What is an apologist?

A few years after this remarkable event Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher and the persecutor, died. Great changes quickly followed. The glory of the empire, and the effort to maintain the dignity of the old Roman religion, expired with himself, but Christianity made great and rapid advancement. Men of ability and learning were raised up about this time, who boldly and powerfully advocated its claims with their pens. These are called Apologists. Tertullian, an African, who is said to have been born in A.D. 160, may be considered as the ablest and the most perfect type of this class.

During the persecutions of the church by the pagans, several addresses were written to the emperor and the Roman people in defence of Christianity. These have been called "Apologies," not of course in the sense of excuses for Christianity, but to let the pagans know somewhat of Christianity, and to defend the Christians against the false accusations constantly raised against them. Apology originally meant a defence.

The evidence to the existence of God having been pursued along these two lines, and the belief in Him affirmed in the words of the Creed shown to be quite a rational conclusion, the signatories of that document may now regard themselves as relieved from any aspersions of blind, unreasoning credulity in signing it. This is so great a matter today. Rational we must show ourselves to be, whatever else we are! Compromise we may to any extent in matters of faith and religion, if we can only keep the peace with science, and remain on good terms with carnal reasoning! In other words, that is to say that today all we learn, hold, or assert as spiritual truth we are ever to be prepared to submit to the searching, sifting analysis which prevailing materialistic rationalism today insists on its right to apply. No doubt much will have to give way, but a sufficiently flexible faith will find no difficulty in surrendering whatever is called in question, and no alarm need be felt, for a considerable residuum of unchallenged verities will always be found to emerge either untouched, or indeed enhanced in appearance from the process! Does it give no pause, no suspicion to such as reason thus that this residuum is ever a steadily decreasing one? That those who surrender whatever is cried down as irrational or unscientific constantly find science and rationalism encroaching further on their territory? So much so that treatises written "in relief of doubt" (should they not rather, in keeping with their real purpose, be entitled "in relief of faith"?) very soon are out of date from not conceding enough! There is a sad absence of backbone in our beliefs, a lack of sound hard kernel in our convictions today, else were we less susceptible to such influences. Is there not room for suspicion really that at bottom there is something essentially at fault in our whole modern attitude towards revealed truth? Not only in the case of theologians themselves, but in the far graver instance of christians generally as affected by them, would there not seem to be some element lacking, the want of which is leaving its mark over the whole field of common Christian belief and confession? Without yielding to unduly pessimistic impressions, there can be no doubt that today, alike in doctrinal expression and inward conviction, there is lack of that full assurance which accompanies true faith in God. In essaying either to state or to learn the truth we fear really to claim or expect certainty; we shrink from advancing much further than probability. When asked for "a reason for the hope that is within us," there is abundance of "meekness and fear" of a kind; but little preparation for giving a satisfactory "answer, always and to every one" who calls for our apologia.

Stephen had been accused of speaking against Moses and against God, also against the temple and the law. These accusations he is asked to answer. What he declared before the council shows plainly that the accusations are utterly false. His speech is, therefore, partly apologetic; but it is also teaching, in that it shows certain truths from the historic events he cites. And before he finishes his testimony the accused becomes the accuser of the nation; the one to be judged becomes the judge. Indeed his whole testimony as he rapidly speaks of past history in his great and divinely arranged retrospect, is a most powerful testimony to the nation as well as against the nation.

He defends himself, and appeals to their consciences; but that was not his preaching, it was his defence or apology.

(1 Peter 3:15,) "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." You are always to be able to give a reason for the joyful expectation that you have. Hope is never uncertainty in Scripture, but the joyful expectation of a certainty. It is a very good thing to be pulled up now and then to give a reason for the joyful expectation that we have. We ought to be able to give a very distinct reason, but our answer is to be given in "meekness and fear," i.e., in a manner that shuts out all levity or lightness, a manner that conveys to the soul that asks the question, this: "It is the most wonderful favour of God to give such a hope to a sinner like me, but I have got it through His grace, and you may get it likewise."

"But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts." For Christ is in reality absolutely sanctified, set apart from all that is in the world, sublime in holiness and truth. Let each believer think of Him as such, giving Him His place of solitary dignity and glory. Along with this, he should be ready to give a clear, true answer to any inquirer who is interested in the reason for which one gives evidence that he has a hope not connected with this world. But the answer is to be given with meekness and fear, a sober realization of the holy reality of God's sovereign work being involved in this marvelous matter.If our confession is to be convincing to others, we must also have a good conscience as regards our own practical conduct; for if this is so, however false and wicked the accusations of men may be, usually this will only eventually expose their own shame. Notice in this section (v.10 to 16) that the word "good" is used five times, the last, "good conversation" involving all behavior.

What then is the resource and remedy? "But sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord." Sanctimoniousness in manner or outward acts, far from availing, is a snare and a shame unworthy of a Christian, as far as possible from pleasing God, though it may deceive himself if unwary and others too. But to give Christ the holy place due to Him, and supremely as Lord, in our hearts, truly pleases Him Who would have us honour the Son even as we honour the Father. Without Him thus constantly set up and apart in our hearts, we are exposed to any and every idol whereby the enemy deceives the world; but with Christ thus the object of our inmost affections, how kept and blessed! So we see the fruit and accompaniment in the words that follow, "ready always for an answer to every one that asketh you a reason (or, account) for the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." What account can creature give so satisfying, even to God, as the Lord Jesus and His redemption? In Him we have the righteousness found nowhere else, yea, we are become God's righteousness in Him; so that, as the same apostle says (Gal. 5:5), "we through the Spirit by faith await," not righteousness as if we were not justified, but "the hope of righteousness," that is, heavenly glory with Christ. But this very blessedness, so undeserved by any, calls us to meekness and fear in confessing it, lest a rough or presumptuous spirit might dishonour the God of all grace or ourselves the recipients of His rich mercy.

Jude had purposed to write a treatise concerning "the common salvation," but found himself turned aside from that design to write this short Epistle exhorting rather to the defence of the faith. This is a remarkable confession and quite unique. The "common salvation," that is, the salvation in which we all participate, is indeed an inexhaustible theme, and it may well be that on another occasion Jude fulfilled his original purpose, though not in an inspired way. As a matter of fact an inspired exposition of that salvation was already available in Paul's Epistle to the Romans, and in the inspired Word God does not repeat Himself. There was, however, still a niche in Scripture which required to be filled, so Jude's original thought was set aside and he was honoured of God in being pressed into the service of filling it.

It was now needful that those called of God should be exhorted to contend for the faith. It was given only to the Apostles to authoritatively expound the faith, and commit it to the inspired Writings. It was given to few, comparatively speaking, to be pastors and teachers and give instruction in the faith. How likely then that the mass of believers should jump to the conclusion that the defence of the faith and contention for it was also the business of but a few. Hence the need for this word of exhortation. Is it not extraordinary and reprehensible that with this exhortation before us there should today be so many who consider that contending for the faith is no concern of theirs, and would like to relegate it to a few who have high scholastic qualifications or some kind of official status?

H. There is truth in that. We have not now to do with heathenism and Judaism (I mean in our present inquiries, for we know with delight there are missionaries to tell Christ's blessed grace to them). When we meet with infidelity now, it has the character of apostasy and antagonism. It may be open as in the last century, or covert, as in this, but it has essentially this character. Early opposition was not apostasy; nor did it, indeed, deny the miracles; they were too recent. They ascribe them, as Celsus, to magic, or cited Apollonius Tyanaeus as having wrought such too; or the Jews to magic learnt in Egypt, and the theft of the Shem hammaphoresh out of the temple. Still that was antagonism, and had to be so treated. Now it is more. It is apostasy in principle, and has to be treated as such; covert I admit, using Christ's name, but only so much the worse. Christianity has been publicly admitted as the religion of God, its record accepted as the record of God, miracles and all; and then men begin to cavil and oppose and undermine, not being honest enough to throw it off, or sometimes happily kept back by spiritual instinct; but, as a system, it is apostasy in principle. Hence there is less hope, and the record has to be proved, objections answered, miracles to be proved, not a proof. In this case we must shew their folly as reasoners, and trust to the word, if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth. For them I should look much more to the power of the word in grace. If the record have power in them, they will see the miracles with it, and the perfect beauty and suitableness of them in such a revelation of God. Proofs may shew the absurdity of doubts, and so far are useful. They may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men, but cannot give faith. Of this we have sufficiently spoken, and I suppose of general principles so delighted in by Dr. Williams. One soon sees there is not the soberness of inquiry, but delight in one like Bunsen, who, he thinks, may aid in overthrowing scripture as a divine record. You will soon see how little they are to be trusted. I may not be able to answer every objection; but if I find a man make a hundred, and ninety-nine are shallow and foundationless, and his will pierces in it all, I am not much troubled with the weight of the hundredth. Facts and principles will both come before us.