The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY: BOOK I 19
was quickly dissolved in accordance with the parable of the Lord, 53
in addition to other matters of his own choice, wrote in reply to those
who accused him of unnecessarily making certain innovations and of
being quite wrong to request that the Synod at Ephesus be convened;
his defence for his blasphemy was that he had come to this stance out of
absolute necessity, since the holy Church was split and some were
saying that Mary ought to be called the Mother of Man, others the
Mother of God. He said that he conceived the term of Mother of Christ
lest one of two wrongs come about, either if people were locked in
undying con£ict, 54 or [13] if one of the parties sided with him he would
be deprived of the other. 55
He indicated that at ¢rst Theodosius, out of sympathy for him, did not
ratify the expulsion that had come upon him; next, that after certain
bishops from both sides were sent to Theodosius from the city of
Ephesus, and when he also had petitioned, he was permitted to retire to
his own monastery which lies outside the gates of whatis nowTheopolis; 56
53 Matthew 7.26^7.
54 The text here has caused problems, for which see the apparatus in Bidez^Parmentier
and Festugie' re 208 n. 19, although each concluded that the manuscript tradition was acceptable;
their defence gives good sense, and I have followed their interpretations. For the term
‘Mother of Christ’, see n. 18 above.
55 Although Cyril triumphed at Ephesus and was clearly marshalling support for a
direct challenge to Nestorius during 430, the actual initiative for the Council did come
from Nestorius (Bazaar 286). The latter had received various complaints about Cyril’s
actions from Egyptian monks (ACO I.i.1, p. 111:21^30), and he was con¢dent in the
support of Theodosius, who would appoint a suitably favourable secular o⁄cial to oversee
the Council’s deliberations. Theodosius had also speci¢ed, when summoning the Council
on 19 November 430, that only a few reputable bishops should attend from each diocese
(ACO I.i.1, p. 115:19^26); this restriction would, if enforced, have weakened Cyril, who controlled
the large block vote of his Egyptian subordinates.
Nestorius vehemently rebutted the charge that he had made innovations in Christology:
his argument was that a ¢erce dispute already existed between ‘Apollinarians’, who urged
the full divinity of Christ, and ‘Photinians’, who urged His full humanity; once the rhetoric
and labels of public dispute had been stripped away, Nestorius discovered that there was
very substantial agreement between the two sides, and so proposed the term Mother of
Christ as a compromise (Bazaar 97^100; Barhadbeshabba ch. 21, pp. 531^3; cf. n. 18
above); acceptance of the vocabulary of either of the disputing parties would immediately
have lost Nestorius the recognition of the other, and so he chose a middle course. Although
he discouraged the use of the term Theotokos, he did not regard it as heretical and, when he
withdrew to his monastery, he conceded that the term should be used if people wanted (Socrates
vii.34.10).
56 For these developments, cf. nn. 41^2 above, adding Bazaar 284^6.