THE SECOND COUNCIL OF EPHESUS

The second council of Ephesus was convened in 494 on the orders of the emperors Theodosius
and Valerian with specific orders that were indicated in the imperial letters sent to St.
Dioscorus. The acts of the council originally in Greek were long lost. This gave an opportunity
to the enemies of St. Dioscorus to invent many lies about him and the council, whom they call
“the council of robbers.” It was in 1842 that the Lord wished to vindicate His faithful servant,
when a British Scholar found a Syriac manuscript of the acts in the Syrian monastery of Wadi
Alnatroun, Egypt. He brought the manuscript to Britain, and afterwards deposited it in the
British Museum in 1847, “where they now form one of the most remarkable and important
collections of the writings of antiquity which have ever been transported from East to West.”1
Another British Scholar,the reverend S. G. F. Perry translated the manuscript to English and
published it in 1881. It is in the public domain and available on the internet.
Anyone who examines the acts will discover how patient and peaceable our Pope
Dioscorus was. The council was convoked on the 15th of Mesori (August 21, Eve of the feast
of the holy Virgin). St. Dioscorus ordered the letters of the emperors to be read. Afterwards
St. Dioscorus said: If the Illustrious Count Elpidius and Eulogius, the Tribune and Notary2,
have any information to give us respecting this cause which we have in hand, let them speak.
The Count Elpidius spoke:

To-day the Lord of all, God The Word and Saviour, submits Himself to you for
judgment, and when you are judging, He is present among you, and is honoured
by the authority of your sentence ; so that seeing you judge rightly matters
concerning Himself, He will here honour you now, and before the Father will
again own you.3

He then read some written commands given to him by the emperor:

You will not permit any commotion to take place on either side. But if you
should perceive any man aiming at exciting commotion and disturbance to the
injury of The Holy Faith you will observe him with vigilance, and then give
information of the circumstance to us, and let the proceedings of the case go on
according to order.4

1
Acts of the second council of Ephesus: Introduction Xiii
2
These are officials appointed by the emperor to make sure his orders are followed
3
Acts of the second council of Ephesus p. 407
4
Ibid p. 408

1
Count Elpidius must have been asleep when St. Dioscorus brought in his thousand monks to
beat up the bishops and force them to sign! The first order of business was:

You will take care that there be, speedily, a thorough examination made by the
Holy Synod, of which you shall give information to us, those persons being
present indeed who sat in judgment on the Venerable Archimandrite Eutyches,
but silently and not acting as judges, but expectant of the general assent of all
the other Holy Fathers, since those matters that were then adjudicated upon are
now again examined into. It is not, however, permitted that any matter should
be mooted (discussed), having relation to property, before those which relate
to The Orthodox Faith be concluded.5

Euteches was a venerable archimandarite, who was tried by Nestorians and condemned
because he would not agree that Christ had two natures after the union (the same faith of St.
Cyril) The emperor was emphatic that those who judged against him should sit there, but not
as judges, but rather wait for the council to judge. The emperor specifically ordered that this
matter is to be judged before anything else is discussed.
Next was read the “petition of the Archimandrite, EUTYCHES, which was presented
to the Christ-loving Emperor Theodosius, and which moved him to convoke the Holy Synod
of Ephesus.”

(Next) after the God of the Living and of the Truth your Piety is Illumination
to me. You are, too, in no way backward in making investigation of matters
concerning The Faith and my troubles. For, as regards the Documents that were
imposed upon me by the Venerable Bishop Flavian, you read them yesterday,
and you found that the opposite of what was actually done, was put on paper.
For, what he said to me was not put on paper, and what I did not say, they put
into the Documents.6

Based on this he asked the emperor for justice and the emperor ordered the council to
convene, first and foremost to decide on the case of Euteches and later on deal with the matter
of rooting out the Nestorian clergy. Then a confession of faith by Eutyches was read, in which
he recited the Creed, confirming his faith in Nicea and also in the first council of Ephesus. He
briefly described how he was framed by his judges who wrote things that he did not say and
ommitted things he said. St. Dioscorus said that in order to be fair, the transactions of the
council that condemned Euteches should be examined to see if they are “in accordance with
the definitions of the holy fathers.” He then added:

5
Acts of the second council of Ephesus p. 408
6
Ibid p. 411

2
 The order, as well as that which is right and proper, is—that, first, the
transactions in this cause should be read, and, then, the Letters of the
God-loving Archbishop of Rome ; and therefore, as it is agreeable to the Holy
Synod, let the transactions be read.7

St. Dioscorus was accused of ignoring reading the “Tome” of Leo, but as the acts prove, he
followed the orders of the emperor that dictated that the case of Euteches is to be dealt with
before any other business is discussed and that included the “Tome”.
The acts of the council that condemned Euteches were read “in which were reported
some conversations of Flavian's party against The Faith.” Flavian was archbishop of
Constantinople and a Nestorian. When his words were read as they appear in the acts, it was
obvious that he was Nestorian. The Notary, who was the Reader at Ephesus, said :

By what has been read we are certain that another Faith, other than that which
the Fathers formulated, is that of those who have thus spoken.

The notary Eulogius, who was appointed by the emperor noticed the errors and reported them.
Olympius, the Bishop of Evasa, said : “If dissolvers of The Faith appear by the Documents
which they present, let them (the Dissolvers) be anathamatized. Many of the bishops then said:
"No body proclaims our Lord to be Two after The INCARNATION—nobody Divides that
which is Indivisible. Nestorius did this. Thus Nestorius thought.
They continued to read the acts in which Euteches was asked: Do you affirm of our
Lord that He is Consubstantial with us and of Two Natures after INCARNATION by the
Virgin, or not? Euteches answered: “I confess that our LORD was of Two Natures before the
Union, but after the Union I confess Him to be of One Nature.” Only then did St. Dioscorus
say and all the holy council with him: “We all assent to this,—yes, all of us.”

Again, there was read the conversation of Basil, Bishop of Seleucia, with
Eutyches at Flavian's Synod. “And if you do not speak of Two Natures after the
Union, you speak of mixture and of a con-fusing.” And when this sentence was
read at Ephesus, immediately Basil stood up and denied that sentence to be his,
saying, that “this sentence which they affirm I said, I did not say in those words,
and I am certain that I did not speak them.”8

Some of those who judged Euteches, afraid to be condemned as Nestorians denied that they
said such things. Others admitted their mistake and apologized, all of those were forgiven by
the council. Those who insisted that Euteches was wrong were condemned.

7
Acts of the second council of Ephesus p. 420
8
Ibid p. 24

3
 Then St. Dioscorus addressed the council saying: “Is it pleasing to you to affirm,
after the Incarnation, Two Natures?” The Holy Synod said: “Anathema be to
him who affirms so.” Dioscorus of Alexandria, said : “I want both your voices
and your hands. Let him who cannot shout put up his hand.” The Holy Synod
said: “Whoever affirms Two Natures let him be Anathematized.”9

Let those who slander St. Dioscorus tell us, where is the violence they attribute to our great
saint. There was more democracy and order in the second council of Ephesus than in the
council of Chalcedon. Then St. Dioscorus asked the bishops one by one to declare what they
thought should be done to Euteches. One by one they stood up and declared him orthodox and
judged that he be restored as archimandarite of his monastery. St. Dioscorus said:

Agreeing with the opinions of all this Holy and GEcumenical Synod, which have
been expressed relative to the Venerable Archimandrite Eutyches, I also unite
my mind with yours (viz.) that he be replaced in the Order of Presbyter and be
allowed to govern his Monastery as heretofore.10

At the council of Chalcedon, all of these bishops claimed that they were coerced by St.
Dioscorus and his thousand thugs! Like his Lord, he was deserted by all his friends and, like
his Lord, all alone he tread the winepress.

Now when all had delivered their addresses and absolved Eutyches and when
the whole Synod had justly contemned Flavian and Eusebius, such
(condemnation) did not take place in consequence of any acts committed by
them, but because they did not repent and confess the offences they committed
and ask pardon, as the rest did with whom they had condemned Eutyches.11

Flavian said; “I repudiate you. I protest.” Hilarius, Deacon of Rome, said : “To that will be
made a reply.” Hilarius representing Leo of Rome was not amused since Leo in his Tome
agreed that Euteches should be excommunicated because he said: “I do not believe in two
natures after the union.” Of course the Council of Chalcedon reversed the decisions of the
second council of Ephesus. Euteches an old archimandarite was excommunicated and sent to
exile, where he died. St. Dioscorus was also excommunicated and sent to exile where he died.
All the Nestorians that were condemned, were accepted back as orthodox.
The decision of the council was sent to the emperor, who ratified it.

9
Acts of the second council of Ephesus p. 425
10
Ibid p. 428
11
Ibid

4
The first part of the council which was supposed “To terminate a question of Faith that has
arisen between Flavian and Eutyches.” has been concluded. Now the council had to tackle the
second part ordered by the emperors: “To eject from the Church all who maintain and favour
the Error of Nestorius.”
As soon as the bishops assembled, John Presbyter of Alexandria and Proto-Notary, said:

Those who fill the place of the Pious and God-loving Archbishop of Pome, Leo,
and the God-loving Domnus, the Bishop of the Church of Antioch, stayed away
and did not come (to the Synod) ; upon which your Holiness, acting in
accordance with the Canons, gave order that certain of the God-fearing
Bishops, with some other Clerics attendant on them, should go to them and to
him, and should remind them that they ought to come to-day and assemble with
your Holiness.12

The delegation went to meet the representatives of Leo, a bishop named Julius and a deacon
named Hilarius but they were out of town. They spoke with the notary, who told them that
instructions they received from Leo are: “to proceed to the Assembly of the Holy Synod (only)
until the affair should be settled about the God-fearing Presbyter and Abbat Eutyches.”13
It is obvious here that the claim that Dioscorus “held a council without the approval of
the “Apostolic See” is false, since Leo sent representatives to the council, who attended the
first part then boycotted the rest of the meetings. It was because they were absent that the
Tome of Leo, which St. Dioscorus ordered to be read after concluding the first part (as
ordered by the emperor), was not read since Leo’s representatives were ordered to do so. So
the claim that St. Dioscorus prevented the letter from being read is also false.
Domnus, bishop of Antioch excused himself on account of illness. He attended the first
part, confessed his error in condemning Euteches and was pardoned. Thalassius, Bishop of
Csesarea then suggested that the meeting should start so that the bishops are not delayed
further. The council then started to discuss the charges against Ibas bishop of Edessa.
First, the instructions of the emperor concerning him were read (detailed in the last
article). There were also monks from Edessa, who had additional instructions from the
emperor that the notary read to the coucil. A long discussion by bishops who were witnesses
to the affair of Ibas introduced and read.
Another bishop Daniel, bishop of Harran was also accused of immoral acts and he
chose to resign rather than stand in judgment. Concerning Ibas, several complaints and reports
covering tens of pages in the act were read. One of the high ranking officials, the Noble and
Grlorioiis Flavians, Fulris RoMANUS Protogenes, (Consul) for the second time and Consul
Ordinary, and Albinus and Saiimon, Eparchs, the Flavian wrote:

12
Acts of the second council of Ephesus p. 21
13
Ibid p. 25

5
 How the City of Edessa was affected toward its Bishop, the Venerable Ibas, and
how much people were (perpetually) exclaiming and declaring him to be a
follower of Nestorius and that they would (not continue to) accept him (as
Bishop) in their City.14

After a long list of complaints, the petition was signed by:

Then subscribed the whole body of the Clerks, and the Archimandrites, and the
Monks, and the Vowed Brethren, and the (Civic) Dignitaries, and the Municipal
Authorities, and the Roman Officials, and the Collegest of the Armenians and
of the Persians, of the Syrians, and (then) the Artizans and all the City.15

Discussions then followed that are documented in tens of pages of the Acts. Many witnesses
testified that he often said in his sermons: “The Jews had no reason to boast, as if they elevated
(on the cross) One Who was God; they crucified a (mere) man.”, “That is one Person Who is
of the Father, and that is another Person Who is of the Virgin.”
A letter that Ibas sent to Maris the Persian (one of the “three chapters”) was then read.
Here is a sample of what he wrote:

Cyril, however, while aiming to refute the affirmations of Nestorius, has been
found to fall into the Dogma of Appollinarius, seeing that he himself has written
in a similar way, (affirming) that “God, the Word, became Man,” so that there
could (in that case) be no distinction between The “ Temple and Him Who
dwells in it.” For, he has written Twelve Chapters, as also, I think, your Piety
knows, in which (he says) " there is One Nature constituting the Divinity and the
Humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that “we ought " not, (so he says), to
distinguish between expressions which our Lord made in reference to Himself
and ' those which the Evangelists (made) in reference to Him. But, how impious
such statements are, your Piety will, even before we can declare it, have been
quite persuaded.16

The members of the council started shouting: “These things pollute our ears—they are fit
(only) for Heathens! Spare our ears — these things ought not to be spoken.” Twenty bishops
then stood, one after the other (including St. Dioscorus) judging Ibas to be deposed.
The council then started to discuss other bishops “who maintain and favour the Error
of Nestorius.”

14
Acts of the second council of Ephesus p. 55
15
Ibid p. 66
16
Ibid pp 112-113

6
 One by one the cases were tried with volumes of documents examined, witnesses heard
and discussions ended by depositions. These are the names of the bishops deposed by the
council: Irenaeus bishop of Tyre, Aquilinus, bishop of Byblus, Sophronius, bishop of Tella.
Theodoret bishop of Cyrus demands some detail. A book that he published named “An
Apology of Theodoret, Bishop, on behalf of Diodorus and Theodorus, Warriors for the (True)
Religion”, was read to the council, which attacks the first council of Ephesus, St. Cyril, whom
he calls a heretic and especially the “twelve chapters”.
The Holy Synod said; “That alone suffices for his Deposition, for which the Great
Emperor has already given orders.” Saint Dioscorus was more lenient, he said:

Now we will conveyt (the account of) all these transactions of to-day to the
Gracious and Christ loving audience of the Victorious Emperors in order that
their Clemency may command these Treatises of the impious Theodoret, so
replete with all Impiety and mischievous Doctrine, to be committed to the
burning of the fire.17

The bishops spoke one by one and they decided to depose Theodoret. Domnus was then tried
in his absence, since he excused himself. The correspondence between him and Pope
Dioscorus, documented in the previous article was enough to depose him. His letter of
deposition was delivered to him by the notary.
The decisions of the council were sent to the emperor who ratified them so that the
decisions became the law of the empire:

By a salutary Law which has necessarilybeen promulged, we enjoined that the

aforementioned Nestorius and his participators in Impiety should be deprived
of the company of Christians and name of (Christian).18

The emperor ordered St. Dioscorus to send letters to all the bisops of the empire to notify
them not only of the decisions of the council but of the Law that the emperor enacted ratifying
these decisions. The bishops on receiving the letter of St. Dioscorus are to read it in church.

Finally, as often as your Piety receives information of Books of any author,

written in antagonism to the Orthodox Faith ... or containing to the injury of
mankind the polluted Doctrine of Nestorius, they must be committed to the
flames by the hands of the God-fearing Bishops.19

17
Acts of the second council of Ephesus p. 252
18
Ibid p. 365
19
Ibid pp. 369-370