The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

104
EVAGRIUS
known in two natures;’ and at this the Egyptians cried out, ‘Let nobody
separate the indivisible, one must not say that the one Son is two’, while
the Easterners shouted, ‘Anathema on the one who divides, anathema
on the one who distinguishes!’ 161 The same transactions say that when
Eutyches was asked if he said that there were two natures in Christ, he
said that he knew Christ as being from two natures before the union but
after the union as one; that Basil said that, if he did not declare that the
two natures were indivisible and inseparable after the union, he was
declaring separation and confusion; if, however, he added ‘incarnate
and made human’ and conceived the incarnation and being made
human exactly like Cyril, he would say the same as them, for the Divinity
from the Father was one thing, while the humanity from the mother was
another. 162
And so when they were asked for what reason they subscribed to the
deposition of Flavian, the records reveal that the Easterners shouted:
‘We all erred, we all ask forgiveness.’ 163 Then again as the reading
progressed it revealed that the bishops were asked for what reason they
did not give permission to Eusebius when he wanted to enter. To this
Dioscorus said that Elpidius 164 produced a memorandum which
con¢rmed that the emperor Theodosius ordered that Eusebius should
not receive admission. The transactions reveal that Juvenal also said the
same. Thalassius, however, said that he did not have the authority. This
was condemned by the o⁄cials since this was no defence when faith was
at stake. To this the proceedings reveal that Dioscorus complained,
declaring, ‘How are the canons being preserved now that Theodoret is
present?’, and that the [72] senate pronounced that Theodoret was
present as accuser. Dioscorus indicated that he was sitting in the position
of bishop, and the senate again said that both Eusebius and Theodoret
occupied the position of accusers, just as Dioscorus indeed was allocated
the position of defendant. 165
161 ACO II.i.1, pp. 92:30^93:6. Basil had expounded the formula ‘in two natures’ which
became the key to the Chalcedonian de¢nition (cf. ii.5 with n. 84 above), to which the Monophysite
Egyptian bishops naturally objected; the eastern contingent, the bishops dependent
on Antioch and their supporters, then turned the objection against the Monophysites.
162 ACO II.i.1, p. 93:27^39.
163 ACO II.i.1, p. 94:1^19.
164 One of the two secular o⁄cials in charge of proceedings at Second Ephesus, cf. i. n.
93 above.
165 ACO II.i.1, pp. 96:28^97:14.