The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

INTRODUCTION xxxvii
Chalcedon as a⁄rming Cyril and those, the Monophysites, who
regarded it as a betrayal of Cyril. A further complication for the
Eastern Church was that Cyril’s own Christological views were not
entirely consistent, or rather had been rede¢ned on various occasions
during his long patriarchate, so that it was possible to point to statements
of his which both coincided and disagreed with the phraseology of Chalcedon.
However, both sides in the East were unhappy with the interpretation
of the West, which regarded Chalcedon as con¢rmation of the
teaching of Pope Leo and any quibbles as a challenge to the su⁄ciency
of papal exposition.
In Evagrius’ lifetime, o⁄cial ecclesiastical policy was dominated by
the stance sometimes known as neo-Chalcedonianism: this represented
a determined attempt to interpret the Formula of Chalcedon in the light
of Cyril’s teaching, especially through the incorporation of his Twelve
Anathemas which had not been recognized at the Council, 60 and so
maintain the major decisions of Chalcedon by weakening Monophysite
objections. 61 This underpinned the e¡orts at reconciliation launched by
Justinian and Justin II, and also re£ected the views of the patriarchs
Anastasius and Gregory of Antioch: in his sermon ‘On the Baptism of
Christ’, Gregory urged his congregation to abandon the destructive civil
war that was destroying the Christian community and to refrain from a
precise ‘weights and measures’ approach to doctrinal discussions. 62 Not
surprisingly, Evagrius shared this eirenic approach to the contentious
issue. His presentation of the background to the dispute emphasizes the
Devil’s initiative in destroying harmony by securing disagreement about
a single letter (i.1), and his views are clari¢ed in the discussion of the
aftermath of Chalcedon (ii.5), where he argues that the opposing
formulae of Christ in (en) two natures and Christ from (ek) two natures
are mutually inductive ^ by confessing the one, the believer necessarily
60 The Twelve Anathemas, or Chapters, constituted a list of twelve heretical positions
which Cyril had appended to his third letter to Nestorius (ACO I.i.1, no. 6; cf. i.5, with nn.
40, 42 below); the orthodoxy of some of Cyril’s assertions was not above question, but they
were eventually rati¢ed at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553.
61 Hence, Cyrilline Chalcedonianism is an alternative and more precise term for neo-
Chalcedonians, which would exclude those revisionists who went so far as to employ both
the major Christological formulae. Allen, Evagrius ch. 2, provides a clear and concise
exposition of the complex position; see also ead. ‘Neo-Chalcedonianism’; Frend, Rise
275^82; Grillmeier, Christ II.2. 429^34; and, more generally, Herrin, Formation 183^5.
62 On the Baptism of Christ 9^10.