The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

6
EVAGRIUS
that nothing worthy of remembrance may escape notice through
concealment under neglectful and slack indolence and its neighbour
oblivion. I will begin with divine assistance in the lead, from the point
where the aforementioned terminated their narrative.
1 The impiety of Julian had only just been washed away by the blood of
the martyrs and the madness of Arius fettered in the shackles forged at
Nicaea; furthermore, Eunomius and Macedonius had been shipwrecked
in the Bosporus and shattered at the city of Constantine; 7 and now the
holy Church had wiped away the fresh ¢lth and was being brought back
to her ancient beauty, clad and adorned in golden raiment, 8 and was
being united with the beloved bridegroom. 9 Unable to tolerate this, the
Devil, the hater of good, caused a certain foreign and quite di¡erent war
to arise against us, despising the idolatry that was trampled underfoot
and shoving aside the servile insanity of Arius. 10 And whereas he was
7 Although Julian (361^3) attempted to avoid the creation of new martyrs, who would
only strengthen Christianity, it was impossible to restrain pagan anger or prevent Christian
enthusiasts from provoking violent reactions; hence there were several martyrdoms, for
which see Sozomen v.4, 7^11, 20; Socrates iii.2, 12, 15, 19; Theodoret, EH iii.7, 11, 15, 17^
19. The anti-Arian shackles forged at Nicaea (325), i.e. the homoousian creed which upheld
the perfect equality of God the Father and God the Son, were only ¢rmly imposed during
the reign of Theodosius I (378^95), especially as a result of the second Ecumenical Council,
which was held at Constantinople in May 381.
Eunomius, Bishop of Cyzicus, was one of the leading exponents of the Anomoean position
that the Son, as part of the created order, was fundamentally di¡erent from (unlike:
a ’no¤ moioB) the Father: see Sozomen vi.26. Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople (342^
60), although ultimately expelled from his see at the behest of the Arianizing Constantius,
was another neo-Arian or semi-Arian; he was associated with the anti-Nicene position that
the essence of the Son was like (but not the same as) that of the Father (i.e. homoiousios not
homoousios), and his name was posthumously attached to the doctrine of the Pneumatomachi
who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Both Eunomius and Macedonius were among
the heretics speci¢cally condemned at Constantinople: see, for example, Theodoret, EH
v.9.19. For the image of shipwreck, cf. 1 Timothy 1.19.
8 Psalm 45.9.
9 The bridegroom of the Song of Songs was regularly interpreted as an allegory for
Christ as husband of the Church, or of the individual soul: cf., for example, Jerome Letters
22.24^6, and in general, see Murray, Symbols 131^42.
10 Evagrius has modelled his analysis on Theodoret, EH i.2: the Devil, upset by the
serene voyage of the post-Constantinian Church but recognizing that the folly of idolatry
was exposed, did not dare to attack directly and so discovered some vainglorious Christians
who could be exploited to seduce others into error. Cf. Eusebius, EH iv.7.1^2: Satan attacks
the Church through the innovation of heresy; Socrates, i.22.14^15: Satan, eager to ambush