faith, and his
allegorical method, are plainly those of Origen and the Alexandrian school. It
could hardly have been otherwise. After two centuries of defensive warfare
against Jews and Greeks, the lines of controversy were clearly defined, and the
apologetic writer but reiterated in a new form against the critics of his own
day, what his predecessors hud said against a previous generation of critics.
His "loci communes" were well known to the Catechist, just as the
ordinary course of instruction to candidates for Confirmation follows a
definite line to-day. The most he could achieve was to present in a systematic
form such a codification of existing arguments as the circle around him
required.
Yet the Praeparatio
opens with a remarkable claim to originality of method. Eusebius contrasts the
"more logical" nature of his proofs with "refutations and
contradictions of opposing arguments, exegesis of scripture, and controversial
advocacy" (Praep. Ev. i. 3). Here alluding to a mass of evidential
literature he proposes to reject "all deceitful and sophistical
plausibilities" in favour of the evidence of the fulfilment of the Jewish
prophecies in Christ, and the developing life of His Church. But this is very
much what the earlier Apologists set out to do. In what sense can Eusebius say:
"The purpose, however, which we have in hand is to be worked out in a way
of our own" (Praep. Ev. 7 a)?
Lightfoot argues that
Eusebius is referring to the use of lengthy quotations, by means of which
religious ideals, that clash with Christianity, may be allowed to speak for
themselves, as is stated in Praep. Ev. 16 d. "I shall not set down
my own words, but those of the very persons who have taken the deepest interest
in the worship of them whom they call Gods." But he admits that there was
little originality in this method of controversy. It had been employed by the
earlier Apologists.
The real claim of
Eusebius seems to be made clear by the context. He quotes 1 Cor. ii. 14; iii.
6; and 2 Cor. iii. 5 as guides for avoiding "deceitful and sophistical
plausibilities" and for the use of proofs free from ambiguity. And he
contrasts the value of "words" with that of the evidence of
"works" on which he prefers to rely. By "works" he means
the power of Christ as a living, moving
i energy in human life. The exact fulfilment of
Christ's anticipations, the triumph of His Church as foretold in Matt. xvi. 18,
the fate of the Jews, and the wonderful fulfilment of the predictions of the
Hebrew prophets are the "works" upon which Eusebius proposes to base
his "demonstration."
But even so it can
hardly be said that there was anything novel in such an intention, looking back
to the apologies of Justin, Athenagoras, Aristides and Tatian. There is a
series of chapters in Justin which reads almost like an outline sketch of the Demonstratio.
Eusebius, therefore, can hardly have meant that the method which he adopted was
new in the sense that it had not been used before. What then did he mean?
Surely he must have had in his mind the methods or evidential writers of his
own day. He must have been thinking of dialectical encounters with literary
opponents. He may only have intended to stress his determination to abstain in
the Demonstratio from meeting the objections of Porphyry and his
followers point by point, as Origen had dealt with Celsus. If the method of
Origen had made a deep impression on the educated world, and if Eusebius was
regarded in any sense as belonging to the school of Origen, it was natural for
him to state definitely that he proposed in his new work to follow a different
course from Origen's. Origen's method was to follow every turn of the trail of
a slippery foe: his opponent, so to say, made the game. Eusebius wished it to
be understood that he started with a well-ordered programme of Scriptural
exposition, and did not intend to be drawn aside into detailed controversy on
points that had been raised by individual controversialists.
This intention, however
fitfully and diffusely it is carried through, can never be said to be lost
sight of in the Demonstratio. We have a constant recurrence to the
massive evidence of a growing and flourishing Church, a changed society, a
converted character. The heart of the argument is the connection of this
external evidence with the Divine and Human Person of Christ.
The lever that is
intended to move the mind to realize the uniqueness of Christ is the exposition
of a series of prophecies, whose selection, systematic arrangement and
treatment confers on Eusebius, if not the crown of originality,
ii at least the praise of
having carefully codified the work of his predecessors.
The Demonstratio
then, like all the best apologetic work of the early Church, is based on the
continuous living evidence of the action of a Divine Power. "The
help," says Eusebius, "which comes down from the God of the Universe
supplies to the teaching and Name of our Saviour its irresistible and
invincible force, and its victorious power against its enemies" (Praep.
Ev. 9 d).
Compared with the Octavius,
the Trypho, or the contra Celsum the Demonstratio may seem
cold and academic, for it lacks the charm and interest of the dialogue-form.
Where they are redolent of the open air, and the marketplace, it suggests the
lecture-hall and the pulpit. Much of the warmth, directness, and reality has
evaporated from the appeal of Eusebius. These are obvious criticisms. But it
must be remembered that Eusebius wrote for the cultured people of his own age.
His method and manner are less perhaps the result of his own temperament than
the production of a stately and courtly entourage. As the heir of the
apologetic of the market-place, and of a struggling sect of believers, he was
called by the genius of his own time to reproduce in a polished and rhetorical
style, for an educated circle, the old arguments which had welled forth from
the lips of the infant Church in spontaneous freedom and life. There can be no
doubt that the world for which they were intended received in the Praeparatio
and the Demonstratio what was for it the most unanswerable defence of
the Christian Religion.