The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus - Coptic ...

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY: BOOK II 69
Eusebius, the most devout bishop, from examination of what was
done and decided and from the very words of those who were
leaders of the Council then, who stated that they were mistaken
and had deposed those men invalidly, [45] since they are revealed
to have been unjustly deposed in that they committed no error
concerning the faith, in accordance with the pleasure of God it
seems to us to be just, if it is upheld by our most sacred and pious
master, that upon Dioscorus, the most devout bishop of Alexandria,
and Juvenal, the most devout bishop of Jerusalem, and Thalassius,
the most devout bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, 43
and Eusebius, the most devout bishop of Armenia, 44 and Eustathius,
the most devout bishop of Beirut, and Basil, the most
devout bishop of Seleucia in Isauria, who had held authority and
were leaders at the Synod then, the same penalty should be in-
£icted by the holy Synod: in accordance with the canons these
men should be estranged from the dignity of bishop, and all consequentials
should be decided by the sacred eminence.
Next, when the depositions against Dioscorus concerning accusations
and monies had been remitted to another meeting, 45 since Dioscorus,
though summoned a second and a third time, did not present
Justinian in his Three Chapters initiative (see iv.38 with notes). Evagrius did not want to
draw attention to an issue which might seem to give Dioscorus legitimate grounds for objecting
to the authority of Chalcedon (cf. n. 69 below).
43 Juvenal and Thalassius had been named in a letter from the Emperor Theodosius as
being certain to share Dioscorus’ zeal for orthodoxy at Second Ephesus (ACO II.i.1, p.
74:20^21).
44 In fact Bishop of Ankara; the mistake is repeated at p. 73:2, but the correct see is recorded
at p. 87:3.
45 It was in fact the third session of the Council, held on 13 October under the presidency
of Pascasinus, which dealt with Dioscorus (ACO II.i.2, pp. 3^42); the second session, on 10
October, was concerned with the true faith (ACO II.i.2, pp. 69^84). Evagrius re£ects the
arrangement of proceedings in the Greek version of the acta, in which material was rearranged
thematically into three sections, the reversal of Second Ephesus, questions of faith
and promulgation of canons, and speci¢c issues (for discussion of the earliest editions of the
acta and changes, see Schwartz in ACO II.i.3, pp. XXII^XXX). The Greek versions of the
acta inverted the second and third sessions, so that the Council’s rejection of Second
Ephesus was kept separate from discussions on matters of faith (Schwartz in ACO II.i.3,
p. XXII; Bardy in Fliche and Martin, IV. 231 n. 2).