The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

14
EVAGRIUS
registered. 36 Theodotus, Bishop of Ancyra, and Acacius, who directed
the throne of Melitene, spoke once more the blasphemous phrases
which Nestorius belched forth publicly upon the city of Ephesus; 37 many
sayings of holy and elect Fathers which expounded the correct and
unblemished faith were interwoven too, and alongside there were also
inserted various foolish blasphemies of the impious Nestorius. 38 After
this the Holy Synod made the following pronouncement, word for
word: 39
In addition to the other matters, since the most honoured Nestorius
has neither been willing to reply to our summons nor received
the most holy and pious bishops sent by us, we have of necessity
proceeded to the investigation of the impieties done by him; and
having found him to be thinking and pronouncing impiously, on
the basis both of his letters and of his writings which have indeed
been read out, and of what he spoke recently [10] at this metropolitan
city, which has been con¢rmed by witnesses, of necessity
compelled by the canons and by the letter of our most holy
Father and fellow-minister Celestine, the bishop of the Roman
Church, with much weeping we have proceeded to this grim sentence:
‘Accordingly the one who has been blasphemed by him,
our Lord Jesus Christ, has ordained through the present holy
Synod that the same Nestorius is estranged from the episcopal
dignity and every priestly gathering.’
36 The Council opened with a reading of the Nicene Creed (ACO I.i.2, pp. 12:29^13:7),
after which Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius was read and accorded 125 separate attestations
of support as being in conformity with Nicene doctrine (pp. 13:8^31:5). The response
of Nestorius was then read, and it received 35 condemnations (pp. 31:6^35:29). Nestorius
was then anathematized (pp. 35:30^36:7), before the Council proceeded to a reading of Celestine’s
letter and Cyril’s third letter to Nestorius (p. 36:8^25). Nestorius provides a lengthy
refutation of Cyril’s doctrinal position, and defence of his own, at Bazaar 141^85. For the
growing importance of documents in Church Councils, see Lim, Disputation ch. 7.
37 ACO I.i.2, p. 38:4^30. These blasphemies included the statement about the impossibility
of a two- or three-month-old God. Nestorius did not deny such statements, but insisted
that his comments had been taken completely out of context:Bazaar 136^41. Cf.n. 24 above.
38 A dossier of patristic extracts was then read out (ACO I.i.2, pp. 39:1^45:3: New Testament,
Athanasius, Julius and Felix of Rome, Theophilus of Alexandria, Cyprian, Ambrose,
Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa), followed by selections from Nestorius’
works which demonstrated his departure from accepted doctrine (pp. 45:4.-52:11). Nestorius
presented a defence of his writings at Bazaar 186^265.
39 On 22 June: ACO I.i.2, p. 54:17^28. Minor textual variants are noted by Allen, Evagrius
77^8.