I’ve begun reading The History of the Church by Eusebius. This particular Eusebius is Eusebius of Caesaria, Bishop, who lived about 260 -341 AD. The introduction states “There are many in these days who would find the book dull, perhaps unreadable, as it rambles on, … relating the lives and deaths of those long since forgotten, denouncing unintelligible heresies, and listing the vices and brutalities of petty tyrants. But to those who do not feel that the past is dead; that bygone struggles and calamities, victories and defeats, successes and failures, loves and hates, actions and reactions are irrelevant to us; that other ages and other manners are no concern of ours – to such the book will be full of interest. Above all, those to whom the Church is the Body of Christ, its treasures beyond 
price, its agony their own, will be held fast as they read its pages. … Have we not all wondered what the early Christians were like,and whether we could stand firm in similar trials? Here we shall find them revealed in all their strength and all their weakness, and to become acquainted with them will prove a salutary experience.”
We should all be wondering “whether we could stand firm in similar trials” as the world and our country begins to tolerate Christianity, especially orthodoxy, less and less. Of course, “all is grace”, but it is never too early to begin praying for the grace of final perseverance, in whatever situation the Almighty should deem appropriate for each of us. As for Eusebius’ history, the older I get, the more I find myself in the second category described above – “to such the book will be full of interest.” And so far, it is. I will be highlighting information that is new to me, and may perchance, be new to the readership of this blog as well. My “I never knew that!” moments may not excite you too much, but maybe they will. So let us begin.I am going to start with my final consideration from Book I. While perhaps only legend, I believe this tale to be quite fascinating, in a “Catholic trivia” sort of way. It is subtitled “A story about the Prince of Edessa,” – who doesn’t like stories of princes and that sort of thing? Here we find Christian chivalry and honor hundreds of years before fashionable, and from a pagan king, no less.Allegedly, a certain King Abgar, “brilliantly successful 
monarch of the peoples of Mesopotamia, was dying from a terrible physical disorder which no human power could heal,” heard of the name of Jesus of Nazareth and the incredible number of miracles of healing he wrought. King Abgar sent a “humble request to Him by a letter-carrier, begging for relief from his disease.” Eusebius asserts that Our Lord sent Abgar a personal letter in reply, which he wrote himself, “promising to send one of His disciples to cure his disease, and at the same time to bring salvation to him and all his kin.” Eusebius asserts that he himself saw these letters, found in the Record Office at Edessa, and he records them as follows:
Abgar’s Letter to Our Lord
“Abgar Uchama the Toparch to Jesus, who has appeared as a gracious saviour in the region of Jerusalem – greeting. I have heard about you and about the cures you perform without drugs or herbs. If report is true, you make the blind see again and the lame walk about; you cleanse lepers, expel unclean spirits and demons, cure those suffering from chronic and painful diseases, and raise the dead. When I heard all this about you, I concluded that one of two things must be true – either you are God and came down from heaven to do these things, or you are God’s Son doing them. Accordingly I am writing to beg you to come to me, whatever the inconvenience, and cure the disorder from which I suffer. I may add that I understand the Jews are treating you with contempt and desire to injure you: my city is very small, but highly esteemed, adequate for both of us.”
Our Lord’s Reply to Abgar
“Happy are you who believed in me without having seen me! For it is written of me that those who have seen me will not believe in me, and that those who have not seen will believe and live. As to your request that I should come to you, I must complete all that I was sent to do here, and on completing it must at once be taken up to the One who sent me. When I have been taken up I will send you one of my disciples to cure your disorder and bring life to you and those with you.”
Apparently what happened next is that after the Ascension, St. Thomas was moved to send Thaddaeus to Edessa to spread the Good News of the Gospel. The King heard he was there, and was healing in Jesus’ name, and asked that Thaddeus present himself to the King. The next day Thaddeus went to the king, who asked him if he really was “a 
disciple of Jesus the Son of God,” who wrote to him that he would send him one of his disciples. After a short conversation in which the King professed his belief in Our Lord, Thaddeus laid hands on him in Jesus’ name, and the King was instantly cured. The actual account is very interesting, and apparently many were converted.
The original letters have not survived, but I guess there are some copies that were made that are pretty old themselves. The footnotes in the book I am reading state that “It is generally regarded as mere legend, designed to create the belief that Christianity reached Mesopotamia very early indeed.” The uniqueness of this legend is in the fact that this is probably the only known letter written by Our Lord himself. This is what elicited my surprised response of “I didn’t know that!”
There were two other subjects I found interesting in this first book of the history. Eusebius begins with the “pre-existence and divinity of our Savior.” He asserts that because Our Lord is the Word, and “In the beginning was the Word” that the holy prophets of the Old Testament, “recognized Him in visions seen with the pure eyes of the mind, and paid due honour to Him as God’s Son.” The author declares that when Abraham sat by the oak of Mamre, it was Our Lord who appeared to him as an ordinary human being. “Abraham fell down at once, and though he saw a human being with his eyes he worshipped Him as God, besought Him as Lord, and owned that he knew who He was; for these were his very words: ‘O Lord, the Judge of all the world, wilt Thou not do justice?’” Eusebius goes on to explain that is impossible that “Scripture should falsely invent such a tale.” He then conjectures that because it couldn’t be God the Father whoappeared in “human shape”, “there is only one answer – His pre-existent Word.” He also says that the visitor Jacob had (and wrestled) was Our Lord because he himself said “For I saw God face to face, and my life was spared.” Again he asserts that this was not God the Father, so it must be the Son. Joshua also “saw a man standing facing him, his sword drawn in his hand. Joshua went up to him and said, ‘Are you for us or for our opponents? He replied ‘It is as Commander-in-chief of the army of the Lord that I have now come.’ Then Joshua fell face downwards on the ground and asked Him, ‘Master, what do you command your servant?’”
I just thought it was so cool that Jesus was walking around instructing and aiding us before His actual Incarnation. Jesus is man, but He was there right from the beginning, (the Word) and there is no time with God, so why not? I don’t know what the Church’s official teaching on this interpretation is, but it really struck me as part of the infinite mystery that is our God, that we cannot even begin to plumb the depths of.
Let me take a minute to say that even though I am going to skip a lot of information between the points that I am choosing to highlight, it is still worth reading the “in-between” text for yourself. Some of this information is just too much to delve into and try to explain here. I am mostly gearing this toward something that I think my teenage children would find interesting, such as my next point – the gruesome death of Herod.
In Eusebius’ own words – “it is worthwhile to recall the price paid by Herod for his crime against Christ and the other babies [the Holy Innocents.] Instantly, without the shortest delay, divine justice overtook him while still alive, giving him a foretaste of what awaited him in the next world.” Our good bishop was quite sure that Herod’s end was straight from the “hand of God,” and he quotes the historian Josephus, (Jewish Antiquities, Book XVII) in describing Herod’s demise. Be warned that this description is quite graphic and gruesome: “Herod’s sickness grew steadily worse as God exacted punishment for his iniquities. He was consumed by a slow fire which gave no clear indication to the touch of the burning heat that added so much to his internal miseries. He had an overpowering desire for food, which it was impossible to satisfy, ulceration of the intestines with agonizing pains in the lower bowel, and a clammy transparent humour covering the feet. … Breathing was constricted and only possible when sitting upright, and it was most offensive because of the heavy stench and feverish respiration. He suffered in every part convulsions that were unbearably severe. Those who practised divination and had the gift of foretelling such things declared that God was exacting a penalty from the king for his continual wickedness.” If you haven’t had enough, Eusebius continues with a second quote from a different book of Josephus, with more information, and equally gruesome, which I will not include here. Eusebius matter-of-factly states “Such was the final end of Herod; he paid a just penalty for the children he had put to death in Bethlehem and its neighborhood in his attempt against our Savior.”
Nasty stuff to think about! If I get time, I will continue with Book II …
Very interesting. And nice Header Image! If you want another interesting book to read concerning Church History, try: The History of the Franks, by St. Gregory of Tours. He gives a thorough history of Christianity in France, along with a history of the Frankish people. One of my favorite authors!
The church is deeply indebt to Eusebius for his history. However keep in mind he was a semi-arian as well. He also held a distorted view of the emperor Constantine which you can read in his book Life of Constantine.
Nice site. I’m a Ron Paul supporter as well & will vote for him in the Texas primary, but it won’t be much help.
Paul, thanks for the recommendation. I will keep it in mind.
quickbeam, thanks for the heads up on Eusebius – I wondered. I thought he was one of the St. Eusebius’, until I tried to find him in my Butler’s this morning. Is his information reliable? Does the Church reference this work? Basically, should I keep reading it? The intro says that when he realized the true character of Arius, “with whom he had hitherto felt himself inclined to sympathize,” he voted for a creed directed against Arian beliefs. But I really wondered about this translation because it says “Nor is Peter regarded as the founder of the Roman see: the language used of him is used of Paul as well” and also “though the doctrine of the virgin Birth is stoutly maintained, no title of honour is applied to her, nor is it ever suggested that she or any other saint can be the recipient or channel of prayer. Finally, we note that so far from celibacy being imposed on bishops or clergy, such imposition is regarded as rank heresy.” Upon reading that, I assumed the translator was a Protestant, although it doesn’t say that anywhere. My parish priest gave me the book to read. I was really looking for a history of the evangelization of Naples, which he was not aware existed — he was going to look into it for me.
Oh he is the only source for alot of historical information. However he’s not a historian in todays sense of the word. He didn’t have the learning to understand scientific ways of verifing information. By that I mean you can project docrtines and theories that were current in his day as being the same before that time. It’s not always the case. Example today would be most Catholic would think that pews were always found in church. But that didn’t occur until after the reformation. Another would be chapter headings and number verses in the bible. That only existed for the past 400 or 500 years. One can make assumptions and read back into history.
But all in all he is solid in most of his history. I would question his theology. He certainly was never declaired a Saint. I don’t think there is anything in his writting that would be harmful to you to read and the benefits would IMO outway not reading him. I don’t think there’s many semi-Arians around today & given the profession of the creed, you’ll see where he departs for the faith in those cases.
He had access to partchments that we will never have so he is critical to church history.
There are two other early church historian both eastern greek writters.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14165c.htm
&
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14118b.htm
“Jesus is man, but He was there right from the beginning, (the Word)” I necessarily wouldn’t say it is an erring belief, since after all, Christ was referred to as the ‘Word,’ and the Word of God has been with us always throughout time.
Regarding Eusebius and his faith, I am no expert in the field, but I would like to throw in my own two cents. Necessarily, there have been some Church Father’s who actually erred in their beliefs (my memory fails me here, but I read about him in my Theology class), so it wouldn’t surprise me if Eusebius actually held some belief’s contrary to the Church.
Does Eusebius give an account as to the Church’s teachings and beliefs, or does he simply devote his writings to telling the tale of the Her beginnings?
Quick Beam of Fangorn,
Thanks for the compliments! Ron Paul is pretty much out of the race, but fortunatley, the other Republicans are pro-life! About Eusebius: when he wrote his book, there wasn’t much of a defined church yet, and therefore, anything that would be considered heresy now, would have been much milder back in his day. The Apostles Creed, because of its early origin, it does not address some Christological issues defined in the later Nicene and other Christian Creeds. This makes it acceptable to many Arians and Unitarians.
(Quoting Wikipedia)
Perhaps now, he may be considered a heretic, but at the time of his life, there were no REAL guidlines.
No one can really be sure.
~SignaVeritae
Well Wikipedia isn’t all it’s cracked up to be as a source.
They aren’t very through. You can check this out by their own work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Synod_of_Tyre
Note under this Synod who presided over the council at Tyre and condemned St. Athanasius. This council which he headed ruled against St. Athanasius and Nicæa
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27021.htm
Here Theodoret a later church historian points out that he(Eusebius) was in league with the Arian Eusebius against St.Eustathius (Chapter 20).
The guideline back then was the Creed of 325. He certainly signed it in 325, but he didn’t support it after it’s signing. He attack and condemned to Saints of the church who defended Nicæa.
Hmmm, thanks for the insight! But I’ll still keep Eusibius’s writings for future reading ideas…
Some people have major problems…imagine wasting your ***** life like that?
Sam,
It’s not a waste of your life if you get to Heaven.
Eusebius “Church History” is a perfectly sound work, theologically, and everyone should read it. It’s great virtue is verbatim quotation of earlier writers. The Penguin translation by G.A.Williamson is widely available.
Other works by Eusebius are available here.
He also wrote a book on differences between the gospels and how they should be resolved. I’m commissioning a translation of this at the moment, and it’s full of interesting snippets.
The alleged semi-arianism of Eusebius is mainly a projection back by later writers; at the time, I suspect that he was nervous that the homoousion was a novelty. He did write against Marcellus of Ancyra, under the impression that the latter was a Sabellian heretic. The two books in which he did so are not yet translated into English.
The letters of Abgar to Jesus and returned are not authentic, but Eusebius certainly obtained them from Syriac sources in Edessa. They form part of a novel written shortly before his own time, the Doctrine of Addai, which purported to record how Christianity came to the semi-independent state of Edessa.