonius mentioned by Pappus are --1st, [Greek:
Logou apotomae], _Cutting off a Ratio_; 2nd, [Greek: Choriou apotomae],
_Cutting of an Area_; 3rd, [Greek: Dioris menae tomae], _Determinate
Section_; 4th, [Greek: Epaphai], _Tangencies_; 5th, [Greek: Neuseis],
_Inclinations_; 6th, [Greek: Topoi epipedoi], _Plane Loci_. Each of
these was divided into two books, and, with the _Data_, the _Porisms_
and _Surface-Loci_ of Euclid and the _Conics_ of Apollonius were,
according to Pappus, included in the body of the ancient analysis.

1st. _De Rationis Sectione_ had for its subject the resolution of the
following problem: Given two straight lines and a point in each, to draw
through a third given point a straight line cutting the two fixed lines,
so that the parts intercepted between the given points in them and the
points of intersection with this third line may have a given ratio.

2nd. _De Spatii Sectione_ discussed the similar problem which requires
the rectangle contained by the two intercepts to be equal to a given
rectangle.

An Arabic version of the first was found towards the end of the 17th
century in the Bodleian library by Dr Edward Bernard, who began a
translation of it; Halley finished it and published it along with a
restoration of the second treatise in 1706.

3rd. _De Sectione Determinata_ resolved the problem: Given two, three or
four points on a straight line, to find another point on it such that
its distances from the given points satisfy the condition that the
square on one or the rectangle contained by two has to the square on the
remaining one or the rectangle contained by the remaining two, or to the
rectangle contained by the remaining one and another given straight
line, a given ratio. Several restorations of the solution have been
attempted, one by W. Snellius (Leiden, 1698), another by Alex. Anderson
of Aberdeen, in the supplement to his _Apollonius Redivivus_ (Paris,
1612), but by far the best is by Robert Simson, _Opera quaedam reliqua_
(Glasgow, 1776).

4th. _De Tactionibus_ embraced the following general problem: Given
three things (points, straight lines or circles) in position, to
describe a circle passing through the given points, and touching the
given straight lines or circles. The most difficult case, and the most
interesting from its historical associations, is when the three given
things are circles. This problem, which is sometimes known as the
Apollonian Problem, was proposed by Vieta in the 16th century to
Adrianus Romanus, who gave a solution by means of a hyperbola. Vieta
thereupon proposed a simpler construction, and restored the whole
treatise of Apollonius in a small work, which he entitled _Apollonius
Gallus_ (Paris, 1600). A very full and interesting historical account of
the problem is given in the preface to a small work of J.W. Camerer,
entitled _Apollonii Pergaei quae supersunt, ac maxime Lemmata Pappi in
hos Libras, cum Observationibus, &c_. (Gothae, 1795, 8vo).

5th. _De Inclinationibus_ had for its object to insert a straight line
of a given length, tending towards a given point, between two given
(straight or circular) lines. Restorations have been given by Marino
Ghetaldi, by Hugo d'Omerique (_Geometrical Analysis_, Cadiz, 1698), and
(the best) by Samuel Horsley (1770).

6th. _De Locis Planis_ is a collection of propositions relating to loci
which are either straight lines or circles. Pappus gives somewhat full
particulars of the propositions, and restorations were attempted by P.
Fermat (_Oeuvres_, i., 1891, pp. 3-51), F. Schooten (Leiden, 1656) and,
most successfully of all, by R. Simson (Glasgow, 1749).

Other works of Apollonius are referred to by ancient writers, viz. (1)
[Greek: Peri tou pyriou], _On the Burning-Glass_, where the focal
properties of the parabola probably found a place; (2) [Greek: Peri tou
kochliou], _On the Cylindrical Helix_ (mentioned by Proclus); (3) a
comparison of the dodecahedron and the icosahedron inscribed in the same
sphere; (4) [Greek: Hae katholou pragmateia], perhaps a work on the
general principles of mathematics in which were included Apollonius'
criticisms and suggestions for the improvement of Euclid's _Elements_;
(5) [Greek: Okutokion] (quick bringing-to-birth), in which, according to
Eutocius, he showed how to find closer limits for the value of [pi] than
the 3-1/7 and 3-10/71 of Archimedes; (6) an arithmetical work (as to
which see PAPPUS) on a system of expressing large numbers in language
closer to that of common life than that of Archimedes' _Sand-reckoner_,
and showing how to multiply such large numbers; (7) a great extension of
the theory of irrationals expounded in Euclid, 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 part i.--on Natural
Religion--he defends a moral or punishing Deity against the sentimental
softness of the age. The God of Nature, whom deists confess does punish
in time, if they will but look at the facts; why not in eternity?
"Morality," as others have confessed, is "the nature of things"! Not the
Being of God is discussed--Butler will not waste words on triflers (as
he thinks them) who deny that--but God's character. Unfortunately
(perhaps) Butler prefers to argue on _admitted principles_; holds much
of his own moral belief in reserve; tries to reduce everything to a
question of _probable fact_. If this hampers him in part i., the
situation appears still worse in part ii., which is directly occupied
with the defence of Christianity. Butler says nothing about
incomprehensible mysteries, and protests that reason is the only ground
we have to proceed upon. But by treating the atonement simply as
revealed (and unexplained) matter of fact--in spite of some partial
analogies in human experience, a thing essentially anomalous--Butler
repeats, and applies to the _moral_ contents of Christianity, what
Aquinas said of its speculative doctrines. (Whether one calls the
unknowable a revealed mystery or an unexplained and inexplicable fact
makes little difference.) William Paley (1743-1805) borrows from many
writers; he borrows Lardner's learning and Butler's "particular evidence
for Christianity," viz. miracles, prophecy and "history"; and he states
his points with perfect clearness. No man ever filled a typical position
more exactly than Paley. Eighteenth-century ethics--Hedonism, with a
theological background. Empiricist Natural Theology--the argument from
Design. Christian Evidences--the strong probability of the resurrection
of Christ and the consequent authority of his teaching. _Horae
Paulinae_--mutual confirmations of _Acts_ and Epistles; better, though
one-sided. When such exclusively "external" arguments are urged, the
contents of Christianity go for next to nothing.

VI. _Later Modern Period._--Towards the end of the 18th century a new
epoch of reconstruction begins in the thought and life of civilization.
The leader in speculative philosophy is Immanuel Kant, though he
includes many agnostic elements, and draws the inference (which some
things in the letter of Butler might seem to warrant) that the essence
of Christianity is an ethical theism. While he thus created a new and
more ethical "rationalism," Kant's many-sided influence, alike in
philosophy and in theology, worked to further issues. He (and other
Germans, but not G.W.F. Hegel) was represented in England in a
fragmentary way by S.T. Coleridge (1772-1834), probably the most typical
figure of his period--another layman. His general thought was that
"rationalism" represents an uprising of the lower reason or
"understanding" against the higher or true "reason." The mysteries of
theology are its best part--not alien to reason but of its substance,
the "logos." This is to upset the compromise of Aquinas and go back to a
Christian platonism. Of course the difficulty revives again: If a
philosophy, why supernaturally revealed? Thomas Arnold, criticizing
Edward Hawkins, appeals rather to the atonement as deeper neglected
truth. So in Scotland, Thomas Erskine and Thomas Chalmers--the latter in
contradiction to his earlier position--hold that the doctrine of
salvation, when translated into experience, furnishes "internal
evidence"--a somewhat broader use of the phrase than when it applies
merely to evidence of date or authorship drawn from the contents of a
book. This gives a new and moral filling to the conception of
"supernatural revelation" The attempt to work out either of the
reactions against Thomism in new theological systems is pretty much
confined to Germany. Hegel's theological followers, of every shade and
party, represent the first, and Schleiermacher's the second.
Schleiermacher rejects natural religion in favour of the positive
religions, while the school of A. Ritschl and W. Herrmann reject natural
theology outright in favour of revelation--a striking external parallel
to early Socinianism. British and American divines, on the other hand,
are slow to suspect that a new apologetic principle may mean a new
system of apologetics, to say nothing of a new dogmatic. Among the
evangelicals, for the most part, natural theology, far from being
rejected, is not even modified, and certain doctrines continue to be
described as incomprehensible mysteries. No Protestant, of course, can
agree with Roman Catholic theology that (supernatural) faith is an
obedient assent to church authority and the mysteries it dictates. To
Protestantism, faith is personal trust. But the principle is hardly ever
carried out to the end. Mysterious doctrines are ascribed by Protestants
to _scripture_; so half of revelation is regarded as matter for blind
assent, if another half is luminous in experience. The movement of
German philosophy which led from Kant to Hegel has indeed found powerful
British champions (T.H. Green, J. and E. Caird, &c.), but less churchly
than Coleridge (or F.D. Maurice or B.F. Westcott), though churchly again
in J.R. Illingworth and other contributors to _Lux Mundi_ (1890). Before
this wave of thought, H.L. Mansel tried (1858) to play Pascal's game on
Kantian principles, developing the sceptical side of Kant's many-faceted
mind. But as he protested against relying on the human conscience--the
one element of positive conviction spared by Kant--his ingenuity found
few admirers except H. Spencer, who claims him as justifying
anti-Christian agnosticism. Butler's tradition was more directly
continued by J.H. Newman--with modifications on becoming a Roman
Catholic in the light of the church's decision in favour of Thomism.
A.M. Fairbairn (_Catholicism, Roman and Anglican_, ch. v., and
elsewhere) and E.A. Abbott (_Philomythus_, and elsewhere) suspect Newman
of a sceptical leaven and extend the criticism to Butler's doctrine of
"probability." Yet it seems plain that any theology, maintaining
redemption as historical fact (and not merely ideal), must attach
religious importance to conclusions which are technically probable
rather than proven. If we transfer Christian evidence from the
"historical" to the "philosophical" with H. Rashdall--we surely cut down
Christianity to the limits of theism. And the _inner_ mind of Butler has
moral anchorage in the _Analogy_, quite as much as in the _Sermons_. It
is in part ii. more than in part i. of his masterpiece that the light
seems to grow dim. Another of the Oxford converts to Rome, W.G. Ward,
made vigorous contributions to natural theology.

VII. _Contents of Modern Apologetics._--Superficially regarded,
philosophy ebbs and flows, whatever progress the debate may reveal to
speculative insight. Old positions re-emerge from forgetfulness, and
there is always a philosophy to back every "case." More visible dangers
arise for the apologist in the region of science, historical or
physical. There the progress of truth, within whatever limits, is
manifest. _Essays and Reviews_ (1860) was a vehement announcement of
scientific results--startling English conservatism awake for the first
time. And in the scientific region the great apologetic classics, like
Butler, are hopelessly out of date. The modern apologist must do
ephemeral work--unless it should chance that he proves to be the
skirmisher, pioneering for a modified dogmatic. He holds a watching
brief. While he must beware of hasty speech, he has often to plead that
new knowledge does not really threaten faith; or that it is not
genuinely established knowledge at all; or else, that faith has mistaken
its own grounds, and will gain strength by concentrating on its true
field. The work is not always well done; but the Christian church needs
it.

1. _Apologetics and Philosophy._--The main part of this subject is
discussed under THEISM. Some notes may be added on special points, (a)
Freewill is generally assumed on the Christian side (R.C. Church;
Scottish philosophy; H. Lotze; J. Martineau; W.G. Ward. Not in a
libertarian sense; Leibnitz. New and obscure issues raised by Kant). But
there is no continuous tradition or steady trend of discussion. (b)
Personal immortality is affirmed as philosophically certain by the
Church of Rome and many Protestant writers. Others teach "conditional
immortality." Others base the hope on belief in the resurrection of
Christ, (c) Theodicy--the tradition of Leibnitz is preserved (on
libertarian lines) by Martineau (_A Study of Religion_, 1883). See also
F.R. Tennant's _Origin and Propagation of Sin_ (1902)--sin a
"bye-product" of a generally good evolution. Others find in the gospel
of redemption the true theodicy. (d) The problem of Christian apologetic
has been simplified in the past by the prevalence of the Christian
ethics and temper even among many non-Christians (e.g. J.S. Mill). But
hereafter it may not prove possible for the apologist to assume as
unchallenged the Christian moral outlook. Germans have suspected an
anti-Christian strain in Goethe; all the world knows of it in E. von
Hartmann or F. Nietzsche.

2. _Apologetics and Physical Science._--(a) Copernicanism has won its
battles and the Church of Rome would fain have its error forgotten. The
admission is now general that the Bible cannot be expected to use the
language of scientific astronomy. Still, it is not certain that the
shock of Copernicanism on supernatural Christianity is exhausted. (b)
Geology has also won its battles, and few now try to harmonize it with
Genesis. (c) Evolution came down from the clouds when C. Darwin and A.R.
Wallace succeeded in displacing the naif conception of special creation
by belief in the origin of species out of other species through a
process of natural law. This gave immense vogue to wider and vaguer
theories of evolutionary process, notably to H. Spencer's grandiose
cosmic formula in terms of mechanism. Here the apologist has more to
say. The special Darwinian hypothesis--natural "selection"--may or may
not be true; it was at least a fruitful suggestion. If true, it need not
be exhaustive. Again, evolution itself need not apply everywhere. We are
offered a philosophical rather than a scientific speculation when E.
Caird (_Evolution of Religion_, 1893) tries to vindicate Christianity as
the highest working of nature--true just _because_ evolved from lower
religions. The Christian apologist indeed may himself seek, following
John Fiske, to philosophize evolution as a restatement of natural
theology--"one God, one law, one element and one far-off divine
event"--and as at least pointing _towards_ personal immortality. But if
evolution is to be the whole truth regarding Christianity, we should
have to surrender both _supernatural revelation_ and _divine
redemption_. And these, it may be strongly urged, contain the magic of
Christianity. Losing them it might sink into a lifeless theory.

As far as pure science goes, the inference from science in favour of
materialism has visibly lost much of its plausibility, and Protestant
apologists would probably be prepared to accept in advance all verified
discoveries as belonging to a different region from that of faith. Roman
Catholic apologetic prefers to negotiate in detail.

3. _Apologetics and History._--History brings us nearer the heart of the
Christian position. (a) Old Testament criticism won startling victories
towards the end of the 19th century. It blots out much supposed
knowledge, but throws a vivid and interesting light on the reconstrued
process of history. Most Protestants accept the general scheme of
criticism; those who hang back make not a few concessions (e.g. J. Orr,
_Problem of the O.T._, 1906). The Roman Catholic Church again prefers an
attitude of reserve, (b) New Testament criticism raises even more
delicate issues. Positively it may be affirmed that the recovered figure
of the historical Jesus is the greatest asset in the possession of
modern Christian theology and apologetics. The "Lives" of Christ, Roman
Catholic and Protestant; "critical" (D.F. Strauss, A. Renan, &c., &c.)
and "believing," imply this at least. Negatively, "unchallenged
historical certainties" are becoming few in number, or are disappearing
altogether, through the industry of modern minds. True, the Tubingen
criticism of F.C. Baur and his school--important as the first scientific
attempt to conceive New Testament conditions and literature as a
whole--has been abandoned. (A. Ritschl's _Entstehung der
alt-katholischen Kirche_, 2nd edition, 1857, was an especially telling
reply.) The synoptic gospels are now treated with considerable respect.
It is no longer suggested in responsible quarters that they are party
documents sacrificing truth to "tendency." But not all quarters are
responsible; and in the effort to grasp scientifically, i.e. accurately,
the amazing facts of Christ and primitive Christianity, every imaginable
hypothesis is canvassed. Even the Roman Catholic Church produced the
Abbe Loisy (though he undertakes to play off church certainties against
historical uncertainties). Hitherto at least the fourth gospel has been
the touchstone. The authorship of the epistles is in many cases a matter
of subordinate importance; at least for Protestants or for those
surrendering Bible infallibility, which Rome can hardly do. (c) New
Testament history, The apologist must maintain (1) that Jesus of
Nazareth is a real historical figure--a point well-nigh overlooked by
Strauss, and denied by some modern advocates of a mythical theory; (2)
that Jesus is knowable (not one "of whom we really know very little"--B.
Jowett) in his teaching, example, character, historical personality; and
that he is full of moral splendour. On the other hand, faith has no
special interest in claiming that we can compose a biographical study of
the development of Jesus. Certainly no early writer thought of providing
material for such use. It is a common opinion in Germany that our
material is in fact too scanty or too self-contradictory. Yet the
fascination of the subject will always revive the attempt. If it
succeeds, there will be a new line of communication along which that
great personality will tell on men's minds and hearts. If it
fails--there are other channels; character can be known and trusted even
when we are baffled by a thing necessarily so full of mystery as the
development of a personality. Notably, the manifest _non-consciousness
of personal guilt_ in Jesus suggests to us his sinlessness. (3)
Apologists maintain that Jesus "claimed" Messiahship. There are
speculative constructions of gospel history which eliminate that claim;
and no doubt apologetics could--with more or less difficulty--restate
its position in a changed form if the paradox of to-day became accepted
as historical fact to-morrow. The central apologetic thesis is the
_uniqueness_ of the "only-begotten"; it is here that "the supernatural"
passes into the substance of Christian faith. But most probably the
description of Jesus as thus unique will continue to be associated with
the allegation--He told us so; he claimed Messiahship and "died for the
claim." (See preface to 5th ed. of _Ecce Homo_.) Nor did so superhuman a
claim crush him, or deprive his soul of its balance. He imparted to the
title a grander significance out of the riches of his personality. (4)
In the light of this the "argument from prophecy" is reconstructed. It
ceases to lay much stress upon coincidences between Old Testament
predictions or "types" and events in Christ's career. It becomes the
assertion; historically, providentially, the expectation of a _unique
religious figure_ arose--"the" Messiah; and Jesus gave himself to be
thought of as that great figure. (5) It is also claimed as certain that
Jesus had marvellous powers of healing. More reserve is being shown
towards the other or "nature" miracles. These latter, it may be
remarked, are more unambiguously supernatural. But, if Jesus really
cured leprosy or really restored the dead to life, we have miracle
plainly enough in the region of healing. (6) For Jesus' own resurrection
several lines of evidence are alleged. (i.) All who believe that in any
sense Christ rose again insist upon the impression which his personality
made during life. It was _he_ whose resurrection seemed credible! Some
practically stop here; the apologist proceeds. (ii.) There is the report
of the empty grave; historically, not easily waved aside. (iii.) We have
New Testament reports of appearances of the risen Jesus; subjective? the
mere clothing of the impression made by his personality during life? or
objective? "telegrams" from heaven (Th. Keim)--"Veridical
Hallucinations"? or something even more, throwing a ray of light perhaps
on the state and powers of the happy dead? (iv.) There is the immense
influence of Jesus Christ in history, _associated with belief in him_ as
the risen Son of God.

In view of the claims of Jesus, different possibilities arise, (i.) The
evangelists impute to him a higher claim than he made. This may be
called the rationalistic solution; with sympathy in Christ's ethical
teaching, there is relief at minimizing his great claim. So,
brilliantly, Wellhausen's Gospel commentaries and Introduction. (Mark
fairly historical; other gospels' fuller account of Christ's teaching
and claims unreliable.) (ii.) The claim was fraudulent (Reimarus; Renan,
ed. 1; popular anti-Christian agitation). This is a counsel of despair.
(iii.) He was an enthusiastic dreamer, expecting the world's end. This
the apologist will recognize as the most plausible hostile alternative.
He may feel bound to admit an element of illusion in Christ's vision' of
the future; but he will contend that the apocalyptic form did not
destroy the spiritual content of Christ's revelations--nay, that it was
itself the vehicle of great truths. So he will argue as the essence of
the matter that (iv.) he who has occupied Christ's place in history, and
won such reverence from the purest souls, was what he claimed to be, and
that his many-sidedness comes to focus and harmony when we recognize him
as the Christ of God and the Saviour of the world.

To a less extent, similar problems and alternatives arise in regard to
the church:--Catholicism a compromise between Jewish Christianity and
Pauline or Gentile Christianity (F.C. Baur, &c.); Catholicism the
Hellenizing of Christianity (A. Ritschl, A. Harnack); the Catholic
church for good and evil the creation of St Paul (P. Wernle, H. Weinel);
the church supernaturally guided (R.C. apologetic; in a modified degree
High Church apologetic); essential--not necessarily exclusive--truth of
Paulinism, essential error in first principles of Catholicism
(Protestant apologetic).

  LITERATURE.--Omitting the Christian fathers as remote from the present
  day, we recognize as works of genius Pascal's _Pensees_ and Butler's
  _Analogy_, to which we might add J.R. Seeley's _Ecce Homo_ (1865). The
  philosophical, Platonist, or Idealist line of Christian defence is
  represented among recent writers by J.R. Illingworth [Anglican], in
  _Personality, Human and Divine_ (1894), _Divine Immanence_ (1898),
  _Reason and Revelation_ (1902), who at times seems rather to
  presuppose the Thomist compromise, and A.M. Fairbairn
  [Congregationalist], in _Place of Christ in Modern Theology_ (1893),
  _Philosophy of the Christian Religion_ (1902). The appeal to ethical
  or Christian experience--"internal evidence"--is found especially in
  E.A. Abbott [Christianity supernatural and divine, but not
  miraculous], _Through Nature to Christ_ (1877), _The Kernel and the
  Husk_ (1886), _The Spirit on the Waters_ (1897), &c., or A.B. Bruce,
  _Chief End of Revelation_ (1881), _The Miraculous Element in the
  Gospels_ (1886), _Apologetics_ (1892), and other works; Bruce's
  posthumous article, "Jesus" in _Encyc. Bib._, was understood by some
  as exchanging Christian orthodoxy for bare theism, but probably its
  tone of aloofness is due to the attempt to keep well within the limits
  of what the author considered pure scientific history. Scholarly and
  apologetic discussion on the gospels and life of Jesus is further
  represented by the writings of W. Sanday or (earlier) of J.B.
  Lightfoot. Much American work of merit on the character of Christ is
  headed by W. E Channing, and by H. Bushnell (in _Nature and the
  Supernatural_). For defence of Christ's resurrection, reference may be
  made to H. Latham's _The Risen Lord_ and R. Mackintosh's _First Primer
  of Apologetics_. For modification in light of recent scholarship of
  argument from prophecy, to Riehm's _Messianic Prophecy_, Stanton's
  _Jewish and Christian Messiah_, and Woods's _Hope of Israel_. Roman
  Catholic apologetics--of necessity, Thomist--is well represented by
  Professor Schanz of Tubingen. The whole Ritschl movement is apologetic
  in spirit; best English account in A.E. Garvie's _Ritschlian Theology_
  (1899). See also the chief church histories or histories of doctrine
  (Harnack; Loofs; Hagenbach; Shedd); A.S. Farrar's _Critical History of
  Free_ (i.e. anti-Christian) _Thought_ (Bampton Lectures, 1862); R.C.
  Trench's Introduction to _Notes on the Miracles_, and F.W. Macran's
  _English Apologetic Theology_ (1905). For the 18th century, G.V.
  Lechler's _Geschichte des englischen Deismus_ (1841); Mark Pattison in
  _Essays and Reviews_ (1860); Leslie Stephen's _English Thought in 18th
  Century_ (agnostic); John Hunt, _Religious Thought in England_ (3
  vols., 1870-1873).     (R. Ma.)


FOOTNOTE:

  [1] While these writings are of great historical value, they do not,
    of course, represent the Christian argument as conceived to-day. The
    Church of Rome prefers medieval or modern statements of its position;
    Protestantism can use only modern statements.




APOLOGUE (from the Gr. [Greek: apologos], a statement or account), a
short fable or allegorical story, meant to serve as a pleasant vehicle
for some moral doctrine or to convey some useful lesson. One of the best
known is that of Jotham in the Book of Judges (ix. 7-15); others are
"The City Rat and Field Rat," by Horace, "The Belly and its Members," by
the patrician Menenius Agrippa in the second book of Livy, and perhaps
most famous of all, those of Aesop. The term is applied more
particularly to a story in which the actors or speakers are taken from
the brute creation or inanimate nature. An apologue is distinguished
from a fable in that there is always some moral sense present, which
there need not be in a fable. It is generally dramatic, and has been
defined as "a satire in action." It differs from a parable in several
respects. A parable is equally an ingenious tale intended to correct
manners, but it can be _true_, while an apologue, with its introduction
of animals and plants, to which it lends our ideas and language and
emotions, is necessarily devoid of real truth, and even of all
probability. The parable reaches heights to which the apologue cannot
aspire, for the points in which brutes and inanimate nature present
analogies to man are principally those of his lower nature, and the
lessons taught by the apologue seldom therefore reach beyond prudential
morality, whereas the parable aims at representing the relations between
man and God. It finds its framework in the world of nature as it
actually is, and not in any grotesque parody of it, and it exhibits real
and not fanciful analogies. The apologue seizes on that which man has in
common with creatures below him, and the parable on that which he has in
common with God. Still, in spite of the difference of moral level,
Martin Luther thought so highly of apologues as counsellors of virtue
that he edited and revised Aesop and wrote a characteristic preface to
the volume. The origin of the apologue is extremely ancient and comes
from the East, which is the natural fatherland of everything connected
with allegory, metaphor and imagination. Veiled truth was often
necessary in the East, particularly with the slaves, who dared not
reveal their minds too openly. It is noteworthy that the two fathers of
apologue in the West were slaves, namely Aesop and Phaedrus. La Fontaine
in France; Gay and Dodsley in England; Gellert, Lessing and Hagedorn in
Germany; Tomas de Iriarte in Spain, and Krilov in Russia, are leading
modern writers of apologues. Length is not an essential matter in the
definition of an apologue. Those of La Fontaine are often very short,
as, for example, "Le Coque et la Perle." On the other hand, in the
romances of Reynard the Fox we have medieval apologues arranged in
cycles, and attaining epical dimensions. An Italian fabulist, Corti, is
said to have developed an apologue of "The Talking Animals" to the bulk
of twenty-six cantos. La Motte, writing at a time when this species of
literature was universally admired, attributes its popularity to the
fact that it _menage et flatte l'amour-propre_ by inculcating virtue in
an amusing manner without seeming to dictate or insist. This was the
ordinary 18th-century view of the matter, but Rousseau contested the
educational value of instruction given in this indirect form.

  A work by P. Soulle, _La Fontaine et ses devanciers_ (1866), is a
  history of the apologue from the earliest times until its final
  triumph in France.




APOLOGY (from Gr. [Greek: apologia], defence), in its usual sense, an
expression of regret for something which has been wrongfully said or
done; a withdrawal or retraction of some charge or imputation which is
false. In an action for libel, the fact that an apology has been
promptly and fully made is a plea in mitigation of damages. The apology
should have the same form of publicity as the original charge. If made
publicly, the proper form is an advertisement in a newspaper; if made
within the hearing of a few only, a letter of apology, which may be read
to those who have heard what was said, should be sufficient. By the
English Libel Act 1843, s. 2, it was enacted that in an action for libel
contained in a newspaper it is a defence for the defendant to plead that
the libel was inserted without actual malice and without gross
negligence, and that before the commencement of the action and at the
earliest opportunity afterwards he inserted in the newspaper a full
apology for the libel, or, where the newspaper in which the libel
appeared was published at intervals exceeding one week, he offered to
publish the apology in any newspaper selected by the plaintiff. The
apology must be full and must be printed in as conspicuous a place and
manner as the libel was.

The word "apology" or "apologia" is also used in the sense of defence or
vindication, the only meaning of the Greek [Greek: apologia], especially
of the defence of a doctrine or system, or of religious or other
beliefs, &c., e.g. Justin Martyr's _Apology_ or J.H. Newman's _Apologia
pro vita sua_. (See APOLOGETICS.)




APONEUROSIS ([Greek: apo], away, and [Greek: neuron], a sinew), in
anatomy, a membrane separating muscles from each other.




APOPHTHEGM (from the [Greek: apophthegma]), a short and pointed
utterance. The usual spelling up to Johnson's day was _apothegm_, which
Webster and Worcester still prefer; it indicates the pronunciation--i.e.
"apothem"--better than the other, which, however, is more usual in
England and follows the derivation. Such sententious remarks as
"Knowledge is Power" are apophthegms. They become "proverbs" by age and
acceptance. Plutarch made a famous collection in his _Apophthegmata
Laconica_.




APOPHYGE (Gr. [Greek: apophugae], a flying off), in architecture, the
lowest part of the shaft of an Ionic or Corinthian column, or the
highest member of its base if the column be considered as a whole. The
apophyge is the inverted cavetto or concave sweep, on the upper edge of
which the diminishing shaft rests.




APOPHYLLITE, a mineral often classed with the zeolites, since it behaves
like these when heated before the blowpipe and has the same mode of
occurrence; it differs, however, from the zeolites proper in containing
no aluminium. It is a hydrous potassium and calcium silicate,
H7KCa4(SiO3)8 + 4-1/2(H2O). A small amount of fluorine is often present,
and it is one of the few minerals in which ammonium has been detected.
The temperature at which the water is expelled is higher than is usually
the case with zeolites; none is given off below 200 deg., and only about
half at 250 deg.; this is slowly reabsorbed again from moist air, and is
therefore regarded as water of crystallization, the remainder being
water of constitution. When heated before the blowpipe, the mineral
exfoliates, owing to loss of water, and on this account was named
apophyllite by R.J. Hauy in 1806, from the Greek [Greek: apo], from, and
[Greek: phullon], a leaf.

[Illustration: FIG. 1.]

[Illustration: FIG. 2.]

Apophyllite always occurs as distinct crystals, which belong to the
tetragonal system. The form is either a square prism terminated by the
basal planes (fig. 2), or an acute pyramid (fig. 1). A prominent feature
of the mineral is its perfect basal cleavage, on which the lustre is
markedly pearly, presenting, in white crystals, somewhat the appearance
of the eye of a fish after boiling, hence the old name fish-eye-stone or
ichthyophthalmite for the mineral. On other surfaces the lustre is
vitreous. The crystals are usually transparent and colourless, sometimes
with a greenish or rose-red tint. Opaque white crystals of cubic habit
have been called albine; xylochlore is an olive-green variety. The
hardness is 4-1/2, and the specific gravity 2.35.

The optical characters of the mineral are of special interest, and have
been much studied. The sign of the double refraction may be either
positive or negative, and some crystals are divided into optically
biaxial sectors. The variety known as leucocyclite shows, when examined
in convergent polarized light, a peculiar interference figure, the rings
being alternately white and violet-black and not coloured as in a normal
figure seen in white light.

Apophyllite is a mineral of secondary origin, commonly occurring, in
association with other zeolites, in amygdaloidal cavities in basalt and
melaphyre. Magnificent groups of greenish and colourless tabular
crystals, the crystals several inches across, were found, with flesh-red
stilbite, in the Deccan traps of the Western Ghats, near Bombay, during
the construction of the Great Indian Peninsular railway. Groups of
crystals of a beautiful pink colour have been found in the silver veins
of Andreasberg in the Harz and of Guanaxuato in Mexico. Crystals of
recent formation have been detected in the Roman remains at the hot
springs of Plombieres in France.     (L. J. S.)




APOPHYSIS (Gr. [Greek: apophysis], offshoot), a bony protuberance, in
human physiology; also a botanical term for the swelling of the
spore-case in certain mosses.




APOPLEXY (Gr. [Greek: apoplaexia], from [Greek: apoplaessein], to strike
down, to stun), the term employed by Galen to designate the "sudden loss
of feeling and movement of the whole body, with the exception of
respiration," to which, after the time of Harvey, was added "and with
the exception of the circulation." Although the term is occasionally
employed in medicine with other significations, yet in its general
acceptation apoplexy may be defined as a sudden loss of consciousness,
of sensibility, and of movement without any _essential_ modification of
the respiratory and circulatory functions occasioned by some brain
disease. It was discovered that the majority of the cases of apoplexy
were due to cerebral haemorrhage, and what looked like cerebral
haemorrhage, red softening; and the idea for a long time prevailed that
apoplexy and cerebral haemorrhage could be employed as synonymous terms,
and that an individual who, in popular parlance, "had an apoplectic
stroke," had necessarily suffered from haemorrhage into his brain. A
small haemorrhage may not, however, cause an apoplectic fit, nor is an
apoplectic fit always caused by haemorrhage; it may be due to sudden
blocking of a large vessel by a clot from a distant part (embolism), or
by a sudden clotting of the blood in the vessel itself (thrombosis).
Owing to the prevailing idea in former times that cerebral haemorrhage
and apoplexy were synonymous terms, the word apoplexy was applied to
haemorrhage into other organs than the brain; thus the terms pulmonary
apoplexy, retinal apoplexy and splenic apoplexy were used.

The term "apoplexy" is now used in clinical medicine to denote that form
of coma or deep state of unconsciousness which is due to sudden
disturbance of the cerebral circulation occasioned by a local cause
within the cranial cavity, as distinct from the loss of consciousness
due to sudden failure of the heart's action (syncope) or the coma of
narcotic or alcoholic poisoning, of _status epilepticus_, of uraemia or
of head injury.

The sudden coma of sunstroke and heat-stroke might be included, although
owing to the suddenness with which a person may be struck down, the term
_heat apoplexy_ is frequently used, and, from an etymological point of
view, quite justifiably. The older writers use the term _simple
apoplexy_ for a sudden attack which could not be explained by any
visible disease. Again, _congestive apoplexy_ was applied to those cases
of coma where, at the autopsy, nothing was found to account for the coma
and death except engorgement of the vessels of the brain and its
membranes. In senile dementia and in general paralysis the brain is
shrunken and the convolutions atrophied, the increased space in the
ventricles and between the convolutions being filled up with the
cerebro-spinal fluid. In these diseases apoplectic states may arise,
terminating fatally; the excess of fluid found in such cases was
formerly thought to be the cause of the symptoms, consequently the
condition was called _serous apoplexy_. Such terms are no longer used,
owing to the better knowledge of the pathology of brain disease.

Having thus narrowed down the application of the term "apoplexy," we are
in a position to consider its chief features, and the mechanism by which
it is produced. Apoplexy may be rapidly fatal, but it is very seldom
_instantly_ fatal. The onset is usually sudden, and sometimes the
individual may be struck down in an instant, senseless and motionless,
"warranting those epithets, which the ancients applied to the victims of
this disease, of _attoniti_ and _siderati_, as if they were
thunder-stricken or planet-struck" (Sir Thomas Watson). The attack,
however, may be less sudden and, not infrequently, attended by a
convulsion; while occasionally, in the condition termed _ingravescent
apoplexy_, the coma is gradual in its onset, occupying hours in its
development. Although unexpected, various warning symptoms, sometimes
slight, sometimes pronounced, occur in the majority of cases. Such are,
fulness in the head, headache, giddiness, noises in the ears, mental
confusion, slight lapses of consciousness, numbness or tingling in the
limbs. A characteristic apoplectic attack presents the following
phenomena: the individual falls down suddenly and lies without sense or
motion, except that his pulse keeps beating and his breathing continues.
He appears to be in a deep sleep, from which he cannot be roused; the
breathing is laboured and stertorous, and is accompanied with puffing
out of the cheeks; the pulse may be beating more strongly than natural,
and the face is often flushed and turgid. The reflexes are abolished.
Although apoplexy may occur without paralysis, and paralysis without
apoplexy, the two, owning the same cause, very frequently co-exist, or
happen in immediate sequence and connexion; consequently there is in
most cases definite evidence of paralysis affecting usually one side of
the body in addition to the coma. Thus the pupils are unequal; there may
be asymmetry of the face, or the limbs may be more rigid or flaccid on
one side than on the other. These signs of localized disease enable a
distinction to be made from the coma of narcotic poisoning and
alcoholic intoxication. It must be borne in mind that a person smelling
strongly of liquor and found lying in the street in a comatose state may
be suffering from apoplexy, and the error of sending a dying man to a
police cell may be avoided by this knowledge.

If the fit is only moderately severe, the reflexes soon return, and the
patient may in a few hours show indications of returning consciousness
by making some movements or opening his eyes when spoken to, although
later it may be found that he is unable to speak, or may be paralysed or
mentally afflicted (see PARALYSIS). In severe cases the coma deepens and
the patient dies, usually from interference with the breathing, or, less
commonly, from arrest of the heart's action.

The mechanism by which apoplexy is produced has been a matter of much
dispute; the condition was formerly ascribed to the pressure exerted by
the clot on the rest of the brain, but there is no increase of
intracranial pressure in an apoplectic fit occurring as a result of the
sudden closure of a large vessel by embolism or thrombosis. Suddenness
of the lesion appears to be, then, the essential element common to all
cases of apoplexy from organic brain disease. It is the sudden shock to
the delicate mechanism that produces the unconsciousness; but seeing
that the coma is usually deeper and more prolonged in cerebral
haemorrhage than when occasioned by vascular occlusion, and that an
ingravescent apoplexy coma gradually develops and deepens as the amount
of haemorrhage increases, we may presume that increase of intracranial
pressure does play an important part in the degree and intensity of the
coma caused by the rupture of a vessel. Apoplexy seldom occurs under
forty years of age, but owing to the fact that disease of the cerebral
vessels may exist at any age, from causes which are fully explained in
the article NEUROPATHOLOGY, no period of life is exempt; consequently
cases of true apoplexy are not wanting even in very young children.
Recognizing that there are two causes of apoplexy in advanced life, viz.
(1) sudden rupture of a diseased vessel usually associated with high
arterial pressure, enlarged, powerfully acting heart and chronic renal
disease, and (2) the sudden clotting of blood in a large diseased vessel
favoured by a low arterial pressure due to a weak-acting heart, it is
obvious that the character of the pulse forms a good guide to the
diagnosis of the cause, the prevention and warding off of an attack, and
the treatment of such should it occur.

Anything which tends directly or indirectly to increase arterial
pressure within the cerebral blood-vessels may bring on an attack of
cerebral haemorrhage; and although the identification of an apoplectic
habit of body with a stout build, a short neck and florid complexion is
now generally discredited, it being admitted that apoplexy occurs as
frequently in thin and spare persons who present no such peculiarity of
conformation, yet a plethoric habit of body, occasioned by immoderate
eating or drinking associated with the gouty diathesis, leads to a
general arterio-sclerosis and high arterial pressure. All conditions
which can give rise to a local intracranial or a general bodily increase
of the arterial pressure, i.e. severe exertion of body and mind, violent
emotions, much stooping, overheated rooms, exposure to the sun, sudden
shocks to the body, constipation and straining at stool, may, by
suddenly increasing the strain on the wall of a diseased vessel, lead to
its rupture.

The outlook of apoplexy is generally unfavourable in cases where the
coma is profound; death may take place at different intervals after the
onset. If the patient, after recovering from the initial coma, suffers
with continual headache and lapses into a drowsy state, the result is
likely to be serious; for such a condition probably indicates that an
inflammatory change has taken place about the clot or in the area of
softening.

_Treatment._--The patient should be placed in the recumbent position
with the head and shoulders slightly raised. He should be moved as
little as possible from the place where the attack occurred. The medical
man who is summoned will probably give the following directions: an
ice-bag to be applied to the head; a few grains of calomel or a drop of
croton oil in butter to be placed on the tongue, or an enema of castor
oil to be administered. He may find it necessary to draw off the water
with a catheter. The practice of blood-letting, once so common in this
disease, is seldom resorted to, although in some cases, where there is
very high arterial tension and a general state of plethora, it might be
beneficial. Depletives are not employed where there is evidence of
failure of the heart's action; indeed the cautious administration of
stimulants may be necessary, either subcutaneously or by the mouth (if
there exist a power of swallowing), together with warm applications to
the surface of the body; a water-bed may be required, and careful
nursing, is essential to prevent complications, especially the formation
of bedsores.     (F. W. Mo.)




APOROSE (from Gr. [Greek: ha], without, and [Greek: poros], passage), a
biological term meaning imperforate, or not porous: there is a group of
corals called _Aporosa_.




APOSIOPESIS (the Greek for "becoming silent"), a rhetorical device by
which the speaker or writer stops short and leaves something
unexpressed, but yet obvious, to be supplied by the imagination. The
classical example is the threat, "Quos ego----!" of Neptune (in Virgil,
_Aen._ i. 135).




APOSTASY ([Greek: apostasis], in classical Greek a defection or revolt
from a military commander), a term generally employed to describe a
complete renunciation of the Christian faith, or even an exchange of one
form of it for another, especially if the motive be unworthy. In the
first centuries of the Christian era, apostasy was most commonly induced
by persecution, and was indicated by some outward act, such as offering
incense to a heathen deity or blaspheming the name of Christ.[1] In the
Roman Catholic Church the word is also applied to the renunciation of
monastic vows (_apostasis a monachatu_), and to the abandonment of the
clerical profession for the life of the world (_apostasis a clericatu_).
Such defection was formerly often punished severely.


FOOTNOTE:

  [1] The readmission of such apostates to the church was a matter that
    occasioned serious controversy. The emperor Julian's "Apostasy" is
    discussed under JULIAN.




APOSTIL, or APOSTILLE (possibly connected with Lat. _appositum_, placed
near), a marginal note made by a commentator.




APOSTLE ([Greek: apostolos], one sent forth on a mission, an envoy, as
in Is. xviii. 2; Symmachus, [Greek: apostellein apostolous]; Aquila,
[Greek: presbentas]), a technical term used in the New Testament and in
Christian literature generally for a special envoy of Jesus Christ. How
far it had any similar use in Judaism in Christ's day is uncertain; but
in the 4th century A.D., at any rate, it denoted responsible envoys from
the central Jewish authority, especially for the collection of religious
funds. In its first and simplest Christian form, the idea is present
already in Mark iii. 14 f., where from the general circle of his
disciples Jesus "made twelve ('whom he also named apostles,' Luke vi.
13, but doubtful in Mark), that they should be with him, and that he
might from time to time send them forth ([Greek: hina apostellae]) to
preach and to have authority to cast out demons." Later on (vi. 6 ff.),
in connexion with systematic preaching among the villages of Galilee,
Jesus begins actually to "send forth" the twelve, two by two; and on
their return from this mission (vi. 30) they are for the first time
described as "apostles" or missionary envoys. Matthew (x. 1 ff.) blends
the calling of the twelve with their actual sending forth, while Luke
(vi. 13) makes Jesus himself call them "apostles" (for Luke's usage cf.
xi. 49, "prophets and apostles," where Matthew, xxiii. 34, has "prophets
and wise men and scribes"). But it is doubtful whether Jesus ever used
the term for the Twelve, in relation to their temporary missions, any
more than for the "seventy others" whom he "sent forth" later (Luke x.
1). Even the Fourth Gospel never so describes them. It simply has "a
servant is not greater than his lord, neither an apostle (envoy) greater
than he that sent him" (xiii. 16); and applies the idea of "mission"
alike to Jesus (cf. Heb. iii. 1, "Jesus, the apostle ... of our
profession") and to his disciples, generally, as represented by the
Twelve (xvii. 18, with 3, 6 ff.). But while ideally all Christ's
disciples were "sent" with the Father's Name in charge, there were
different degrees in which this applied in practice; and so we find
"apostle" used in several senses, once it emerges as a technical term.

1. In the Apostolic age itself, "apostle" often denotes simply an
"envoy," commissioned by Jesus Christ to be a primary witness and
preacher of the Messianic Kingdom. This wide sense was shown by
Lightfoot (in his commentary on _Galatians_, 1865) to exist in the New
Testament, e.g. in 1 Cor. xii. 28 f., Eph. iv. ii, Rom. xvi. 7; and his
view has since been emphasized[1] by the discovery of the _Teaching of
the Twelve Apostles_ (see DIDACHE), with its itinerant order of
"apostles," who, together with "prophets" (cf. Eph. ii. 20, iii. 5) and
"teachers," constituted a _charismatic_ and seemingly unordained
ministry of the Word, in some part of the Church (in Syria?) during the
early sub-apostolic age. Paul is our earliest witness, as just cited;
also in 1 Cor. xv. 5 ff., where he seems to quote the language of
Palestinian tradition, in saying that Christ "appeared to Cephas; then
to the Twelve; then ... to James; then to the apostles one and all
([Greek: tois apostolois pasin]); and last of all ... to me also." The
appearance to "_all_ the Apostles" must refer to the final commission
given by the risen Christ to certain assembled disciples (Acts i. 6 ff.,
cf. Luke xxiv. 33), including not only the Twelve and the Lord's
brethren (i. 13 f.), but also some at least of the Seventy. Of this
wider circle of witnesses, taken from among personal disciples during
Jesus's earthly ministry, we get a further glimpse in the election of
one from their number to fill Judas's place among the Twelve (i. 21
ff.), as the primary official witnesses of Messiah and his resurrection.
Many of the 120 then present (Acts i. 15), and not only the two set
forward for final choice, must have been personal disciples, who by the
recent commission had been made "apostles." Among such we may perhaps
name Judas Barsabbas and Silas (Acts xv. 22, cf. i. 23), if not also
Barnabas (1 Cor. ix. 6) and Andronicus and Junia (Rom. xvi. 7).

So far, then, we gather that the original Palestinian type of
apostleship meant simply (a) personal mission from the risen Christ (cf.
I Cor. ix. i), following on (b) some preliminary intercourse with Jesus
in his earthly ministry. It was pre-eminence in the latter qualification
that gave the Twelve their special status among apostles (Acts i. 26,
ii. 14, vi. 2; in Acts generally they are simply "the apostles").
Conversely, it was Paul's lack in this respect which lay at the root of
his difficulties as an apostle.

  It is possible, though not certain, that even those Judaizing
  missionaries at Corinth whom Paul styles "false-apostles" or,
  ironically, "the superlative apostles" (2 Cor. xi. 5, 13; xii. 11),
  rested part of their claim to superiority over Paul on (b), possibly
  even as having done service to Christ when on earth (2 Cor. xi. 18,
  23). There is no sign in 2 Cor. that they laid claim to (a). If this
  be so, they were "Christ's apostles" only indirectly, "through men"
  (as some had alleged touching Paul, cf. Gal. i. 1), i.e. as sent forth
  on mission work by certain Jerusalem leaders with letters of
  introduction (2 Cor. iii. 1; E. von Dobschutz, _Problems der apost.
  Zeitalters_, p. 106).

2. _The Twelve._--When Jesus selected an inner circle of disciples for
continuous training by personal intercourse, his choice of "twelve" had
direct reference to the tribes of Israel (Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 30).
This gave them a symbolic or representative character as a closed body
(cf. Rev. xxi. 14), marking them off as the primary religious authority
(cf. Acts ii. 42, "the apostles' teaching") among the "disciples" or
"brethren," when these began to assume the form of a community or
church. The relationship which other "apostles" had enjoyed with the
Master had been uncertain; _they_ had been his recognized intimates, and
that as a body. Naturally, then, they took the lead, collectively--in
form at least, though really the initiative lay with one or two of their
own number, Peter in particular. The process of practical
differentiation from their fellow apostles was furthered by the
concentration of the Twelve, or at least of its most marked
representatives, in Jerusalem, for a considerable period (Acts viii. 1,
cf. xii. 1 ff.; an early tradition specifies twelve years). Other
apostles soon went forth on their mission to "the cities of Israel" (cf.
Acts ix. 31), and so exercised but little influence on the central
policy of the Church. Hence their shadowy existence in the New
Testament, though the actual wording of Matt. x. 5-42, read in the light
of the _Didachi_, may help us to conceive their work in its main
features.

3. _"Pillar" Apostles._--But in fact differentiation between apostles
existed among the Twelve also. There were "pillars," like Peter and John
(and his brother James until his death), who really determined matters
of grave moment, as in the conference with Paul in Gal. ii. 9--a
conference which laid the basis of the latter's status as an apostle
even in the eyes of Jewish Christians. Such pre-eminence was but the
sequel of personal distinctions visible even in the preparatory days of
discipleship, and it warns us against viewing the primitive facts
touching apostles in the official light of later times.

Consciousness of such personal pre-eminence has left its marks on the
lists of the Twelve in the New Testament. Thus (1) Peter, James, John,
Andrew, always appear as the first four, though the order varies, Mark
representing relative prominence during Christ's ministry, and Acts
actual influence in the Apostolic Church (cf. Luke viii. 51, ix. 28).
(2) The others also stand in groups of four, the first name in each
being constant, while the order of the rest varies.

The same lesson emerges when we note that one such apostolic "pillar"
stood outside the Twelve altogether, viz. James, the Lord's brother
(Gal. ii. 9, cf. i. 19); and further, that "the Lord's brethren" seem to
have ranked above "apostles" generally, being named between them and
Peter in 1 Cor. ix. 5. That is, they too were apostles with the addition
of a certain personal distinction.

4. _Paul, the "Apostle of the Gentiles."_--So far apostles are only of
the Palestinian type, taken from among actual hearers of the Messiah and
with a mission primarily to Jews--apostles "of the circumcision" (Gal.
ii. 7-9). Now, however, emerges a new apostleship, that to the Gentiles;
and with the change of mission goes also some change in the type of
missionary or apostle. Of this type Paul was the first, and he remained
its primary, and in some senses its only, example. Though he could
claim, on occasion, to satisfy the old test of having seen the risen
Lord (1 Cor. ix. 1, cf. xv. 8), he himself laid stress not on this, but
on the revelation within his own soul of Jesus as God's Son, and of the
Gospel latent therein (Gal. i. 16). This was his divine call as "apostle
of the Gentiles" (Rom. xi. 13); here lay both his qualification and his
credentials, once the fruits of the divine inworking were manifest in
the success of his missionary work (Gal. ii. 8 f.; 1 Cor. xi. 1 f.; 2
Cor. in. 2 f., xii. 12). But this new criterion of apostleship was
capable of wider application, one dispensing altogether with vision of
the risen Lord--which could not even in Paul's case be proved so fully
as in the case of the original apostles--but appealing to the "signs of
an apostle" (1 Cor. ix. 2; 2 Cor. xii. 12), the tokens of spiritual gift
visible in work done, and particularly in the planting of the Gospel in
fresh fields (2 Cor. x. 14-18). It may be in this wide charismatic sense
that Paul uses the term in 1 Cor. xii. 28 f., Eph. ii. 20, iii. 5, iv.
11, and especially in Rom. xvi. 7, "men of mark among the apostles" (cf.
2 Cor. xi. 13, "pseudo-apostles" masquerading as "apostles of Christ,"
and perhaps 1 Thess. ii, 6, of himself and Silas). That he used it in
senses differing with the context is proved by 1 Cor. xv. 9, where he
styles himself "the least of apostles," although in other connexions he
claims the very highest rank, co-ordinate even with the Twelve as a body
(Gal. ii. 7 ff.), in virtue of his distinctive Gospel.

This point of view was not widely shared even in circles appreciative of
his actual work. To most he seemed but a fruitful worker within lines
determined by "the twelve apostles of the Lamb" as a body (Rev. xxi.
14). So we read of "the plant (Church) which the twelve apostles of the
Beloved shall plant" (_Ascension of Isaiah_, iv. 3); "those who preached
the Gospel to us (especially Gentiles) ... unto whom He gave authority
over the Gospel, being twelve for a witness to the tribes" (Barn. viii.
3, cf. v. 9); and the going forth of the Twelve, after twelve years,
beyond Palestine "into the world," to give it a chance to hear
(_Preaching of Peter_, in Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vi. 5.43; 6.48). Later
on, however, his own claim told on the Church's mind, when his epistles
were read in church as a collection styled simply "the Apostle."

As the primary medium of the Gentile Gospel (Gal. i. 16, cf. i. 8, ii.
2) Paul had no peers as an "apostle of the Gentiles" (Rom. xi. 13, cf.
XV. 15-20, and see 1 Cor. xv. 8, "last of all to me"), unless it were
Barnabas who shares with him the title "apostle" in Acts xiv. 4,
14--possibly with reference to the special "work" on which they had
recently been "sent forth by the Spirit" (xiii. 2, 4). Yet such as
shared the spiritual gift (_charisma_) of missionary power in sufficient
degree, were in fact apostles of Christ in the Spirit (1 Cor. xii. 28,
II). Such a secondary type of apostolate--answering to "apostolic
missionaries" of later times (cf. the use of [Greek: hierapostolos] in
this sense by the Orthodox Eastern Church to-day)--would help to account
for the apostolic claims of the missionaries censured in Rev. ii. 2, as
also for the "apostles" of the second generation implied in the Didache.

In the _sub-apostolic age_, however, the class of "missionaries"
enjoying a _charisma_ such as was conceived to convey apostolic
commission through the Spirit, soon became distinguished from "apostles"
(cf. Hennas, _Sim._ ix. 15.4, "the apostles and teachers of the message
of the Son of God," so 25.2; in 17.1 the apostles are reckoned as
twelve), as the title became more and more confined by usage to the
original apostles, particularly the Twelve as a body (e.g. _Ascension of
Isaiah_ and the _Preaching of Peter_), or to them and Paul (e.g. in
Clement and Ignatius), and as reverence for these latter grew in
connexion with their story in the Gospels and in Acts.[2] Thus Eusebius
describes as "evangelists" (cf. Philip the Evangelist in Acts xxi. 8,
also Eph. iv. 11, 2 Tim. iv. 5) those who "occupied the first rank in
the succession to the Apostles" in missionary work (_Hist. Eccl._ iii.
37, cf. v. 10). Yet the wider sense of "apostle" did not at once die out
even in the third and fourth generations. It lingered on as applied to
the Seventy[3]--by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement and Origen--and even to
Clement of Rome, by Clem. Alex. (? as a "fellow-worker" of Paul, Phil.
iv. 3); while the adjective "apostolic" was applied to men like Polycarp
(in his contemporary _Acts of Martyrdom_) and the Phrygian, Alexander,
martyred at Lyons in A.D. 177 (Eus. v. 1), who was "not without share of
apostolic _charisma_."

The _authority_ attaching to apostles was essentially spiritual in
character and in the conditions of its exercise. Anything like autocracy
among his followers was alien to Jesus's own teaching (Matt, xxiii.
6-11). All Christians were "brethren," and the basis of pre-eminence
among them was relative ability for service. But the personal relation
of the original Palestinian apostles to Jesus himself as Master gave
them a unique fitness as authorized witnesses, from which flowed
naturally, by sheer spiritual influence, such special forms of authority
as they came gradually to exercise in the early Church. "There is no
trace in Scripture of a formal commission of authority for government
from Christ Himself" (Hort, _Chr. Eccl._ p. 84) given to apostles, save
as representing the brethren in their collective action. Even the
"resolutions" ([Greek: dogmata]) of the Jerusalem conference were not
set forth by the apostles present simply in their own name, nor as _ipso
facto_ binding on the conscience of the Antiochene Church. They
expressed "a claim to deference rather than a right to be obeyed" (Hort,
_op. cit._ 81-85). Such was the kind of authority attaching to apostles,
whether collectively or individually. It was not a fixed notion, but
varied in quantity and quality with the growing maturity of converts.
This is how Paul, from whom we gather most on the point, conceives the
matter. The exercise of his spiritual authority is not absolute, lest he
"lord it over their faith"; consent of conscience or of "faith" is ever
requisite (2 Cor. i. 24; cf. Rom. xiv. 23). But the principle was
elastic in application, and would take more patriarchal forms in
Palestine than in the Greek world. The case was essentially the same as
on the various mission-fields to-day, where the position of the
"missionary" is at first one of great spiritual initiative and
authority, limited only by his own sense of the fitness of things, in
the light of local usages. So the notion of formal or constitutional
authority attaching to the apostolate, in its various senses, is an
anachronism for the apostolic age. The tendency, however, was for their
authority to be conceived more and more on formal lines, and,
particularly after their deaths, as absolute.

The authority attaching to apostles as writers, which led gradually to
the formation of a New Testament Canon--"the Apostles" side by side with
"the Books" of the Old Testament (so 2 Clement xiv., c. A.D.
120-140)--is a subject by itself (see BIBLE).

This change of conception helped to further the notion of a certain
devolution of apostolic powers to successors constituted by act of
ordination. The earliest idea of an _apostolical succession_ meant
simply the re-emergence in others of the apostolic spirit of missionary
enthusiasm. "The first rank in the succession of the apostles" consisted
of men eminent as disciples of theirs, and so fitted to continue their
labours (Euseb. iii. 37); and even under Commodus (A.D. 180-193) there
were "evangelists of the word" possessed of "inspired zeal to emulate
apostles" (v. 10). Such were perhaps the "apostles" of the _Didache_. Of
the notion of apostolic succession in ministerial grace conferred by
ordination, there is little or no trace before Irenaeus. The famous
passage in Clement of Rome (xliv. 2) refers simply to the succession of
one set of men to another in an office of apostolic institution. The
grace that makes Polycarp "an apostolic and prophetic teacher" (_Mart.
Polyc._ 16) is peculiar to him personally. But Irenaeus holds,
apparently on _a priori_ grounds, that "elders" who stand in orderly
succession to the apostolic founders of the true tradition in the
churches, have, "along with the succession of oversight," also an
"assured gift of (insight into) truth" by the Father's good pleasure
("cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum
placitum Patris acceperunt"), in contrast to heretics who wilfully stand
outside this approved line of transmission (_adv. Haer._ iv. 26. 2). So
far, indeed, the succession is not limited to the monarchical episcopate
as distinct from the presbyteral order to which it belonged (cf.
"presbyterii ordo, principalis consessio" in the same context, and see
iii. 14. 2), though the bishops of apostolic churches, as capable of
being traced individually (iii. 3. 1), are specially appealed to as
witnesses (cf. iv. 33. 8, v. 19. 2)--as earlier by Hegesippus (Euseb.
iv. 22). Nor is there mention of sacerdotal grace attaching to the
succession in apostolic truth.[4] But once the idea of supernatural
grace going along with office as such (of which we have already a trace
in the Ignatian bishop, though without the notion of actual apostolic
succession) arose in connexion with _successio ab apostolis_, the full
development of the doctrine was but a matter of time.[5]

  LITERATURE.--In England the modern treatment of the subject dates from
  J.B. Lightfoot's dissertation in his _Commentary on Galatians_, to
  which Dr F.J.A. Hort's _The Christian Ecclesia_ added elements of
  value; see also T.M. Lindsay, _The Church and the Ministry_, and
  articles in Hastings' _Dictionary of the Bible_ and the _Ency.
  Biblica_; A. Harnack, _Die Lehre der Apostel_, pp. 93 ff., and
  _Dogmengeschichte_ (3rd ed.), i. 153 ff.; E. Haupt, _Zum Verstandnis
  d. Apostolats in NT._ (Halle, 1896); and especially H. Monnier, _La
  Notion de l'apostolat, des origines a Irenee_ (Paris, 1903). The later
  legends and their sources are examined by T. Schermann, _Propheten-
  und Apostellegenden_ (Leipzig, 1907).     (J. V. B.)


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] By analogy, that is; for the wider sense of "apostle" in the
    Apostolic age need not be identical with a sub-apostolic use of the
    term (see below, 4 _fin_.).

  [2] The tendency is already visible in the Lucan writings. An
    anologous process is seen in the use of "disciple," applicable in the
    apostolic age to Christians at large, but in the course of the
    sub-apostolic age restricted to personal "disciples of the Lord" or
    to martyrs (Papias in Eus. iii. 39, cf. Ignatius, _Ad Eph._ i. 2).

  [3] In the Edessene legend of Abgar, in Eus. i. 12, we read that
    "Judas, who is also Thomas, sent Thaddaeus as apostle--one of the
    Seventy," where simply an authoritative envoy of Jesus seems
    intended. For traces of the wider sense of "apostle" in Gnostic,
    Marcionite and Montanist circles, see Monnier (as below).

  [4] The above is substantially the view taken by J.B. Lightfoot in
    his essay on "The Christian Ministry" (_Comm. on Philippians_, 6th
    ed., pp. 239, 252 f.), and by T.M. Lindsay, _The Church and the
    Ministry_ (1902), pp. 224-228, 278 ff. Even C. Gore, _The Church and
    the Ministry_ (1889), pp. 119 ff., while inferring a sacerdotal
    element in Irenaeus's conception of the episcopate, says: "But it is
    mainly as preserving the catholic traditions that Irenaeus regards
    the apostolic succession" (p. 120).

  [5] See Lightfoot's essay for Cyprian's contribution, as also for
    that of the Clementines, which fix on the twofold position of James
    at Jerusalem, as apostle and bishop, as bearing on apostolic
    succession in the episcopate.




APOSTLE SPOONS, a set of spoons, usually of silver or silver gilt, with
the handles terminating in figures of the apostles, each bearing their
distinctive emblem. They were common baptismal gifts during the 15th and
16th centuries, but were dying out by 1666. Often single spoons were
given, bearing the figure of the patron or name saint of the child. Sets
of the twelve apostles are not common, and complete sets of thirteen,
with the figure of our Lord on a larger spoon, are still rarer. The
Goldsmiths' Company in London has one such set, all by the same maker
and bearing the hall-mark of 1626, and a set of thirteen was sold at
Christie's in 1904 for L4900.

  See William Hone, _The Everyday Book_ and _Table Book_ (1831); and
  W.J. Cripps, _Old English Plate_ (9th ed., 1906).




APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS ([Greek: Diatagai] _or_ [Greek: Diataxeis ton
agion apostolon dia Klaementos tou Rhomaion episkopou te kai politou.
Katholikae didaskalia]), a collection of ecclesiastical regulations in
eight books, the last of which concludes with the eighty-five _Canons of
the Holy Apostles_. By their title the Constitutions profess to have
been drawn up by the apostles, and to have been transmitted to the
Church by Clement of Rome; sometimes the alleged authors are represented
as speaking jointly, sometimes singly. From the first they have been
very variously estimated; the _Canons_, as a rule, more highly than the
rest of the work. For example, the Trullan Council of Constantinople
(_quini-sextum_), A.D. 692, accepts the Canons as genuine by its second
canon, but rejects the Constitutions on the ground that spurious matter
had been introduced into them by heretics; and whilst the former were
henceforward used freely in the East, only a few portions of the latter
found their way into the Greek and oriental law-books. Again, Dionysius
Exiguus (c. A.D. 500) translated fifty of the Canons into Latin,[1]
although under the title _Canones qui dicuntur Apostolorum_, and thus
they passed into other Western collections; whilst the Constitutions as
a whole remained unknown in the West until they were published in 1563
by the Jesuit Turrianus. At first received with enthusiasm, their
authenticity soon came to be impugned; and their true significance was
largely lost sight of as it began to be realized that they were not what
they claimed to be. Vain attempts were still made to rehabilitate them,
and they were, in general, more highly estimated in England than
elsewhere. The most extravagant estimate of all was that of Whiston, who
calls them "the most sacred standard of Christianity, equal in authority
to the Gospels themselves, and superior in authority to the epistles of
single apostles, some parts of them being our Saviour's own original
laws delivered to the apostles, and the other parts the public acts of
the apostles" (Historical preface to _Primitive Christianity Revived_,
pp. 85-86). Others, however, realized their composite character from the
first, and by degrees some of the component documents became known.
Bishop Pearson was able to say that "the eight books of the Apostolic
Constitutions have been after Epiphanius's time compiled and patched
together out of the _didascaliae_ or doctrines which went under the
names of the holy apostles and their disciples or successors" (_Vind.
Ign._ i. cap. 5); whilst a greater scholar still, Archbishop Usher, had
already gone much further, and concluded, forestalling the results of
modern critical methods, that their compiler was none other than the
compiler of the spurious Ignatian epistles (_Epp. Polyc. et Ign._ p.
lxiii. f., Oxon. 1644). The Apostolical Constitutions, then, are
spurious, and they are one of a long series of documents of like
character. But we have not really gauged their significance by saying
that they are spurious. They are the last stage and climax of a gradual
process of compilation and crystallization, so to speak, of unwritten
church custom; and a short account of this process will show their real
importance and value.


  Origin and real nature.

These documents are the outcome of a tendency which is found in every
society, religious or secular, at some point in its history. The society
begins by living in accordance with its fundamental principles. By
degrees these translate themselves into appropriate action. Difficulties
are faced and solved as they arise; and when similar circumstances recur
they will tend to be met in the same way. Thus there grows up by degrees
a body of what may be called customary law. Plainly, there is no
particular point of time at which this customary law can be said to have
begun. To all appearance it is there from the first in solution and
gradually crystallizes out; and yet it is being continually modified as
time goes on. Moreover, the time comes when the attempt is made, either
by private individuals or by the society itself, to put this "customary
law" into writing. Now when this is done, two tendencies will at once
show themselves. (a) This "customary law" will at once become more
definite: the very fact of putting it into writing will involve an
effort after logical completeness. There will be a tendency on the part
of the writer to fill up gaps; to state local customs as if they
obtained universally; to introduce his personal equation, and to add to
that which is the custom that which, in his opinion, _ought_ to be. (b)
There will be a strong tendency to fortify that which has been written
with great names, especially in days when there is no very clear notion
of literary property. This is done, not always with any deliberate
consciousness of fraud (although it must be clearly recognized that
truth is not one of the "natural virtues," and that the sense of the
obligations of truthfulness was far from strong), but rather to
emphasize the importance of what was written, and the fact that it was
no new invention of the writer's. In a non-literary age fame gathers
about great names; and that which, _ex hypothesi_, has gone on since the
beginning of things is naturally attributed to the founders of the
society. Then come interpolations to make this ascription more probable,
and the prefixing of a title, then or subsequently, which states it as a
fact. This is precisely the way in which the Apostolical Constitutions
and other kindred documents have come into being. They are attempts,
made in various places and at different times, to put into writing the
order and discipline and character of the Church; in part for private
instruction and edification, but in part also with a view to actual use;
frequently even with an actual reference to particular circumstances. In
this lies their importance, to a degree which is only just being
adequately realized. They contain evidence of the utmost value as to the
order of the Church in early days; evidence, however, which needs to be
sifted with the greatest care, since the personal preferences of the
writer and the customs of the local church to which he belongs are
continually mixed up with things which have a wider prevalence. It is
only by careful investigation, by the method of comparisons, that these
elements can be disentangled; but as the number of documents of this
class known to us is continually increasing, their value increases even
more than proportionately. And whilst their local and fugitive character
must be fully recognized and allowed for, is it unjustifiable to set
them aside or leave them out of account as heretical, and therefore
negligible.


  Other collections.

It will be sufficient here to mention shortly the chief collections of
this kind which came into existence during the first four centuries;
generally as the work of private individuals, and having, at any rate,
no more than a local authority of some kind, (a) The earliest known to
us is the _Didache_ or _Teaching of the Twelve Apostles_, itself
compiled from earlier materials, and dating from about 120 (see
DIDACHE). (b) _The Apostolic Church Order_ (_apostolische
Kirchenordnung_ of German writers); _Ecclesiastical Canons of the Holy
Apostles_ of one MS.; _Sententiae Apostolorum_ of Pitra: of about 300,
and emanating probably from Asia Minor. Its earlier part, cc. 1-14,
depends upon the _Didache_, and the rest of it is a book of discipline
in which Harnack has attempted to distinguish two older fragments of
church law (_Texte u. Unters_. ii. 5). (c) The so-called _Canones
Hippolyti_, probably Alexandrian or Roman, and of the first half of the
3rd century. It will be observed that these make no claim to apostolic
authorship; but otherwise their origin is like that of the rest, unless
indeed, as has been suggested, they represent the work of an actual
Roman synod, (d) The so-called _Egyptian Church Order_, in Coptic from a
Greek pre-Nicene original (c. 310). It is part of the Egyptian
Heptateuch and contains neither communion nor ordination forms, (e) The
_Ethiopic Church Order_, perhaps twenty years later than (d), and
forming part of the _Ethiopic Statutes_. (f) The _Verona Latin
Fragments_, discovered and published by Hauler, portions of a form akin
to (e), which may be dated c. 340, though possibly earlier. It has a
preface which refers to a treatise _Concerning Spiritual Gifts_ as
having immediately preceded it. (g) The recently discovered _Testament
of the Lord_, which is somewhat later in date (c. 350), and likewise
depends upon the _Canones Hippolyti_. (h) The so-called _Canons of
Basil_. This is an Arabic work perhaps based on a Coptic and ultimately
on a Greek original, embodying with modifications large portions of the
Canons of Hippolytus. (On the relations between the six last-named, see
HIPPOLYTUS, CANONS of.)

  Here also may be noticed the _Didascalia Apostolorum_, originally
  written in Greek, but known through a Syriac version and a fragmentary
  Latin one published by Hauler. It is of the middle of the 3rd
  century--in fact, a passage in the Latin translation seems to give us
  the date A.D. 254. It emanates from Palestine or Syria, and is
  independent of the documents already mentioned; and upon it the
  _Constitutions_ themselves very largely depend. It is a mixture of
  moral and ecclesiastical instruction. The _Sacramentary of Serapion_
  (c. 350), _The Pilgrimage of Etheria_ (_Silvia_) (c. 385), and _The
  Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem_ (348) are also of value
  in this connexion. In the (so-called) _Constitutions through
  Hippolytus_ we have possibly a preliminary draft of the famous 8th
  book of the _Apostolical Constitutions_.[2]


  Contents.

The Constitutions themselves fall into three main divisions. (i.) The
first of these consists of books i.-vi., and throughout runs parallel to
the _Didascalia_. Bickell, indeed, held that this latter was an
abbreviated form of books i.-vi.; but it is now agreed on all hands that
the Constitutions are based on the _Didascalia_ and not vice versa.
(ii.) Then follows book vii., the first thirty-one chapters of which are
an adaptation of the _Didache_, whilst the rest contain various
liturgical forms of which the origin is still uncertain, though it has
been acutely suggested by Achelis, and with great probability, that they
originated in the schismatical congregation of Lucian at Antioch. (iii.)
Book viii. is more composite, and falls into three parts. The first two
chapters, [Greek: peri charismaton], may be based upon a lost work of St
Hippolytus, otherwise known only by a reference to it in the preface of
the _Verona Latin Fragments_; and an examination shows that this is
highly probable. The next section, cc. 3-27, [Greek: peri cheirotoyioy],
and cc. 28-46, [Greek: peri kayoyoy], is twofold, and is evidently that
upon which the writer sets most store. The apostles no longer speak
jointly, but one by one in an apostolic council, and the section closes
with a joint decree of them all. They speak of the ordination of bishops
(the so-called Clementine Liturgy is that which is directed to be used
at the consecration of a bishop, cc. 5-15), of presbyters, deacons,
deaconesses, sub-deacons and lectors, and then pass on to confessors,
virgins, widows and exorcists; after which follows a series of canons on
various subjects, and liturgical formulae. With regard to this section,
all that can be said is that it includes materials which are also to be
found elsewhere--in the _Egyptian Church Order_ and other documents
already spoken of--and that the precise relation between them is at
present not determined. The third section consists of the Apostolic
Canons already referred to, the last and most significant of which
places the Constitutions and the two epistles of Clement in the canon of
Scripture, and omits the Apocalypse. They are derived in part from the
preceding Constitutions, in part from the canons of the councils of
Antioch, 341, Nicaea, 325, and possibly Laodicaea, 363.

A comparison of the Constitutions with the material upon which they are
based will illustrate the compiler's method. (a) To begin with the
_Didascalia_ already mentioned. It is unmethodical and badly digested,
homiletical in style, and abounding in biblical quotations. There is no
precise arrangement; but the subjects, following a general introduction,
are the bishop and his duties, penance, the administration of the
offerings, the settlement of disputes, the divine service, the order of
widows, deacons and deaconesses, the poor, behaviour in persecution, and
so forth. The compiler of the Constitutions finds here material after
his own heart. He is even more discursive and more homiletical in style;
he adds fresh citations of the Scriptures, and additional explanations
and moral reflexions; and all this with so little judgment that he often
leaves confusion worse confounded (e.g. in ii. 57, where, upon a
symbolical description of the Church as a sheepfold, he has superimposed
the further symbolism of a ship). (b) Passing on to books vii. and
viii., we observe that the compiler's method of necessity changes with
his new material. In the former book he still makes large additions and
alterations, but there is less scope for his prolixity than before; and
in the latter, where he is no longer dealing with generalities, but
making actual definitions, the Constitutions of necessity become more
precise and statutory in form. Throughout he adopts and adapts the
language of his sources as far as possible, "only pruning in the most
pressing cases," but towards the end he cannot avoid making larger
alterations from time to time. And his alterations throughout are not
made aimlessly. Where he finds things which would obviously clash with
the customs of his own day, he unhesitatingly modifies them. An account
of the Passion, with a curiously perverted chronology, the object of
which was to justify the length of the Passion-tide fast, is entirely
revised for this reason (v. 14); the direction to observe Easter
according to the Jewish computation is changed into the exact contrary
for the same reason (v. 17); and where his archetype lapses into
speaking of a lull in persecution he naively informs us that the Romans
have now given up persecuting and have adopted Christianity (vi. 26),
forgetting altogether that he is speaking in the character of the
apostles. Above all, he both magnifies the office of the Christian
ministry as a whole and alters what is said of it in detail (for
example, the deaconess loses rank not a little), to make it agree with
the circumstances of his day in general, and with his own ideas of
fitness in particular. It is here that his evidence is at once most
valuable and needs to be used with the greatest care. To give one
striking example of the value of these documents. The _Canones
Hippolyti_ (vi. 43) provide that one who has been a confessor for the
faith may be received as a presbyter by virtue of his confessorship and
not by the laying on of the bishop's hands; but if he be chosen a
bishop, he is to be ordained. This provision passes on into the Egyptian
_Ecclesiastical Canons_ and other kindred documents, and even into the
_Testamentum Domini_. But the corresponding passage in the Apostolical
Constitutions (viii. 23) entirely reverses it: "A confessor is not
ordained, for he is so by choice and patience, and is worthy of great
honour.... But if there be occasion, he is to be ordained either a
bishop, priest, or deacon. But if any one of the confessors who is not
ordained snatches to himself any such dignity upon account of his
confession, let the same person be deprived and rejected; for he is not
in such an office, since he has denied the constitution of Christ, and
is worse than an infidel."


  Authorship, place, and date.

Who, then, is the author of the Constitutions, and what can be inferred
with regard to him? (i.) By separating off the sources which he used
from his own additions to them, it at once becomes clear that the latter
are the work of one man: the style is unmistakable, and the method of
working is the same throughout. The compiler of books i.-vi. is also the
compiler of books vii., viii. (ii.) As to his theological position,
different views have been held. Funk suggests Apollinarianism, which is
the refuge of the destitute; and Achelis inclines in the same direction.
But the affinities of the author are quite otherwise, the most
pronounced of them being a strong subordinationist tendency, denial of a
human soul to Christ, and the like, which suggest not indeed Arianism
but an inclination towards Arianism. Above all, his polemic is directed
against the dying heresies of the 3rd century; and he writes with an
absence of constraint which is not the language of one who lives amidst
violent controversies or who is conscious of being in a minority. All
this points to the position of a "conservative" or semi-Arian of the
East, one who belongs, perhaps, to the circle of Lucian of Antioch and
writes before the time of Julian. It is hard to think of any other time
or circumstances in which a man could write like this, (iii.) The
indications of _time_ have been held to point to a different conclusion.
On the one hand, the fact that the attempt to rebuild the temple by
Julian in 363 is not mentioned in vi. 24 points to an earlier date; and
the fact that the [Greek: kopiatai] are not mentioned amongst the church
officers points in the same direction, for elsewhere they are first
mentioned in a rescript of Constantius in A.D. 357. On the other hand,
in the cycle of feasts occur the names of several which are probably of
later date--e.g. Christmas and St Stephen, which were introduced at
Antioch c. A.D. 378 and 379 respectively. Again, Epiphanius (c. A.D.
374) appears to be unacquainted with it; he still quotes from the
_Didascalia_, and elaborately explains it away where it is contrary to
the usages of his own day. But as regards the former point, it is
possible that the Apostolical Constitutions constantly gave rise to
these festivals; or, on the other hand, that the two passages were
subsequently introduced either by the writer himself or by some other
hand, when the last book of the Constitutions was being used as a
law-book. And as regards the latter, the fact that Epiphanius does not
use the Constitutions is no proof that they had not yet been compiled.
(iv.) As to the region of composition there is no real doubt. It was
clearly the East, Syria or Palestine. Many indications are against the
latter, and Syria is strongly suggested by the use of the
Syro-Macedonian calendar. Moreover, the writer represents the Roman
Clement as the channel of communication between the apostles and the
Church. This fact both supplies him with the name by which he is
commonly known, Pseudo-Clement, and also furnishes corroboration of his
Syrian birth; since the other spurious writings bearing the name of
Clement, the _Homilies_ and _Recognitions_, are likewise of Syrian
origin. Moreover, the spurious Ignatian epistles, which are also Syrian,
depend throughout upon the Constitutions, (v.) But this is not all. It
was long ago noticed that Pseudo-Clement bears a very close resemblance
to Pseudo-Ignatius, the interpolator of the Ignatian Epistles in the
longer Greek recension. Usher, as we have seen, identified them, and
modern criticism accepts this identification as a fact (Lagarde,
Harnack, Funk, Brightman). Lightfoot, indeed, still hesitated (_Ap.
Fathers_, II. i. 266 n.) on the ground that Pseudo-Ignatius occasionally
misunderstands the Constitutions, that the two writings give the Roman
succession differently, and that Pseudo-Clement shows no knowledge of
the Christological controversies of Nicaea. But as regards the first of
these, it is rather a case of condensed citation than of
misinterpretation; the second is explained by the writer's carelessness
as shown in other passages, and all are solved if a considerable
interval of time elapsed between the compilation of the Constitutions
and the spurious Ignatian epistles.

It seems clear then that the compiler was a Syrian, and that he also
wrote the spurious Ignatian epistles; he was likewise probably a
semi-Arian of the school of Lucian of Antioch. His date is given by
Harnack as A.D. 340-360, with a leaning to 340-343; by Lightfoot as the
latter half of the 4th century; by Brightman, 370-380; by Maclean, 375;
and by Funk as the beginning of the 5th century.

  AUTHORITIES.--W. Ueltzen, _Constitutiones Apostolicae_ (Schwerin,
  1853); P.A. de Lagarde, _Didascalia Apostolorum Syriace_ (Leipz.,
  1854); _Constitutiones Apostolorum_ (Leipz. and Lond., 1862); M.D.
  Gibson, _Didascalia Apost. Syriace_, with Eng. trans. (_Horae
  Semiticae_, i. and ii., Cambridge, 1903); J.B. Pitra, _Juris
  Ecclesiastici Graecorum Historia et Monumenta_, i. (Rome, 1864);
  Hauler, _Didascaliae Apostolorum Fragmenta Ueronensia Latina_,
  (Leipzig, 1900); Bickell, _Geschichte des Kirchenrechts_, i. (Giessen,
  1843); F.X. Funk, _Die apostolischen Konstitutionen_ (Rottenb., 1891);
  A. Harnack, _Geschichte d. altchristl. Litteratur_, i. 515 ff.
  (Leipz., 1893); F.E. Brightman, _Liturgies Eastern and Western_, I.
  xvii. ff. (Oxford, 1896); H. Achelis, in Hauck's _Realencyklopadie_,
  i. 734 f., art. "Apostolische Konstitutionen und Kanones" (Leipz.,
  1896); A.S. Maclean, _Recent Discoveries illustrating Early Christian
  Worship_ (Lond., 1904); J. Wordsworth, _The Ministry of Grace_, pp. 18
  ff; J.P. Arendzen, "The Apostolic Church Order" (Syriac Text, Eng.
  trans. and notes) in _Journ. of Theol. Studies_, iii. 59. Trans. of
  _Apost. Constitutions_, book viii., in Ante-Nicene Christian Library.
       (W. E. Co.)


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] Why he did not go on to give the remaining thirty-five is not
    clear; they belong to the same date as, and are not inferior to, the
    first fifty.

  [2] At a later date various collections were made of the documents
    above mentioned, or some of them, to serve as law-books in different
    churches--e.g. the Syrian Octateuch, the Egyptian Heptateuch, and the
    Ethiopic Sinodos. These, however, stand on an entirely different
    footing, since they are simply collections of existing documents, and
    no attempt is made to claim apostolic authorship for them.




APOSTOLIC CANONS, a collection of eighty-five rules for the regulation
of clerical life, appended to the eighth book of the _Apostolical
Constitutions_ (q.v.). They are couched in brief legislative form though
on no definite plan, and deal with the vexed questions of ecclesiastical
discipline as they were raised towards the end of the 4th century. At
least half of the canons are derived from earlier constitutions, and
probably not many of them are the actual productions of the compiler,
whose aim was to gloss over the real nature of the _Constitutions_, and
secure their incorporation with the Epistles of Clement in the New
Testament of his day. The _Codex Alexandrinus_ does indeed append the
Clementine Epistles to its text of the New Testament. The Canons may be
a little later in date than the preceding _Constitutions_, but they are
evidently from the same Syrian theological circle.




APOSTOLIC FATHERS, a term used to distinguish those early Christian
writers who were believed to have been the personal associates of the
original Apostles. While the title "Fathers" was given from at least the
beginning of the 4th century to church writers of former days, as being
the parents of Christian belief and thought for later times, the
expression "Apostolic Fathers" dates only from the latter part of the
17th century. The idea of recognizing these "Fathers" as a special group
exists already in the title "Patres aevi apostolici, sive SS. Patrum qui
temporibus apostolicis floruerunt ... opera," under which in 1672 J.B.
Cotelier published at Paris the writings current under the names of
Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius and Polycarp. But the name
itself is due to their next editor, Thomas Ittig (1643-1710), in his
_Bibliotheca Patrum Apostolicorum_ (1699), who, however, included under
this title only Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp. Here already appears the
doubt as to how many writers can claim the title, a doubt which has
continued ever since, and makes the contents of the "Apostolic Fathers"
differ so much from editor to editor. Thus the Oratorian Andrea Gallandi
(1700-1779), in re-issuing Cotelier's collection in his _Bibliotheca
Veterum Patrum_ (1765-1781), included the fragments of Papias and the
Epistle to Diognetus, to which recent editors have added the citations
from the "Elders" of Papias's day found in Irenaeus and, since 1883, the
_Didache_.

The degree of historic claim which these various writings have to rank
as the works[1] of Apostolic Fathers varies greatly on any definition of
"apostolic." Originally the epithet was meant to be taken strictly, viz.
as denoting those whom history could show to have been personally
connected, or at least coeval, with one or more apostles; and an effort
was made, as by Cotelier, to distinguish the writings rightly and
wrongly assigned to such. Thus editions tended to vary with the
historical views of editors. But the convenience of the category
"Apostolic Fathers" to express not only those who might possibly have
had some sort of direct contact with apostles--such as "Barnabas,"
Clement, Ignatius, Papias, Polycarp--but also those who seemed specially
to preserve the pure tradition of apostolic doctrine during the
sub-apostolic age, has led to its general use in a wide and vague sense.

Conventionally, then, the title denotes the group of writings which,
whether in date or in internal character, are regarded as belonging to
the main stream of the Church's teaching during the period between the
Apostles and the Apologists (i.e. to c. A.D. 140). Or to put it more
exactly, the "Apostolic Fathers" represent, chronologically in the main
and still more from the religious and theological standpoint, the
momentous process of transition from the type of teaching in the New
Testament to that which meets us in the early Catholic Fathers, from the
last quarter of the 2nd century onwards. The Apologists no doubt show us
certain fresh factors entering into this development; but on the whole
the Apostolic Fathers by themselves go a long way to explain the
transition in question, so far as knowledge of this _saeculum obscurum_
is within our reach at all. It is true that they do not include the
whole even of the ecclesiastical literature of the sub-apostolic age,
not to mention what remains of Gnostic and other minority types. The
_Preaching and Apocalypse_ of Peter, for instance, are quite typical of
the same period, and help us to read between the lines of the Apostolic
Fathers. Yet they do not really add much to what is there already, and
they have the drawbacks of pseudonymity; they lack concrete and personal
qualities; they are general expressions of tendencies which we cannot
well locate or measure, save by means of the Apostolic Fathers
themselves or of their earliest Catholic successors.

(A) In _external features_ the group is far from homogeneous, a fact
which has led to their being disintegrated as a group in certain
histories of early Christian literature (e.g. those of Harnack and
Kruger), and classed each under its own literary type--so sacrificing to
outer form, which is quite secondary in primitive Christian writings,
the more significant fact of religious affinity. Its original members,
those still best entitled to their name in any strict sense, are
epistles, and in this respect also most akin to Apostolic writings.
Indeed Ignatius takes pleasure in saluting his readers "after the
apostolic stamp" (_ad Troll._ inscr.), while yet disclaiming all desire
to emulate the apostolic manner in other respects, being fully conscious
of the gulf between himself and apostles like Peter and Paul in claim to
authority (_ib._ in. 3, _ad Rom._ iv. 3). The like holds of Polycarp,
who, in explaining that he writes to exhort the Philippians only at
their own request, adds, "for neither am I, nor is any other like me,
able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul" (in. 2).
Clement's epistle, indeed, conforms more to the elaborate and
treatise-like form of the Epistle to the Hebrews, on which it draws so
largely; and the same is true of "Barnabas." But one and all are
influenced by study of apostolic epistles, and witness to the impression
which these produced on the men of the next generation. Unconsciously,
too, they correspond to the apostolic type of writing in another
respect, viz. their occasional and practical character. They are evoked
by pressing needs of the hour among some definite body of Christians and
not by any literary motive.[2] This is a universal trait of primitive
Christian writings; so that to speak of primitive Christian "literature"
at all is hardly accurate, and tends to an artificial handling of their
contents. These sub-apostolic epistles are veritable "human documents,"
with the personal note running through them. They are after all personal
expressions of Christianity, in which are discernible also specific
types of local tradition. To such spontaneous actuality a large part of
their interest and value is due.

Nor is this pre-literary and vital quality really absent even from the
writing which is least entitled to a place among "Apostolic Fathers,"
the Epistle to Diognetus. This beautiful picture of the Christian life
as a realized ideal, and of Christians as "the soul" of the world, owes
its inclusion to a double error: first, to the accidental attachment at
the end of another fragment (S ii), which opens with the writer's claim
to stand forth as a teacher as being "a disciple of apostles"; and next,
to mistaken exegesis of this phrase as implying personal relations with
apostles, rather than knowledge of their teaching, written or oral.
Whether in form addressed to Diognetus, the tutor of Marcus Aurelius, as
a typical cultured observer of Christianity, or to some other eminent
person of the same name in the locality of its origin, or, as seems more
likely, to cultured Greeks generally, personified under the significant
name "Diognetus" ("Heaven-born," of. Acts xvii. 28 along with S iii.
4)--the epistle is in any case an "open letter" of an essentially
literary type. Further, its opening seems modelled on the lines of the
preface to Luke's Gospel, to which, along with Acts, it may owe
something of its very conception as a reasoned appeal to the lover of
truth. But while literary in form and conception, its appeal is in
spirit so personal a testimony to what the Gospel has done for the
writer and his fellow Christians, that it is akin to the piety of the
Apostolic Fathers as a group. It is true that it has marked affinities,
e.g. in its natural theology, with the earliest Apologists, Aristides
and Justin, even as it is itself in substance an apology addressed not
to the State, but to thoughtful public opinion. But this only means that
we cannot draw a hard and fast line between groups of early Christian
writings at a time when practical religious interests overshadowed all
others.

If thus related to the Apologists of the middle of the 2nd century, the
Epistle to Diognetus has also points of contact with one of the most
practical and least literary writings found among our Apostolic Fathers,
viz. the homily originally known as the Second Epistle of Clement (for
this ascription, as for other details, see CLEMENTINE LITERATURE). The
recovery of its concluding sections in the same MS. which brought the
_Didache_ to light, proves beyond question that we have here the
earliest extant sermon preached before a Christian congregation, about
A.D. 120-140 (so J.B. Lightfoot). Its opening section, recalling to its
hearers the passing of the mists of idolatry before the revelation in
Jesus Christ, is markedly similar in tone and tenor to passages in the
Epistle to Diognetus. Far closer, however, are the affinities between
the homily and the _Shepherd of Hermas_, "the first Christian allegory,"
which as a literary whole dates from about A.D. 140, but probably
represents a more or less prolonged prophetic activity on the part of
its author, the brother of Pius, the Roman bishop of his day (c.
139-154). In both the primary theme is repentance, as called for by
serious sins, after baptism has placed the Christian on his new and
higher level of responsibility. Thus both are hortatory writings, the
one argumentative in form, the other prophetic, after the manner of
later Old Testament prophets whose messages came in visions and
similitudes. This prophetic and apocalyptic note, which characterizes
Hermas among the Apostolic Fathers (though there are traces of it also
in the _Didache_ and in Ignatius, _ad Eph._ xx.), is a genuinely
primitive trait and goes far to explain the vogue which the _Shepherd_
enjoyed in the generations immediately succeeding, as also the influence
of its disciplinary policy, which is its prophetic "burden" (see HERMAS,
SHEPHERD OF).

We come finally to the anonymous _Teaching of the Twelve Apostles_ and
Papias's _Exposition of Oracles of the Lord_, so far as this is known to
us. The former, besides embodying catechetical instruction in Christian
conduct (the "Two Ways"), which goes back in substance to the early
apostolic age and is embodied also in "Barnabas," depicts in outline the
fundamental usages of church life as practised in some conservative
region (probably within Syria) about the last quarter of the 1st century
and perhaps even later. The whole is put forth as substantially the
apostolic teaching (_Didache_) on the subjects in question. This is
probably a _bona fide_ claim. It expresses the feeling common to the
Apostolic Fathers and general in the sub-apostolic age, at any rate in
regions where apostles had once laboured, that local tradition, as held
by the recognized church leaders, did but continue apostolic doctrine
and practice. Into later developments of this feeling an increasing
element of illusion entered, and all other written embodiments of it
known to us take the form of literary fictions, more or less bold. It is
in contrast to these that the _Didache_ is justly felt to be genuinely
primitive and of a piece with the Apostolic Fathers. Thus while its form
would by analogy tend _per se_ to awaken suspicion, its contents remove
this feeling; and we may even infer from this surviving early
formulation of local ecclesiastical tradition, that others of somewhat
similar character came into being in the sub-apostolic age, but failed
to survive save as embodied in later local teaching, oral or written,
very much as if the _Didache_ had perished and its literary offspring
alone remained (see DIDACHE).

As regards Papias's _Exposition_, which Lightfoot describes as "among
the earliest forerunners of commentaries, partly explanatory, partly
illustrative, on portions of the New Testament," we need here only
remark that, whatever its exact form may have been--as to which the
extant fragments still leave room for doubt--it was in conception
expository of the historic meaning of Christ's more ambiguous Sayings,
viewed in the light of definitely ascertained apostolic traditions
bearing on the subject. The like is true also of the fragments of the
Elders preserved in Irenaeus (so far as these do not really come from
Papias). Both bodies of exposition represent the traditional principle
at work in the sub-apostolic age, making for the preservation in
relative purity, over against merely subjective interpretations--those
of the Gnostics in particular--of the historic or original sense of
Christ's teaching, just as Ignatius stood for the historicity of the
facts of His earthly career in their plain, natural sense.

(B) Here the question of external form passes readily over into that of
the _internal character and spirit_. Indeed much has already been said
or suggested bearing on these. The relation of these writers to the
apostolic teaching generally has become pretty evident. It is one of
absolute loyalty and deference, as to the teaching of inspiration. They
are conscious, as are we in reading them, that they are not moving on
the same level of insight as the Apostles; they are sub-apostolic in
that sense also. Hence there appear constant traces of study of the
Apostolic writings, so far as these were accessible in the locality of
each writer at his date of writing (for the details of this subject, and
its bearing on the history of the Canonical Scriptures of the New
Testament, see _The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers_, Oxford,
1905). As Lightfoot points out (_Apostolic Fathers_, pt. i. vol. i. p.
7), however, personality, with its variety of temperament and emphasis,
largely colours the Apostolic Fathers, especially the primary group.
Clement has all the Roman feeling for duly constituted order and
discipline; Ignatius has the Syrian or semi-oriental passion of
devotion, showing itself at once in his mystic love for his Lord and his
over-strained yearning to become His very "disciple" by drinking the
like cup of martyrdom; Polycarp is, above all things, steady in his
allegiance to what had first won his conscience and heart, and his
"passive and receptive character" comes out in the contents of his
epistle. Of the rest, whose personalities are less known to us, Papias
shares Polycarp's qualities and their limitations, the anonymous
homilist and Hermas are marked by intense moral earnestness, while the
writer to Diognetus joins to this a profound religious insight. These
personal traits determine by selective affinity, working under
conditions given by the special local type of tradition and piety, the
elements in the Apostolic writings which each was able to assimilate and
express--though we must allow also for variety in the occasions of
writing. Thus one New Testament type is echoed in one and another in
another; or it may be several in turn. The latter is the case in
Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp; perhaps also in "Barnabas." In Hermas
there is special affinity to the language and thought of the epistle of
James, and in the homilist to those of Paul. Yet their very use of the
same terms or ideas makes us the more aware of "a marked contrast to the
depth and clearness of conception with which the several Apostolic
writers place before us different aspects of the Gospel" (Lightfoot).
While Apostolic phrases are used, the sense behind them is often
different and less evangelic. They have not caught the Apostolic
meaning, because they have not penetrated to the full religious
experience which gave to the words, often words with long and varied
history both in the Septuagint and in ordinary Greek usage, their
specific meaning to each apostle and especially to Paul. This phenomenon
was noted particularly by E. Reuss, in his _Histoire de la theologie
chretienne an siecle apostolique_ (3rd ed., 1864). Take for instance
Clement. Lightfoot, indeed, dwells on the all-round "comprehensiveness"
with which Clement, as the mouthpiece of the early Roman Church, utters
in succession phrases or ideas borrowed impartially from Peter and Paul
and James and the Epistle to Hebrews. He admits, however, that such mere
co-ordination of the language of Paul and James, for instance, as
appears in his twice bracketing "faith and hospitality" as grounds of
acceptance with God (the cases are those of Abraham and Rahab, in chs.
x. and xii.), is "from a strictly dogmatic point of view" his weakness.
But the weakness is more than a dogmatic one; it is one of religious
experience, as the source of spiritual insight. It is not merely that
"there is no _dogmatic system_ in Clement" or in any other of the
Apostolic Fathers; that may favour, not hinder, religious insight. There
is a want of depth in Christian experience, in the power of realizing
relative spiritual values in the light of the master principle involved
in the distinctively Christian consciousness, such as could raise
Clement above a verbal eclecticism, rather than comprehensiveness, in
the use of Apostolic language. As R.W. Dale remarks, in a note on
Reuss's too severe words (Eng. trans. ii. 295): "The vital force of the
Apostolic convictions gave to Apostolic thought a certain organic and
consistent form." It is lack of this organic quality in the thought, not
only of Clement but also of the Apostolic Fathers generally--with the
possible exception of Ignatius, who seems to share the Apostolic
experience more fully than any other, to which Reuss rightly directs
attention. In virtue of this defect, due largely to the failure to enter
into the Apostolic experience of mystic union with Christ, he can
rightly speak of "an immense retrogression" in theology visible "at the
end of the century, and in circles where it might have been least
expected" (ii. p. 294, cf. 541).

In fact the perspective of the Gospel was seriously changed and its most
distinctive features obscured. This was specially the case with the
experimental doctrines of grace. Here the central glory of the Cross as
"the power of God unto salvation" suffered some eclipse, although the
passion of Christ was felt to be a transcendent act of Divine Grace in
one way or another. But even more serious was the loss of an adequate
sense of the contrast between "grace" and "works" as conditions of
salvation. There was little or no sense of the danger of the _legal
principle_, as related to human egoism and the instinct to seek
salvation as a reward for merit. The passages in which these things are
laid bare by Paul's remorseless analysis of his own experience "under
Law" seem to have made practically no impression on the Apostolic
Fathers as a whole. Gentile Christians had not felt the fang of the Law
as the ex-Pharisee had occasion to feel it. Even if first trained in the
Hellenistic synagogues of the Dispersion, as was often the case, they
apprehended the Law on its more helpful and less exacting side, and had
not been brought "by the Law to die unto the Law," that they might "live
unto God." The result was too great a continuity between their religious
conceptions before and after embracing the Gospel. Thus the latter
seemed to them simply to bring forgiveness of past sins for Christ's
sake, and then an enhanced moral responsibility to the New Law revealed
in Him. Hence a new sort of legalism, known to recent writers as
Moralism, underlies much of the piety of the Apostolic Fathers, though
Ignatius is quite free from it, while Polycarp and "Barnabas" are less
under its influence than are the _Didache_, Clement, the Homilist and
Hermas. It conceives salvation as a "wages" ([Greek: osthos]) to be
earned or forfeited; and regards certain good works, such as prayer,
fasting, alms--especially the last--as efficacious to cancel sins. The
reality of this tendency, particularly at Rome, betrays itself in
Hermas, who teaches the supererogatory merit of alms gained by the
self-denial of fasting (_Sim_. v. 3. 3 ff.). Marcion's reaction, too,
against the Judaic temper in the Church as a whole, in the interests of
an extravagant Paulinism, while it suggests that Paul's doctrines of
grace generally were inadequately realized in the sub-apostolic age,
points also to the prevalence of such moralism in particular.

(C) In attempting a final estimate of the value of the Apostolic Fathers
for the historian to-day, we may sum up under these heads:
ecclesiastical, theological, religious. (a) As a mine of materials for
reconstructing the history of Church institutions, they are invaluable,
and that largely in virtue of their spontaneous and "esoteric"
character, with no view to the public generally or to posterity. (b)
Theologically, as a stage in the history of Christian doctrine, their
value is as great negatively as positively. Impressive as is their
witness to the persistence of the Apostolic teaching in its essential
features, amidst all personal and local variations, perhaps the most
striking thing about these writings is the degree in which they fail to
appreciate certain elements of the Apostolic teaching as embodied in the
New Testament, and those its higher and more distinctively Christian
elements.[3] This negative aspect has a twofold bearing. Firstly, it
suggests the supernormal level to which the Apostolic consciousness was
raised at a bound by the direct influence of the Founder of
Christianity, and justifies the marking-off of the Apostolic writings as
a Canon, or body of Christian classics of unique religious authority. To
this principle Marcion's Pauline Canon is a witness, though in too
one-sided a spirit. Secondly, it means that the actual development of
ecclesiastical doctrine began, not from the Apostolic consciousness
itself, but from a far lower level, that of the inadequate consciousness
of the sub-apostolic Church, even when face to face with their written
words. This theological "retrogression" is of much significance for the
history of dogma, (c) On the other hand, there is great religious and
moral continuity, beneath even theological discontinuity, in the life
working below all conscious apprehension of the deeper ideas involved
(E. von Dobschutz, _Christian Life in the Primitive Church_, 1905).
There is continuity in character; the Apostolic Fathers strike us as
truly good men, with a goodness raised to a new type and power. This is
what the Gospel of Christ aims chiefly at producing as its proper fruit;
and the Apostolic Fathers would have desired no better record than that
they were themselves genuine "epistles of Christ."

  LITERATURE.--This is too large to indicate even in outline, but is
  given fully in the chief modern editions, viz. of Gebhardt, Harnack
  and Zahn jointly (1875-1877), J.B. Lightfoot (1885-1890) and F.X. Funk
  (1901); also in O. Bardenhewer, _Gesch. der altkirchlichen Litteratur_
  (1902), Band i., and in _Neutestamentliche Apokryphen_, with
  _Handbuch_ thereto, edited by E. Hennecke (Tubingen, 1904). The
  fullest discussion in English of the teaching of Barnabas, Clement,
  Ignatius and Polycarp is by J. Donaldson, _The Apostolical Fathers_
  (1874), which, however, suffers from the imperfect state of the texts
  when he wrote. The most useful edition for ready reference, containing
  critical texts (up to date) and good translations, is Lightfoot's
  one-volume edition, _The Apostolic Fathers_ (London, 1891).
       (J. V. B.)


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] Cotelier included the Acts of Martyrdom of Clement, Ignatius and
    Polycarp; and those of Ignatius and Polycarp are still often printed
    by editors.

  [2] See G.A. Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, pp. 1-60, for this
    distinction between the genuine "letter" and the literary "epistle,"
    as applied to the New Testament in particular.

  [3] One result is their inability to form a true theory of Judaism
    and of the Old Testament in relation to the Gospel, a matter of great
    moment for them and for their successors.




APOSTOLICI, APOSTOLIC BRETHREN, or APOSTLES, the names given to various
Christian heretics, whose common doctrinal feature was an ascetic
rigidity of morals, which made them reject property and marriage. The
earliest Apostolici appeared in Phrygia, Cilicia, Pisidia and Pamphylia
towards the end of the 2nd century or the beginning of the 3rd.
According to the information given by Epiphanius (_Haer._ 61) about the
doctrines of these heretics, it is evident that they were connected with
the Encratites and the Tatianians. They condemned individual property,
hence the name sometimes given to them of _Apotactites_ or
_Renuntiatores_. They preserved an absolute chastity and abstained from
wine and meat. They refused to admit into their sect those Christians
whom the fear of martyrdom had once restored to paganism. As late as the
4th century St Basil (_Can_. i and 47) knew some Apostolici. After that
period they disappeared, either becoming completely extinct, or being
confounded with other sects (see St Augustine, _Haer._ 40; John of
Damascus, _Haer._ 61).

Failing a more exact designation, the name of Apostolici has been given
to certain groups of Latin heretics of the 12th century. It is the
second of the two sects of Cologne (the first being composed very
probably of Cathari) that is referred to in the letter addressed in 1146
by Everwin, provost of Steinfeld, to St Bernard (Mabillon, _Vet. Anal._
iii. 452). They condemned marriage (save, perhaps, first marriages), the
eating of meat, baptism of children, veneration of saints, fasting,
prayers for the dead and belief in purgatory, denied transubstantiation,
declared the Catholic priesthood worthless, and considered the whole
church of their time corrupted by the "negotia saecularia" which
absorbed all its zeal (of. St Bernard, _Serm._ 65 and 66 _in Cantic._).
They do not seem to have been known as Apostles or Apostolici: St
Bernard, in fact, asks his hearers: "Quo nomine istos titulove
censebis?" (_Serm. 66 in Cantic._). Under this designation, too, are
included the heretics of Perigueux in France, alluded to in the letter
of a certain monk Heribert (Mabillon, _Vet. Anal._ iii. 467). Heribert
says merely: "Se dicunt apostolicam vitam ducere." It is possible that
they were Henricians (see HENRY OF LAUSANNE). During his mission in the
south-east of France in 1146-1147 St Bernard still met disciples of
Henry of Lausanne in the environs of Perigueux. The heretics of whom
Heribert speaks condemned riches, denied the value of the sacraments and
of good works, ate no meat, drank no wine and rejected the veneration of
images. Their leader, named Pons, gathered round him nobles, priests,
monks and nuns.

In the second half of the 13th century appeared in Italy the _Order of
the Apostles_ or _Apostle Brethren_ (see especially the _Chron._ of Fra
Salimbene). This was a product of the mystic fermentation which
proceeded from exalted Franciscanism and from Joachimism (see FRATICELLI
and JOACHIM). It presents great analogies with groups of the same
character, e.g. Sachets, Bizocchi, Flagellants, &c. The order of the
Apostles was founded about 1260 by a young workman from the environs of
Parma, Gerard Segarelli, who had sought admission unsuccessfully to the
Franciscan order. To make his life conform to that of Christ, his
contemporaries say that he had himself circumcised, wrapped in swaddling
clothes and laid in a cradle, and that he then, clad in a white robe and
bare-footed, walked through the streets of Parma crying "Penitenz
agite!" ("Poenitentiam agite!"). He was soon followed by a throng of men
and women, peasants and mechanics. All had to live in absolute poverty,
chastity and idleness. They begged, and preached penitence. Opizo,
bishop of Parma, protected them until they caused trouble in his
diocese. Their diffusion into several countries of Christendom disturbed
Pope Honorius IV., who in 1286 ordered them to adhere to an already
recognized rule. On their refusal, the pope condemned them to banishment
and Opizo imprisoned Segarelli. The councils of Wurzburg (1287) and
Chichester (1289) took measures against the Apostles of Germany and
England. But in 1291 the sect reappeared, sensibly increased, and Pope
Nicholas IV. published anew the bull of Honorius IV. From that day the
Apostles, regarded as rebels, were persecuted pitilessly. Four were
burned in 1294, and Segarelli, as a relapsed heretic, went to the stake
at Parma in 1300.

They had had close relations with the dissident Franciscans, but the
Spirituals often disavowed them, especially when the sect, which in
Segarelli's time had had no very precise doctrinal character, became
with Dolcino frankly heterodox. Dolcino of Novara was brought up at
Vercelli, and had been an Apostle since 1291. Thrice he fell into the
hands of the Inquisition, and thrice recanted. But immediately after
Segarelli's death he wrote an epistle, soon followed by a second, in
which he declared that the third Joachimite age began with Segarelli and
that Frederick of Sicily was the expected conqueror (_Hist. Dulcini_ and
_Addit. ad Hist. Dulcini_ in Muratori, _Scriptores_, vol. ix.). He gave
himself out as an angel sent from God to elucidate the prophecies. Soon
he founded an _Apostolic congregation_ at whose head he placed himself.
Under him were his four lieutenants, his "mystic sister," Margherita di
Franck, and 4000 disciples. He taught almost the same principles of
devotion as Segarelli, but the Messianic character which he attributed
to himself, the announcement of a communistic millennial kingdom, and,
besides, an aggressive anti-sacerdotalism, gave to Dolcino's sect a
clearly marked character, analogous only to the theocratic community of
the Anabaptists of Munster in the 16th century. On the 5th of June 1305
Pope Clement V., recognizing the impotence of the ordinary methods of
repression, issued bulls for preaching a crusade against the Dolcinists.
But four crusades, directed by the bishop of Vercelli, were required to
reduce the little army of the heresiarch, entrenched in the mountains in
the neighbourhood of Vercelli. Not till the 23rd of March 1307 were the
sectaries definitively overcome. The Catholic crusaders seized Dolcino
in his entrenchments on Mount Rubello, and the pope at once announced
the happy event to King Philip the Fair. At Vercelli Dolcino suffered a
horrible punishment. He was torn in pieces with red-hot pincers--the
torture lasting an entire day--while Margherita was burned at a slow
fire. Dante mentions Dolcino's name (_Inferno_, c. xxviii.), and his
memory is not yet completely effaced in the province of Novara. The
Apostles continued their propaganda in Italy, Languedoc, Spain and
Germany. In turn they were condemned by the councils of Cologne (1306),
Treves (1310) and Spoleto (1311). The inquisitor of Languedoc, Bernard
Gui, persecuted them unremittingly (see Gui's _Practica Inquisitionis_).
From 1316 to 1323 the condemnations of Apostles increased at Avignon and
Toulouse. They disappeared, however, at a comparatively late date from
those regions (council of Lavaur, 1368; council of Narbonne, 1374). In
Germany two Apostles were burned at Lubeck and Wismar at the beginning
of the 15th century (1402-1403) by the inquisitor Eylard.

Several controversialists, including Gotti, Krohn and Stockmann, have
mentioned among the innumerable sects that have sprung from Anabaptism a
group of individuals whose open-air preaching and rigorous practice of
poverty gained them the name of Apostolici. These must be carefully
distinguished from the _Apostoolians_, Mennonites of Frisia, who
followed the teachings of the pastor Samuel Apostool (1638-beginning of
18th century). In the Mennonite church they represent the rigid,
conservative party, as opposed to the Galenists, who inclined towards
the Arminian latitudinarianism and admitted into their community all
those who led a virtuous life, whatever their doctrinal tendencies.
     (P. A.)




APOSTOLIC MAJESTY, a title borne by the kings of Hungary. About A.D.
1000 it was conferred by Pope Silvester II. upon St Stephen (975-1038),
the first Christian king of Hungary, in return for his zeal in seeking
the conversion of the heathen. It was renewed by Pope Clement XIII. in
1758 in favour of the empress Maria Theresa and her descendants. The
emperor of Austria bears the title of apostolic king of Hungary.




APOSTOLIUS, MICHAEL (d. c. 1480), a Greek theologian and rhetorician of
the 15th century. When, in 1453, the Turks conquered Constantinople, his
native city, he fled to Italy, and there obtained the protection of
Cardinal Bessarion. But engaging in the great dispute that then raged
between the upholders of Aristotle and Plato, his zeal for the latter
led him to speak so contemptuously of the more popular philosopher and
of his defender, Theodorus Gaza, that he fell under the severe
displeasure of his patron. He afterwards retired to Crete, where he
earned a scanty living by teaching and by copying manuscripts. Many of
his copies are still to be found in the libraries of Europe. One of
them, the _Icones_ of Philostratus at Bologna, bears the inscription:
"The king of the poor of this world has written this book for his
living." Apostolius died about 1480, leaving two sons, Aristobulus
Apostolius and Arsenius. The latter became bishop of Malvasia
(Monemvasia) in the Morea.

  Of his numerous works a few have been printed: [Greek: Paroimiai]
  (Basel, 1538), now exceedingly rare; a collection of proverbs in
  Greek, of which a fuller edition appeared at Leiden, "Curante
  Heinsio," in 1619; "Oratio Panegyrica ad Fredericum III." in Freher's
  _Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum_, vol. ii. (Frankfort, 1624); Georgii
  Gemisthi Plethonis et Mich. Apostolii _Orationes funebres duae in
  quibus de Immortalitate Animae exponitur_ (Leipzig, 1793); and a work
  against the Latin Church and the council of Florence in Le Moine's
  _Varia Sacra_.




APOSTROPHE (Gr. [Greek: apostrophe], turning away; the final e being
sounded), the name given to an exclamatory rhetorical figure of speech,
when a speaker or writer breaks off and addresses some one directly in
the vocative. The same word (representing, through the French, the Greek
[Greek: apostrophos prosudia], the accent of elision) means also the
sign (') for the omission of a letter or letters, e.g. in "don't." In
physiology, "apostrophe" is used more precisely in connexion with its
literal meaning of "turning away," e.g. for movement away from the
light, in the case of the accumulation of chlorophyll-corpuscles on the
cells of leaves.




APOTACTITES, or APOTACTICI (from Gr. [Greek: apotaktos], set apart), a
sect of early Christians, who renounced all their worldly possessions.
(See APOSTOLICI _ad init._)




APOTHECARY (from the Lat. _apothecarius_, a keeper of an _apotheca_, Gr.
[Greek: apotheke], a store), a word used by Galen to denote the
repository where his medicines were kept, now obsolete in its original
sense. An apothecary was one who prepared, sold and prescribed drugs,
but the preparing and selling of drugs prescribed by others has now
passed into the hands of duly qualified and authorized persons termed
"chemists and druggists," while the apothecary, by modern legislation,
has become a general medical practitioner, and the word itself, when
used at all, is applied, more particularly in the United States and in
Scotland, to those who in England are called "pharmaceutical chemists."
The Apothecaries' Society of London is one of the corporations of that
city, and both by royal charters and acts of parliament exercises the
power of granting licences to practise medicine. The members of this
society do not possess and never have possessed any exclusive power to
deal in or sell drugs; and until 1868 any person whatever might open
what is called a chemist's shop, and deal in drugs and poisons. In that
year, however, the Pharmacy Act was passed, which prohibits any person
from engaging in this business without being registered.

From early records we learn that the different branches of the medical
profession were not regularly distinguished till the reign of Henry
VIII., when separate duties were assigned to them, and peculiar
privileges were granted to each. In 1518 the physicians of London were
incorporated, and the barber-surgeons in 1540. But, independently of the
physicians and the surgeons, there were a great number of irregular
practitioners, who were more or less molested by their legitimate
rivals, and it became necessary to pass an act in 1543 for their
protection and toleration. As many of these practitioners kept shops for
the sale of medicines, the term "apothecary" was used to designate their
calling.

In April 1606 James I. incorporated the apothecaries as one of the city
companies, uniting them with the grocers. On their charter being renewed
in 1617 they were formed into a separate corporation, under the title of
the "Apothecaries of the City of London." These apothecaries appear to
have prescribed medicines in addition to dispensing them, and to have
claimed an ancient right of acting in this double capacity; and it may
be mentioned that Henry VIII., after the grant of the charter to the
College of Physicians, appointed an apothecary to the Princess Mary, who
was delicate and unhealthy, at a salary of 40 marks a year, "_pro
meliore cura, et consideratione sanitatis suae_." During the 17th
century, however, there arose a warm contest between the physicians and
the apothecaries,--the former accusing the latter of usurping their
province, and the latter continuing and justifying the usurpation until
the dispute was finally set at rest by a judgment of the House of Lords
in 1703 (_Rose v. College of Physicians_, 5 Bro. P. C. 553), when it was
decided that the duty of the apothecary consisted not only in
compounding and dispensing, but also in directing and ordering the
remedies employed in the treatment of disease. In 1722 an act was
obtained empowering the Apothecaries' Company to visit the shops of all
apothecaries practising in London, and to destroy such drugs as they
found unfit for use. In 1748 great additional powers were given to the
company by an act authorizing them to appoint a board of ten examiners,
without whose licence no person should be allowed to dispense medicines
in London, or within a circuit of 7 m. round it. In 1815, however, an
act of parliament was passed which gave the Apothecaries' Society a new
position, empowering a board, consisting of twelve of their members, to
examine and license all apothecaries throughout England and Wales. It
also enacted that, from the 1st of August of that year, no persons
except those who were so licensed should have the right to act as
apothecaries, and it gave the society the power of prosecuting those who
practised without such licence. But the act expressly exempted from
prosecution all persons who were then in actual practice, and it
distinctly excluded from its operation all persons pursuing the calling
of chemists and druggists. It was also provided that the act should in
no way interfere with the rights or privileges of the English
universities, or of the English College of Surgeons or the College of
Physicians; and indeed a clause imposed severe penalties on any
apothecaries who should refuse to compound and dispense medicines on the
order of a physician, legally qualified to act as such. It is therefore
clear that the act contemplated the creation of a class of practitioners
who, while having the right to practise medicine, should assist and
co-operate with the physicians and surgeons.

Before this act came into operation the education of the medical
practitioners of England and Wales was entirely optional on their own
part, and although many of them possessed degrees or licences from the
universities or colleges, the greater number possessed no such
qualification, and many of them were wholly illiterate and uneducated.
The court of examiners of the Apothecaries' Society, being empowered to
enforce the acquisition of a sufficient medical education upon its
future licentiates, specified from time to time the courses of lectures
or terms of hospital practice to be attended by medical students before
their examination, and in the progress of years regular schools of
medicine were organized throughout England.

As it was found that, notwithstanding the stringent regulations as to
medical acquirements, the candidates were in many instances deficient in
preliminary education, the court of examiners instituted, about the year
1850, a preliminary examination in arts as a necessary and indispensable
prerequisite to the medical curriculum, and this provision has been so
expanded that, at the present day, all medical students in the United
Kingdom are compelled to pass a preliminary examination in arts, unless
they hold a university degree. An act of parliament, passed in 1858, and
known as the Medical Act, made very little alteration in the powers
exercised by the Apothecaries' Society, and indeed it confirmed and in
some degree amplified them, for whereas by the act of 1815, the
licentiates of the society were authorized to practise as such only in
England and Wales, the new measure gave them the same right in Scotland
and Ireland. The Medical Act 1886 extended the qualifications necessary
for registration under the medical acts, by making it necessary to pass
a qualifying examination in medicine, surgery and midwifery. (See
MEDICAL EDUCATION.)

An act, passed in 1874, related exclusively to the Apothecaries'
Society, and is termed the Apothecaries' Act Amendment Act. By this
measure some provisions of the act of 1815, which had become obsolete or
unsuitable, were repealed, and powers were given to the society to unite
or co-operate with other medical licensing bodies in granting licences
to practise. The act of 1815 had made it compulsory on all candidates
for a licence to have served an apprenticeship of five years to an
apothecary, and although by the interpretation of the court of examiners
of the society this term really included the whole period of medical
study, yet the regulation was felt as a grievance by many members of the
medical profession. It was accordingly repealed, and no apprenticeship
is now necessary. The restriction of the choice of examiners to the
members of the society was also repealed, and the society was given the
power (which it did not before possess) to strike off from the list of
its licentiates the names of disreputable persons. The act of 1874 also
specified that the society was not deprived of any right or obligation
they may have to admit women to examination, and to enter their names on
the list of licentiates if they acquit themselves satisfactorily.

The Apothecaries' Society is governed by a master, two wardens and
twenty-two assistants. The members are divided into THREE grades,
yeomanry or freemen, the livery, and the court. Women are not, however,
admitted to the freedom. The hall of the society, situated in Water
Lane, London, and covering about three-quarters of an acre, was acquired
in 1633. It was destroyed by the great fire, but was rebuilt about ten
years later and enlarged in 1786. This is the only property possessed by
the society. In 1673, the society established a botanic and physic
garden at Chelsea, and in 1722 Sir Hans Sloane, who had become the
ground owner, gave it to the society on the condition of presenting
annually to the Royal Society fifty dried specimens of plants till the
number should reach 2000. This condition was fulfilled in 1774. Owing to
the heavy cost of maintenance and other reasons, the "physic garden" was
handed over in 1902, with the consent of the Charity Commissioners, to a
committee of management, to be maintained in the interests of botanical
study and research.

  See C.R.B. Barrett, _The History of the Society of Apothecaries of
  London_ (1905).




APOTHEOSIS (Gr. [Greek: apotheoun], to make a god, to deify), literally
deification. The term properly implies a clear polytheistic conception
of gods in contrast with men, while it recognizes that some men cross
the dividing line. It is characteristic of polytheism to blur that line
in several ways. Thus the ancient Greek religion was especially disposed
to belief in heroes and demigods. Founders of cities, and even of
colonies, received worship; the former are, generally speaking, mythical
personages and, in strictness, heroes. But the worship after death of
historical persons, such as Lycurgus, or worship of the living as true
deities, e.g. Lysander and Philip II. of Macedon, occurred sporadically
even before Alexander's conquests brought Greek life into contact with
oriental traditions. It was inevitable, too, that ancient monarchies
should enlist polytheistic conceptions of divine or half-divine men in
support of the dynasties; "_Seu deos regesve canit deorum Sanguinem_,"
Horace (_Odes_, iv. 2, 11. 12, 13) writes of Pindar; though the
reference is to myths, yet the phrase is significant. In the East all
such traits are exaggerated, a result perhaps rather of the statecraft
than of the religions of Egypt and Persia. Whatever part vanity or the
flattery of courtiers may have played with others, or with Alexander, it
is significant that the dynasties of Alexander's various successors all
claim divine honours of some sort (see PTOLEMIES, SELEUCID DYNASTY,
&c.). Theocritus (_Idyll_ 17) hails Ptolemy Philadelphus as a demigod,
and speaks of his father as seated among the gods along with Alexander.
Ancestor worship, or reverence for the dead, was a third factor. It may
work even in Cicero's determination that his daughter should enjoy
"[Greek: apotheosis]"--as he writes to Atticus--or receive the "honour"
of _consecratia_ (fragment of his _De Consolatione_). Lastly, we need
not speak of mere sycophancy. Yet it was common; Verres was worshipped
before he was impeached!

The Romans had, up to the end of the Republic, accepted only one
official apotheosis; the god Quirinus, whatever his original meaning,
having been identified with Romulus. But the emperor Augustus carried on
the tradition of ancient statecraft by having Julius Caesar recognized
as a god (_divus Julius_), the first of a new class of deities proper
(_divi_). The tradition was steadily followed and was extended to some
ladies of the imperial family and even to imperial favourites. Worship
of an emperor during his lifetime, except as the worship of his
_genius_, was, save in the cases of Caligula and Domitian, confined to
the provinces. Apotheosis after his death, being in the hands of the
senate, did not at once cease, even when Christianity was officially
adopted. The Latin term is _consecratio_, which of course has a variety
of senses, including simple burial. (Inscription in G. Boissier, _La
Religion romaine_; Renier, _Inscriptions d'Algiers_, 2510.) The Greek
term Apotheosis, probably a coinage of the Hellenistic epoch, becomes
more nearly technical for the deification of dead emperors. But it is
still used simply for the erection of tombs (clearly so in some Greek
inscriptions, _Corpus Inscript. Graec._ 2831, 2832, quoted in
Pauly-Wissowa, _s.v. Apotheosis_). Possibly there is a trace of ancestor
worship even here; but the two usages have diverged. The squib of the
philosopher Seneca on the memory of Claudius (d. A.D. 54),
_Apocolocyntosis_ ("pumpkinification"), is evidence that, as early as
Seneca's lifetime, apotheosis was in use for the recognition of a
departed emperor as a god. It also indicates how much contempt might be
associated with this pretended worship. The people, says Suetonius
(_Jul. Caes._ c. 88), fully believed in the divinity of Julius Caesar,
hinting at the same time that this was by no means the case with the
majority of the apotheoses subsequently decreed by the senate. Yet we
learn from Capitolinus that Marcus Aurelius was still worshipped as a
household divinity in the time of Diocletian, and was believed to impart
revelations in dreams (Vit. M. Ant. c. 18). Antinous, the favourite of
Hadrian, was adored in Egypt a century after his death (Origen, _Contra
Celsum_, iii. 36), though, according to Boissier, his worship never had
official sanction. The ceremonies attendant on an imperial apotheosis
are very fully described by Herodianus (bk. iv. c. 2) on occasion of the
obsequies of Severus, which he appears to have witnessed. The most
significant was the liberation, at the moment of kindling the funeral
pyre, of an eagle which was supposed to bear the emperor's soul to
heaven. Sharp-sighted persons had actually beheld the ascension of
Augustus (Suet. _August_, c. 100), and of Drusilla, sister of Caligula.
Representations of apotheoses occur on several works of art; the most
important are the apotheosis of Homer on a relief in the Townley
collection of the British Museum, that of Titus on the arch of Titus,
and that of Augustus on a magnificent cameo in the Louvre.

In China at the present day many Taoist gods are (or are given out as)
men deified for service to the state. This again may be statecraft. In
India, the (still unexplained) rise of the doctrine of transmigration
hindered belief. Apotheosis can mean nothing to those who hold that a
man may be reborn as a god, but still needs redemption, and that men on
earth may win redemption, if they are brave enough. Curiously, Buddhism
itself is ruled by the ghost or shadowy remainder of belief in
transmigration--Karma.

Apotheosis may also be used in wider senses. (a) Some (e.g. Herbert
Spencer) hold that most gods are deified men, and most myths historical
traditions which have been grotesquely distorted. This theory is known
as Euhemerism (see EUHEMERUS). It is needless to say that the attitude
of those holding the Euhemerist theory is at the farthest pole from
belief in apotheosis. According to the latter, some men may become gods.
According to the former, all gods are but men; or, some men have been
erroneously supposed to become gods. The Euhemerist theory mainly
appeals to ancestor worship--a fact of undoubted importance in the
history of religion, especially in China and in ancient Rome. In India,
too, a dead person treated with funeral honours becomes a guardian
spirit--if neglected, a tormenting demon. But whether the great gods of
polytheism were really transfigured ancestors is very doubtful. (b)
Again, there is a tendency to offer something like worship to the
founders of religions. Thus more than human honour is paid to Zoroaster
and Buddha and even to the founders of systems not strictly religious,
e.g. to Confucius and Auguste Comte. It is noticeable that this kind of
worship is not accorded in rigidly monotheistic systems, e.g. to Moses
and Mahomet. Nor is it accurate to speak of apotheosis in cases where
the founder is in his lifetime regarded as the incarnation of a god (cf.
Ali among Shi'ite Mahommedans; the Bab in Babism; the Druse Hakim). Most
Christians on this ground repudiate the application of the term to the
worship of Jesus Christ. Curiously, _Apotheosis_ is used by the Latin
Christian poet, Prudentius (c. 400), as the title of a poem defending
orthodox views on the person of Christ and other points of doctrine--the
affectation of a decadent age. (c) The worship paid to Saints, in those
Christian churches which admit it, is formally distinguished as _dulia_
([Greek: douleia]) from true worship or _latria_ ([Greek: latreia]).
Even the Virgin Mary, though she is styled Mother of God and Queen of
Heaven, receives only _dulia_ or at most _hyperdulia_.
     (R. G.; R. Ma.)




APPALACHIAN MOUNTAINS, the general name given to a vast system of
elevations in North America, partly in Canada, but mostly in the United
States, extending as a zone, from 100 to 300 m. wide, from Newfoundland,
Gaspe Peninsula and New Brunswick, 1500 m. south-westward to central
Alabama. The whole system may be divided into three great sections: the
_Northern_, from Newfoundland to the Hudson river; the _Central_, from
the Hudson Valley to that of New river (Great Kanawha), in Virginia and
West Virginia; and the _Southern_, from New river onwards. The northern
section includes the Shickshock Mountains and Notre Dame Range in
Quebec, scattered elevations in Maine, the White Mountains and the Green
Mountains; the central comprises, besides various minor groups, the
Valley Ridges between the Front of the Allegheny Plateau and the Great
Appalachian Valley, the New York-New Jersey Highlands and a large
portion of the Blue Ridge; and the southern consists of the prolongation
of the Blue Ridge, the Unaka Range, and the Valley Ridges adjoining the
Cumberland Plateau, with some lesser ranges.

_The Chief Summits._--The Appalachian belt includes, with the ranges
enumerated above, the plateaus sloping southward to the Atlantic Ocean
in New England, and south-eastward to the border of the coastal plain
through the central and southern Atlantic states; and on the north-west,
the Allegheny and Cumberland plateaus declining toward the Great Lakes
and the interior plains. A remarkable feature of the belt is the
longitudinal chain of broad valleys--the Great Appalachian
Valley--which, in the southerly sections divides the mountain system
into two subequal portions, but in the northernmost lies west of all the
ranges possessing typical Appalachian features, and separates them from
the Adirondack group. The mountain system has no axis of dominating
altitudes, but in every portion the summits rise to rather uniform
heights, and, especially in the central section, the various ridges and
intermontane valleys have the same trend as the system itself. None of
the summits reaches the region of perpetual snow. Mountains of the Long
Range in Newfoundland reach heights of nearly 2000 ft. In the
Shickshocks the higher summits rise to about 4000 ft. elevation. In
Maine four peaks exceed 3000 ft., including Katahdin (5200 ft.), Mount
Washington, in the White Mountains (6293 ft.), Adams (5805), Jefferson
(5725), Clay (5554), Monroe (5390), Madison (5380), Lafayette (5269);
and a number of summits rise above 4000 ft. In the Green Mountains the
highest point, Mansfield, is 4364 ft.; Lincoln (4078), Killington
(4241), Camel Hump (4088); and a number of other heights exceed 3000 ft.
The Catskills are not properly included in the system. The Blue Ridge,
rising in southern Pennsylvania and there known as South Mountain,
attains in that state elevations of about 2000 ft.; southward to the
Potomac its altitudes diminish, but 30 m. beyond again reach 2000 ft. In
the Virginia Blue Ridge the following are the highest peaks east of New
river: Mount Weather (about 1850 ft.), Mary's Rock (3523), Peaks of
Otter (4001 and 3875), Stony Man (4031), Hawks Bill (4066). In
Pennsylvania the summits of the Valley Ridges rise generally to about
2000 ft., and in Maryland Eagle Rock and Dans Rock are conspicuous
points reaching 3162 ft. and 2882 ft. above the sea. On the same side of
the Great Valley, south of the Potomac, are the Pinnacle (3007 ft.) and
Pidgeon Roost (3400 ft.). In the southern section of the Blue Ridge are
Grandfather Mountain (5964 ft.), with three other summits above 5000,
and a dozen more above 4000. The Unaka Ranges (including the Black and
Smoky Mou

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/34047