Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol. 1 (Augustine: Confessions, Letters)

...slavishness to tradition, which seems to have been natural to him. Pamphilus' deep reverence for Origen proves he was superior to the kind of narrow conservatism that led many men—as learned and conscientious as himself—to pass severe and unconditional condemnation upon Origen and all his teachings. Championing Origen’s cause must have fostered, in this little circle (which was a hotbed of Origenism), a contempt for the narrow and unfair judgments of mere traditionalists. It must have led them to seek the truth solely for its own sake, and to become, in a measure, indifferent to whether their findings aligned with the views of any particular school or church. It could hardly be otherwise than that the free and fearless spirit of Origen would leave its mark through his writings upon a circle of followers so devoted to him as these Cæsarean students.

These influences necessarily acted upon the impressionable Eusebius. And yet, he brought to them no keen speculative powers, no deep originality such as Origen possessed. His was essentially an acquisitive, not a productive mind; therefore, it was out of the question for him to become a second Origen. It was certain that Origen's influence would weaken his confidence in tradition as such—a confidence that is naturally great in minds like his—but at the same time, it would do little to lessen the real power of the past over him. He continued to draw his truth from others, from the great men of the past with whom he had "lived" and upon whose thought he had feasted. All that he believed he had drawn from them; he produced nothing new for himself, and his creed was a traditional one. Yet, at the same time, he had imbibed from his surroundings the habit of questioning and even criticizing the past. Despite his abiding respect for it, he had learned to feel that the "voice of the many" is not always the "voice of truth," and that what is widely and anciently accepted must sometimes be corrected by the clearer sight of a single man. Therefore, although he depended entirely upon the past for his beliefs, his associations helped free him from a slavish adherence to all that a particular school had accepted, making him to some small extent an eclectic in his relation to the doctrines and opinions of earlier generations.

A notable instance of this eclecticism (selecting ideas from various sources) is seen in his treatment of the Apocalypse of John. He felt the force of an almost universal tradition in favor of its apostolic origin; yet, in the face of that, he could listen to the doubts of Dionysius and, led by that example (where his own dissatisfaction with the book acted as an incentive), he was almost, if not quite, persuaded to reject it and to ascribe it to another John. Instances of a similar mode of conduct are quite numerous. While he is always a staunch apologist for Christianity, he seldom, if ever, degenerates into a mere partisan of any particular school or sect.

In fact, one thing particularly noticeable in Eusebius' works is the comparatively small amount of time and space he devotes to heretics. With his wide and varied learning and his extensive acquaintance with the past, he had opportunities for successful "heresy hunting" that few possessed, and yet he never was a heresy hunter in any sense. This is surprising when we remember what a fascination this employment held for so many scholars of his own age, and when we realize that his historical tastes and talents would seem to mark him out as just the man for that kind of work. May it not be that the lofty spirit of Origen, animating that Cæsarean school, had something to do with the happy fact that he became an apologist instead of a mere polemic, choosing the honorable task of writing a history of the Church instead of anticipating Epiphanius' Panarium?

It was not that he was not alive to the evils of heresy. He shared with nearly all good churchmen of his age an intense aversion for those who, as he believed, had corrupted the true Gospel of Christ. Like them, he ascribed heresy to the agency of the evil one and was no more able than they to see any good in a man whom he looked upon as a real heretic, or to do justice to the error which he taught. His condemnations of heretics in his Church History are most severe. Language is hardly strong enough to express his aversion for them. And yet, although he is thus most thoroughly the child of his age, the difference between him and most of his contemporaries is very apparent. He mentions these heretics only to dismiss them with...