The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

72
EVAGRIUS
the transactions, 53 a de¢nition was pronounced which said the following
in these very terms: 54
Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ said when con¢rming the
knowledge of the faith for the disciples, ‘My peace I give you, my
peace I leave you’, 55 so that no one should di¡er from his neighbour
in the doctrines of piety but should in harmony make manifest
the proclamation of truth.
And thereafter, when the holy creed of Nicaea had been read, and in
addition that of the 150 Fathers, 56 they added: 57
Now for perfect recognition and con¢rmation of piety this wise
and saving creed of divine charity is su⁄cient: for concerning
the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it gives the complete
exposition, and it presents the incarnation of the Lord to those
who receive it faithfully. [48] But since the enemies of the
truth are attempting to disavow the proclamation through their
particular heresies and have brought forth empty words, some
daring to debase the mystery of the Lord’s dispensation for us
and utterly denying the appellation Mother of God in respect
of the Virgin, 58 others introducing confusion and mixture
and foolishly reshaping as a unit the nature of the £esh and
of the Divinity, and by confusion indulging in the monstrosity
that the divine nature of the Only-begotten one was
53 This in fact glosses over a serious disruption to proceedings, when thirteen Egyptian
bishops entered the Council to present a declaration of faith which neither condemned
Eutyches nor accepted Leo’s Tome (ACO II.i.2, pp. 110:6^114:18); they were followed by
groups of Constantinopolitan and Syrian monks whose opposition to the Council was so
¢erce that the session had to be terminated (ACO II.i.2, pp. 114:2^121:5). These events are,
however, included in the longer version of proceedings at ii.18, pp. 88:14^90:17.
54 At the ¢fth session of the Council on 22 October (ACO II.i.2, pp. 126:12^130:11). This
is a much more accurate transcription than the three preceding documents (Allen, Evagrius
102); deviations are noted in Bidez^Parmentier’s apparatus. Evagrius has omitted the disputes
which preceded the construction of this new de¢nition of faith, though they are included
in the longer version at pp. 90:18^91:17. Most bishops saw no need for a new
de¢nition of faith, and were only coerced into acceptance by the combined insistence of
imperial and papal representatives.
55 John 14.27.
56 I.e. that of the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople (381).
57 ACO II.i.2, pp. 128:15^130:11.
58 I.e. Nestorians.