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

approval or condemnation. He seldom, if ever, discusses and refutes their views. His interests clearly lie elsewhere; he is concerned with higher things. A still more strongly marked difference between himself and many churchmen of his age lies in his broad liberality toward those of his own day who differed with him on minor points of faith, and his comparative indifference to the divergence of views between the various parties in the Church. In all this, we believe we see not simply the inherent nature of the man, but that nature as trained in the school of Pamphilus, the disciple of Origen.

§ 3. The Persecution of Diocletian.

In this delightful circle and engaged in such congenial tasks, the time must have passed very happily for Eusebius, until, in 303 A.D., the terrible persecution of Diocletian Roman Emperor (r. 284–305) who initiated the last and most severe persecution of Christians. broke upon the Church like a thunderbolt from a clear sky. It is not my intention to discuss the causes of the sudden change in Diocletian's policy or the terrible havoc wrought in the Church here (see below, Book VIII, chap. 2, note 3, etc.). We are concerned with the persecution only in so far as it bears upon our present subject.

In the first year of the persecution, Procopius, the first martyr of Palestine, was put to death at Cæsarea (Eusebius' Martyrs of Palestine, Cureton's ed., p. 4). From that time on, that city, which was an important Christian center, was the scene of a tempest that raged with varying violence, with occasional cessations, for seven years. Eusebius himself was an eyewitness of many martyrdoms there, of which he gives an account in his Martyrs of Palestine. The little circle surrounding Pamphilus did not escape. In the third year of the persecution (Martyrs of Palestine, p. 12, etc.), a youth named Apphianus—or Epiphanius (the former is given in the Greek text, the latter in the Syriac)—who "resided in the same house with us, confirming himself in godly doctrine, and being instructed by that perfect martyr, Pamphilus" (as Eusebius says), committed an act of fanatical daring which caused his arrest and martyrdom.

It seems that without the knowledge of his friends, concealing his design even from those who dwelt in the same house with him, he grabbed the hand of the governor, Arbanus, who was on the point of sacrificing, and endeavored to dissuade him from offering to "lifeless idols and wicked devils." His arrest was, of course, the natural consequence, and he had the glory of witnessing a good confession and suffering a triumphant death. Although Eusebius speaks with such admiration of his conduct, it is quite significant of the attitude of himself—and of most of the circle to which he belonged—that Apphianus felt obliged to conceal his purpose from them. He undoubtedly feared they would not permit him to perform the rash act he meditated. We may conclude from that, that the circle was largely governed by the precepts of good common sense, avoiding the fanaticism which so frequently led men, as in the present case it led Apphianus, to expose themselves needlessly and even to court martyrdom.

It is plain enough from what we know of Eusebius' general character that he himself was too sensible to act in that way. It is true he speaks with admiration of Apphianus' conduct, and in Church History VIII. 5, of the equally rash procedure of a Nicomedian Christian; but that does not imply that he considered their course the wisest, or that he would not rather recommend the employment of all proper and honorable precautions for the preservation of life. Indeed, in Church History IV. 15, he speaks with evident approval of the prudent course pursued by Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, martyred c. 155 A.D. in preserving his life as long as he could without violating his Christian profession, and with manifest disapproval of the rash act of the Phrygian Quintus, who presumptuously courted martyrdom, only to fail when the test itself came. Pamphilus also possessed too much sound Christian sense to advocate any such fanaticism, or to practice it himself, as is clear from the fact that he was not arrested until the fifth year of the persecution. This unhealthy frame of mind in the midst of persecution was indeed almost universally condemned by the wisest men of the Church; and yet, the boldness and the very rashness of those who thus voluntarily and needlessly threw their lives away excited widespread admiration and, too often, a degree