apodioxis

1. Rejecting of someone or something (such as the adversary's argument) as being impertinent, needless, absurd, false, or wicked. (Silva Rhetoricae)

2. Rejection: a figure when any argument or objection is with indignation rejected, as very absurd, &c.; Apodioxis, Rejectio, expulsio, rejection or an expelling: derived from [apodioco] Rejicio, expello, to reject or expell. A figure when any argument or objection is with indignation rejected as extreamly absurd, impettinent, false and by no means to be admitted of. (JG Smith)

3. Apodioxis, when the Orator rejecteth the objection or argument of his adversaries as thinges needlesse, absurde, false, or impertinent to the purpose, as proceeding from follie, or framed by malice, or invented by subtiltie. Cicero for Milo: What should Milo hate Clodius the flower of his glorie? (Peacham)

4. An Expression of Feeling by way of Detestation... The figure is so called, because the speaker or writer repels something, and spurns it as absurd or wicked. (Bullinger, 909)

5. APODIOXIS. Apodioxis. This Figure, not without scorn and indignation, rejects any sort of argument, as very absurd in itself, and not reducible to practice. (Norwood, 131)

2. Cicero for Milo: What should Milo hate Clodius, the flower of his glory?

And would any wise man ever have so said? were not ignorance the cause of this opinion, folly could not be the fruit. (JG Smith)

3. Another: And would any wise man ever have so said? were not ignorance the cause of this opinion, follie could not be the frute. (Peacham)

3. To the Sadduces captiously enquiring of Christ, concerning the state of marriage in the resurrection, he answered: you do erre, not knowing the Scriptures, neither the power of God: by which answere he rejecteth their captious objection, by noting their ignorance. (Peacham)

4. Isa. 1:12-15 is a solemn expression of Jehovah's detestation of religion, per se, such as existed among, and was manifested by, the Jews at Christ's first coming. This passage describes the most minute attention to every religious observance, which only heightens the indignation with which the Lord repudiates it all, because it does not proceed from the heart. (Bullinger, 909)

5. Matt. 16. 23. How does Christ reprove St. Peter when he importunately desired our Saviour not to suffer persecution; get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence unto me: for thou favourest not the things of God: this is a reflection upon our Apostle of the highest nature, and certainly nothing less, than the greatest provocation could extort such expressions from Christ himself. And now, who would think that St. Peter, who was so extremely displeasing to our Blessed Saviour, and so highly condemned by him, as to call him Satan, a word of the greatest infamy and reproach; should of all the Apostles, be the only head of the Christian Church; as if the rest, were not as equally concerned in the foundation of christianity as St. Peter himself; whereas all the preference that was given to this Apostle, was rather with respect to his age, than to any authority and power he received as an Apostle. Indeed, was there any preeminence among the Apostles, I should think St. John deserves to be called the very chief of them all; because he is remarkably distinguished by Christ himself, and styled in the gospel, the disciple whom Jesus loved, with more expression of kindness, and affection, than all the rest: and, who can be so well qualified, to be supreme in the Church, as that person, who was dearest to his Saviour? And therefore certainly most deserving in himself: whereas, St. Peter was guilty of the greatest apostacy, in his obstinate denial of Christ, even to abjuration of him Matt. 26. 74. even when he had given his Saviour the highest kind of assurance, that though all the Apostles did forsaken him, yet, for his part he was resolved, not to do the like; and yet was he the first deserter of him. (Norwood, 131-133)