Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 1 (Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine)

slavishness to tradition, which seems to have been natural to him. Pamphilus' deep reverence for Origen An influential early Christian scholar (c. 184–253 A.D.) known for his synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian theology. proves he was immediately superior to that narrow conservatism which led many men—as learned and conscientious as himself—to pass severe and unconditional condemnation upon Origen and all his teachings. Championing his cause must have fostered in this little circle—which was a hotbed of Origenism—a contempt for the narrow, unfair judgments of mere traditionalists. It must have led them to seek the truth solely for its own sake, becoming, in some measure, indifferent to how their views aligned with any particular school or church. It was almost inevitable that the free and fearless spirit of Origen would leave its mark, through his writings, upon a circle of followers as devoted to him as these Cæsarean students.

These influences necessarily acted upon the impressionable Eusebius. Yet, he brought no keen speculative powers or deep originality to them, such as Origen himself possessed. His was essentially an acquisitive, not a productive mind; therefore, it was impossible for him to become a second Origen. It was certain that Origen's influence over him would weaken his confidence in the "traditional" as such—a confidence naturally strong in such minds—but at the same time, it would do little to lessen the real power the past held over him. He continued to derive his truth from others—from the great men of the past with whom he had lived and upon whose thought he had feasted. He believed everything he had drawn from them; he produced nothing new for himself, and his creed was a traditional one. Yet, he had also imbibed from his surroundings the habit of questioning and even criticizing the past. Despite his abiding respect for it, he learned that the voice of the majority 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 individual.

Though he depended so completely on the past for his beliefs, his associations helped free him from a slavish adherence to all that a particular school had accepted, making him, in some small measure, an eclectic regarding the doctrines and opinions of earlier generations. A notable instance of this eclecticism is seen in his treatment of the Apocalypse of John. He felt the force of an almost universal tradition favoring its apostolic origin, and yet, in the face of that, he could listen to the doubts of Dionysius. Led by Dionysius' example, and his own dissatisfaction with the book, he came almost—if not entirely—to reject it and 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.

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" such as few possessed, yet he was never a heresy-hunter in any sense. This is surprising when we remember what a fascination this employment held for so many scholars of his age, and when we realize that his historical tastes and talents would seem to mark him out as the very man for that kind of work. May it not be that the lofty spirit of Origen, animating the 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 A work by Epiphanius of Salamis cataloging and refuting various heresies; literally "Medicine Chest."?

It was not that he was indifferent to the evils of heresy. He shared, with nearly all good churchmen of his age, an intense aversion to 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 he viewed as a real heretic, or to do justice to the errors he taught. His condemnations of heretics in his Church History are most severe; the language is hardly strong enough to express his aversion. And yet, although he is thus most thoroughly a 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 dis-