Eusebius of Caesarea

Eusebius of Caesarea, known as Eusebius the Palestinian (c. 260–339 CE), was Bishop of Caesarea and a major early Christian historian and theologian. Writing during the Church’s shift from persecution to imperial favor, he sought to show that Christianity was the fulfillment of God’s eternal plan. Central to his thought is the doctrine of the Logos, the divine Word through whom God created the world. Eusebius taught that the Logos existed with the Father from the beginning, though his language before Nicaea shows some ambiguity about whether the Son was created or eternal. He identified the Logos as the divine presence active in the Old Testament; the one who appeared to Abraham, Moses, and the prophets—and as the incarnate Christ who revealed God fully to humanity. For Eusebius, Christianity was not a new religion but the continuation of ancient truth, with the Church representing the visible expression of God’s plan in history.

This raises an important question: how can the Roman Catholic Church justify its long history of antisemitism while claiming to follow Christ — the very One whose presence and spirit are active throughout the Old Testament?

Eusebius taught that Christianity was not a new or foreign doctrine but the continuation of an ancient truth. What was new, he said, was the visible form of the Church; the gathered community or “race of Christians”; whose unity and devotion had now appeared openly in the world. The faith itself, however, had long existed, being the same truth once followed by Abraham, Moses, and the prophets of Israel. For Eusebius, the religion of the patriarchs and the early servants of God was identical in essence to that of the Christians.

He viewed all of history as a struggle between the forces of God; working through the patriarchs, prophets, and later through the Church; and the powers of evil, embodied in the Devil, who inspired persecution, heresy, and false teaching. Christianity in this early sense was not the hierarchical or institutional form later shaped under Roman influence. There was no idea of a single earthly “Vicar of Christ,” but rather a fellowship of believers guided directly by divine truth and prophetic revelation. The purpose of Eusebius’s history was to show that God’s plan had been continuous through every age, unfolding amid conflict and revealing both divine providence and the persistent opposition of evil.

In his works Praeparatio Evangelica and Demonstratio Evangelica, Eusebius set out to prove that Christianity was the fulfillment of a divine design revealed from the world’s beginning. The Praeparatio refutes paganism and shows that the Christian faith did not arise suddenly, but was rooted in the wisdom of the ancient patriarchs and prophets; long before Greek philosophy or Roman religion. The Demonstratio continues this theme, using the Hebrew Scriptures to show that the prophets themselves foretold Christ and the coming of the Church. For Eusebius, the faith of Abraham and Moses was the same truth later made complete in Jesus. Christianity was therefore a continuation, not an innovation. In this understanding, there was no notion of a pope, a vicar of Christ, or an army of Jesuits to defend such a throne; only a spiritual community led by the divine Logos, the eternal Word of God active throughout all ages.

Eusebius believed that the Christian faith had remained consistent and unbroken from the time of the apostles, preserved through what he called the “succession” of true teaching and faithful leadership within the Church. This “succession” did not refer to a literal chain of bishops claiming apostolic authority, but to the continuity of genuine doctrine; the preservation of truth from one generation to the next. To Eusebius, the Church had received one teaching from the beginning, and this teaching had never changed. He and other early church historians wrote not to trace how beliefs developed over time, as modern scholars do, but to prove that no change had ever occurred. For them, the constancy of doctrine was evidence of divine preservation, while heresy was viewed as the work of the Devil, attempting to corrupt or distort that truth.

This view stands in sharp contrast to the later developments of institutional Christianity under Roman influence, where doctrines such as papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, and other theological innovations were gradually introduced. Over time, an entire hierarchy—and even an army of Jesuits to defend the authority of a non-existent throne of one man—emerged, far removed from the simple faith Eusebius described. His vision of the Church was that of a community guided directly by divine truth, not by human office or political power, faithfully continuing the original teaching of the apostles without addition or alteration.

Eusebius’s writings stand as a direct challenge to later theories such as John Henry Newman’s idea that Christian doctrine “developed” over time. Newman (1801–1890), an English theologian and former Anglican priest who became a Roman Catholic cardinal, proposed in his 1845 Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine that Christian teaching gradually unfolded through the centuries like a living organism, growing under divine guidance. He used this theory to justify later Catholic dogmas; such as papal supremacy, Marian doctrines, and the infallibility of the Church; arguing that they were natural “developments” of the apostolic faith rather than later inventions.

Eusebius, however, would have entirely rejected this claim. His works make it clear that the faith was not an evolving system but a complete and unbroken revelation of divine truth that began with the patriarchs and prophets and was fulfilled perfectly in Christ. To Eusebius, Christianity was not new, nor did it require growth or reinterpretation; it was the same eternal wisdom of God that had always existed. The prophets, he said, were already Christians in spirit, anticipating the coming of the Word made flesh. In his view, revelation did not develop; it was fulfilled.

How then can something “develop” when the opposite was written?

If Eusebius is to be believed, later doctrines such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, papal supremacy, or the concept of a Vicar of Christ cannot be “developments” of the original faith; they are contradictions of it. He explicitly refers to James, the Lord’s brother, as a leader of the early Church, making it impossible to maintain that Mary had no other children. And he records no mention of any earthly vicar, throne, or single successor to Christ. The apostles shared authority equally as witnesses of the truth, not as rulers of a hierarchy.

For Eusebius, the only true continuity was that of faith and teaching; not of office, lineage, or institutional power. The divine Word is eternal and self-sufficient, unchanging and complete. What was revealed once in Christ was perfect and final. To claim it “developed” into later dogmas is not growth but distortion. Truth, as Eusebius saw it, does not evolve; it endures, unaltered from the beginning.

Eusebius and the Beginning of Church History

When Eusebius of Caesarea began his Ecclesiastical History in the early fourth century, he was doing something no one had ever done before; writing the story of the Church itself. In the opening lines, Eusebius sets out an ambitious plan: to trace the succession of the apostles, to record how the faith spread from the time of Christ to his own day, and to preserve the memory of those who had proclaimed the Word of God, whether by speech or by writing. He also vows to expose those who, “through love of innovation,” distorted the truth and led believers astray, likening them to wolves tearing at the flock of Christ.

Eusebius’s vision of history is not neutral or academic; it is sacred history. For him, the unfolding story of the Church is the continuation of God’s work in the world. Every generation, every teacher, every martyr forms part of a divine narrative that began with the apostles. He writes not merely to record facts, but to defend the unbroken line of true teaching that connects his own era with the time of Jesus. His history, therefore, is both chronicle and confession; a testimony to the endurance of faith amid persecution and heresy.

In this sense, Eusebius stands as the first true historian of Christianity. His work preserves the memory of the early Church and reminds us that the Christian story is not just about events and dates, but about the faithful transmission of truth through the centuries; a living witness that, despite trials and distortions, the light of the Gospel was never extinguished.

“none of those anointed of old possessed such divine power and virtue”

Eusebius makes it clear that all earthly kings, priests, and prophets were only symbolic “anointed ones,” prefiguring the true and divine Christ. Their authority was temporary and representative, not divine in itself. In his view, only the heavenly Word — the eternal Christ; is Priest, King, and Prophet in reality, while all others merely reflected His image. This understanding leaves no room for the later idea of a single man assuming Christ’s universal authority on earth. The claim of the pope to be the “Holy Father” or “Vicar of Christ” stands in direct contrast to Eusebius’s theology, which allows no mortal to bear divine kingship or priesthood in their own right. For Eusebius, there is only one true Anointed One, and His rule remains unshared; transcending all human thrones, titles, and institutions.

Eusebius explains that the faith of Abraham; long before Moses or the Law; was in truth the same faith later fulfilled in Christ. Abraham, he says, was justified not by ritual or sacrifice but by believing the Logos of God, the divine Word who appeared to him. Turning away from the superstition of his ancestors, Abraham worshiped the one true God through a virtuous and upright life. In him, the promise was made that all nations would be blessed, and Eusebius sees that promise realized among the followers of Christ, whose faith and piety mirror Abraham’s own. For this reason, he argues that Christianity is not a new or recent religion, but the original and authentic worship of God that has existed from the beginning. What Christ taught was not innovation but restoration; the renewal of that ancient, pure faith known to the patriarchs. In Eusebius’s eyes, this makes Christianity “primitive, unique, and true,” not the creation of councils or empires, but the continuation of God’s first revelation to humankind.

He describes how the rule of the Jews ended when Rome conquered Jerusalem and installed Herod, a foreigner, as king. From that point, the hereditary priesthood and royal line were broken, and power passed into the hands of those appointed by political favor. Eusebius interprets this moment as the precise fulfillment of prophecy: that the sceptre would depart from Judah only when the true King appeared. With the coming of Christ, divine authority no longer rested in any earthly throne or bloodline. From then on, every human claim to sacred kingship or priesthood stood exposed as imitation. No ruler, emperor, or pope could rightfully call himself the anointed of God, for the one true anointing belongs to Christ alone, whose kingship is divine and untransferable.

When Herod locked away the sacred vestments of the high priest under his own seal, Eusebius saw in it the visible sign that the age of human priesthood had ended. The anointing among men ceased because the true Anointed One had appeared. From that time forward, no power on earth could claim divine sanction through lineage, ritual, or succession. The vestments of the temple, once symbols of holiness, were sealed away by political power but the living priesthood of Christ, unbound by temple or tribe, was revealed to the world.

Eusebius’s account offers a remarkable glimpse into the diversity of the early Christian circle. He records that among the seventy disciples sent out by Christ, there was another man named Peter, distinct from the Apostle Peter. This small but significant detail complicates the later idea of a single, unique “Peter” upon whom all authority rested. If one of the Seventy also bore the same name and was active in the mission field, then the name Peter; meaning “rock”; may have symbolized steadfast faith rather than a singular office. It reminds us that in the earliest community, leadership was shared, fluid, and rooted in faith, not in hierarchical succession or a solitary vicar.

Eusebius also refers to James as “one of those called the brothers of the Saviour.” His wording is careful, perhaps reflecting the developing belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Yet even with this caution, Eusebius clearly recognizes James as belonging to the Lord’s own household; not merely a fellow apostle or a distant cousin, but one who shared a uniquely close relationship with Jesus and later became the leader of the Jerusalem Church.

After the martyrdom of Stephen, a man bearing the same name as one of Christ’s victorious martyrs received the crown of witness. Then, indeed, James, who is called the brother of the Lord, succeeded; for he too was named the son of Joseph, and Joseph was called the father of Christ, to whom the Virgin was betrothed, and who, before they came together, was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit, as the sacred Gospel teaches. This same James, who was surnamed the Just for his outstanding virtue, is recorded to have been the first to receive the episcopal throne of the Church in Jerusalem. Clement, in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes, writes as follows: “Peter and James and John, after the Ascension of the Saviour, though they had been honored by Him above the rest, did not contend for glory, but chose James the Just as bishop of Jerusalem.” And in the seventh book of the same work he adds: “The Lord, after His resurrection, gave the knowledge (gnosis) to James the Just, to John, and to Peter; these gave it to the other apostles, and the other apostles to the seventy disciples, among whom was also Barnabas.” He continues: “There were two men named James; one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle (of the Temple) and struck with a fuller’s club until he died; and the other, who was beheaded.” Of this James the Just, Paul also makes mention, writing: ‘But I saw none of the other apostles, except James, the Lord’s brother.’ With this account, Eusebius concludes the story of our Saviour’s correspondence with the king of the Osrhoenians (Abgar).

Eusebius’s account is striking because it provides the clearest early testimony that James, not Peter, was the first head of the Jerusalem church. James is described not as a rival to Peter but as one chosen by all three of the Lord’s closest disciples; Peter, James, and John; after the Ascension. This suggests that authority was shared and recognized communally, not claimed by any one apostle as supreme. The passage also affirms that James was known as the brother of the Lord, meaning that he belonged to the household of Jesus and was regarded as part of His earthly family. Eusebius explains this through Joseph’s role as the supposed father of Christ, implying that James was Joseph’s son and thus Jesus’s stepbrother. This understanding was accepted in the earliest centuries before later theological developments sought to reinterpret the term “brother” to mean cousin in order to defend Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Equally significant is the description of how knowledge was passed on after the resurrection. Jesus imparts it to James, John, and Peter, who in turn share it with the rest of the apostles, and from them it is passed to the seventy disciples. This is not a picture of a single hierarchical succession but of a living chain of teaching, spreading outward through many witnesses. The early church’s continuity was spiritual and doctrinal rather than institutional. The authority rested not in an office or in a successor who ruled in Christ’s place but in faithfulness to the truth He revealed.

For Eusebius, the leadership of the early church was moral and spiritual, grounded in holiness rather than hierarchy.

To be continued.......