The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY: BOOK V 261
beseech you ^ for[201] even though we occupy the pre-eminence of
imperial rule, we would not shrink from using such words on
behalf of the harmony and union of all Christians which results
from there being o¡ered to our great God and Saviour, Jesus
Christ, a single creed for all ^ that hereafter no one should profess
to dispute about persons and syllables, because the syllables lead
to one and the same correct understanding and faith. 15 The
custom and practice that has prevailed until now in the holy universal
and apostolic Church of God is steadfast and unchanged
through everything, and persists for the whole of time hereafter.
And so everyone consented to this edict, saying that its expressions
were orthodox; but none of the parts which had broken o¡ was completely
united, because it was explicitly indicated that the steadfast and
unchanged state was defended by the churches, and would be in the
course of time hereafter. 16
5 Justin also expelled Anastasius from the see of Theopolis, bringing as
an accusation against him the expenditure of holy monies that had
occurred, which he said was unbounded and for unsuitable purposes;
also that he had blasphemed against him. For when Anastasius was
asked why he dispersed the holy monies with such abandon, he publicly
stated that it was to avoid their removal by the common pest Justin. He
is said to have been angry with Anastasius because the latter, on being
ordained to the bishopric, had refused to give him money when he
asked. Other matters too were alleged against him by people who, I
suppose, wished to serve the emperor’s design. 17
15 A reference to the dispute between Chalcedonians and Monophysites which revolved
around the words e ’n and e ’k: cf. Evagrius i.1 with nn. 12^13; ii.5, pp. 52:27^53:20.
16 The imperial edict expounded the neo-Chalcedonian doctrinal position, but in language
slanted towards the ‘one nature’ position and with no mention of the o¡ending
Council: on theological grounds it was acceptable to Monophysite bishops at Constantinople,
even if the more rigorous Monophysite monks in the east would probably have rejected
it. The ¢nal sentence, which proclaimed the maintenance of the status quo in the churches,
had been added at the insistence of Justin’s anti-Monophysite advisers, according to John of
Ephesus (EH i.19; it is omitted from the version in Michael the Syrian x.4, II. p. 299). This
tacitly, but e¡ectively, guaranteed that Chalcedon would still be accepted as an orthodox
Council and, coupled with the absence of any oral condemnation of Chalcedon, ensured
that the Monophysite ‘separatists’ remained unreconciled.
17 Anastasius had been appointed to the see of Antioch in 559, when the future Justin II
was already a person of in£uence at court, and there may be some truth in the allegation that