The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY: BOOK I 29
at the same Synod Ibas, the bishop of the Edessenes, was also publicly
condemned, while Daniel, Bishop of Carrhae, was also deposed, as too
Irenaeus of Tyre and furthermore Aquilinus of Byblus. 97 Certain
actions were also taken in respect of Sophronius, who was bishop of
Constantina. 98 Theodoret, the bishop of Cyrrhus, was also deposed by
them, and indeed Domnus, the bishop of Antioch. With regard to him it
was not possible to discover what happened thereafter. 99 And in this
way the Second Council at Ephesus was dissolved. 100
11 Let not any of the idol-maniacs mock me because subsequent Councils
overturn their predecessors and always ¢nd some additional innovation
for the faith. 101 For we, while searching for the ine¡able and
97 These further depositions of prominent Easterners occurred on 22 August, after the
representatives of Pope Leo had withdrawn from the Council (Flemming, Akten pp. 7^151).
Most had links with Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and so could be accused of Nestorian sympathies:
Ibas had already been investigated by a Council at Tyre, and then condemned by the
governor of Osrhoene; Daniel was a nephew of Ibas; Irenaeus, a prominent lay supporter of
Nestorius at Ephesus in 431, was subsequently consecrated as bishop by Theodoret but
exiled for his views in 435 (see nn. 33, 58, 81 above); Aquilinus was another of Theodoret’s
appointees.
98 Sophronius was accused of sorcery and his case remitted to the new bishop of Edessa.
99 Domnus, who does not appear to have been a doctrinal expert but depended on Theodoret,
was outmanoeuvred by Dioscorus, being ¢rst persuaded to agree to the deposition of
Flavian and Eusebius, but then ¢nding himself isolated (Bazaar 348); in contrast to the
other deposed bishops he was not reinstated at Chalcedon. The Life of Euthymius ch. 20,
p. 33:28 records that he returned to Palestine to ask forgiveness of the aged Euthymius,
whose advice not to abandon the desert he had ignored.
100 The Second Council of Ephesus, known by opponents as the Latrocinium or Robber
Council, acquired notoriety for the violence with which Dioscorus and his Egyptian supporters
and the Syrian monk Barsauma secured the rati¢cation of their views (ACO II.i.1, nos.
851^62; Bazaar 352^4); although the violence may have been exaggerated when many of the
bishops reassembled at Chalcedon in 451 and had to explain why they had subscribed to
decisions that were now contrary to imperial policy, this reputation was enshrined in the
acta of Chalcedon. Evagrius, however, has chosen to ignore these unruly aspects of the
Council, and in the next chapter even provides a defence of divergent doctrinal positions
produced by Councils. He also does not identify here the two key misdemeanours of Dioscorus,
at least as stated at Chalcedon (see ii.4, with n. 48 below): that he had received Eutyches
into communion before the latter’s condemnation had been lifted, and that he had
prevented the letter of Pope Leo from being read out.
101 Festugie' re (215) translated the last clause as dependent on idol-maniacs (‘who are
always ready to dream up some new argument against our faith’), but it is easier to take
this as a second reason for the mockery of the idolaters (as BEL 269 does).
Innovation was a standard charge against doctrinal opponents, exploited, for example,