A Brief Historical Survey of

the Council of Chalcedon

V. C. SAMUEL
In a previous article published in The Indian Journal of
Theology for January, 1961, the present writer has pleaded for a
fresh study and evaluation of the Chalcedonian schism. To bring
out more clearly the point of the plea it is necessary to deal r i e f ~
ly with the history of the Council of Chalcedon and also with the
theological position of its ancient critics in the East. Of these two,
the present paper intends to take up the first ; the second will be
discussed in a paper to be published in the next number of The
Indian Journal of Theology.
The Background of the Council of Chalcedon.-There are
five facts which constitute the background of the Council of
Chalcedon. They are: (1) The Christological teaching of the
Antiochene and the Alexandrine ways of theological thinking ;
(2) the Council of Ephesus in 431, which condemned Nestorius
as a heretic; (3) the Formulary of Reunion, by which in 433
Cyril of Alexandria, the leader of the Alexandrine party, and
John of Antioch, the leader of the Antiochene party, arrived at
a -concordat ; ( 4) the Home Synod of Constantinople, which in
448 excommunicated Eutyches as a heretic; and (5) the second
Council of Ephesus in 449, which, having reinstated Eutyches,
deposed his judges at Constantinople as well as a number of the
leading men on the Antiochene side.
It is not possible to discuss these topics within the short space
permissible in this paper. It may simply be noted that there was
a conflict between the Antiochene and the Alexandrine points of
view ; that the Council of 431 was an absolute victory for the
latter ; and that the Formulary of Reunion did ratify the deCisions
of the Council of 431. But neither the Home Synod of Con-
stantinople nor the Council of Chalcedon endorsed fully the
theological emphasis of Ephesus. On the other hand, they
ignored the third letter of Cyril to N estorius, which the Council
of 431 . had defini'tely declared orthodox, and assigned to the
Formulary the status of a document. of the faith, which. the
Alexandrines had not wished to grant 1t. The second Council of
Ephesus expressed a reaction, invoking the authority of 'the
Council of 431.
143
The Condemnation of Eutyches.-The decisions of the
Council of Chalcedon had a negative and a positive side.
Negatively it assumed the rightness of the condemnation of
Eutyches and brought about the deposition of Dioscorus of
Alexandria; and positively it accepted the Tome of Leo as a
document of the faith and drew up a definition of the faith. Of
these four points, we shall look into the condemnation of Eutyches
first.
There is rather unanimous agreement among scholars that
Eutyches Wi!S not a theologian. He must have been a trouble-
maker on the side of the Alexandrines. But to class him as a
heretic with men like Paul of Samosata, Arius, Apollinarius, and
so on is not a compliment to those able minds. In the words of
R. V. Sellers, 'if we are to understand Eutyches aright, we must
not think of him. as the instructed theologian, prepared to dis-
cuss the doctrine of the Incarnation. Rather does he appear as
the simple monk who, having renounced the world, had also
renounced all theological enquiry'.
1
J. N. D. Kelly admits that
Eutyches was 'a confused and unskilled thinker', and that he
'was no Docetist or Apollinarian' as the bishops who had con-
demned him at Constanti,nople had decreed. Kelly thinks that 'if
strained in that direction ', his views would be 'possibly suscep-
tible of an orthodox interpretation', but that it lacked 'the
required balance'. In any case, 'If his condemnation is to be justi-
fied, it must be in the light of more far-reaching consideration '.
2
With reference to the condemnation of Eutyches, there is
one important point which deserves .to be mentioned. When
Eutyches appeared before the Synod at Constantinople in 448 and
his trial started, he held forth a paper, testifying that it contained
his confession of the faith and requested that it be read. No one
present was apparently keen on knowing its contents and the
paper was not given a reading.
3
At the second Council of
Ephesus, before he was rehabilitated, his confession was read.
In it he anathematized all heretics, Manes, Valentinus, Apollin-
arius, N estorius, and all others back to Simon Magus. Then he
went on to register his dissent from those who maintained that
the body of our Lord had come down from heaven, and added
these words: 'For He Himself who is the Word of God descended
from heaven, without flesh, was made flesh of the very flesh of the
Virgin unchangeably and inconvertibly in a way: that He Him-
self knew and willed. And He who is always perfect God before
the ages, the Same also was made perfect man for us and for our
salvation '::1
'R. V. Sellers: The Council of Chalcedon, p. 59.
J, N. D. Kelly: Early Christian Doct'rines, p. 333.
See the trial of Eutyches by the Home Synod of Constantinople as
reported in Mansi, VI, 729-748.
The above passage is a translation from the Latin version contained
in Hahn's Bibliothek der SyTI'_Ibole und Glauliensregeln der alten Kirche.
Severns of Antioch refers to tliis passage in a letter published in Patrologia
Orientalis, Vol. XII, pp. 266-268.
144
At Chalcedon, the confession of Eutyches was read only
up to the place where he expressed his disagreement with the
view that our Lord's body liad come down from heaven. At that
critical moment Eusebius of Dorylaeum, his accuser, interrupted
the reading by saying that Eutyches did not specify where our
Lord's body was from. Then there followed a tumult, after which
the subject changed to something else, and the words of Eutyches
which answered the charge of Eusebius were not read at all.
5
In other words, the Council of Chalcedon did not prove a
charge of heresy against Eutyches, but assumed without even
lookfug into his own confession of the faith that he was a heretic.
The Deposition of Dioscorus.-The Council of Chalcedon
opened its i r ~ t session on 8th October, 451. No sooner had the
assembled delegates been seated than the leader of the representa-
tives of the Roman see demanded the exclusion of Dioscorus from
the Council. On being asked the reason for the demand by the
Imperial Commissioners-men appointed by the emperor as
presiding officers at all the sessions of the Council-the Roman
delegation answered that Dioscorus had dominated the Council
of 449, and that his expulsion from the Council was the wish of
the Archbishop whom they represented.
6
Rather unwillingly the
Commissioners granted the demand and Dioscorus was removed
from his seat in the assembly to the place reserved for men on
trial. .
Now on the strength of a petition against Dioscorus the
Council proceeded to examine him. The charges contained in it
as well as those spoken against him in the course of the session
were based on the main allegation that he dominated the Council
of 449, and they were chieHy foui: (i) He had infringed upon the
faith of the Church by trying to establish the heresy of Eutyches
as orthodoxy; (ii) he did not let the Tome of Leo be read to the
Council of 449; (iii) he caused a number of men to be unjustly
deposed ; and (iv) he employed so much of violence at the Council
that, in order not to be exposed, he distributed blank papers and
forced the delegates to copy his version of the Council's minutes.
7
To investigate the charges the minutes of the Council of 449
were read. No other evidence, not even a single word. of his either
spoken or written or an action of his apart from what had hap-
pened at Ephesus, was ever so much as mentioned against him.
See Mansi, VI, 633. '
In this connection the Roman delegation made a statement which
c.ontains these words. Dioscorus, they said, 'seized and dominated the
office of the judge, and dared to conduct a .Council without authorization
from the Apostolic See, a thing which has never happened and which
ought not to happen ' (Mansi, VI, 580-581). The assertion that no Council had
met earlier or ought to meet in the future without an authorization from
Rome has no basis iri history. Are we justified in assuming that this asser-
tion had nothing to do with the way the Council was copducted ?
' This charge was answered by Dioscorus. When it was made by
Stephen of Ephesus, Dioscorus was horrified. In the end he requested that
his copy of the minutes be compared with that of Stephen himself to see
whether there was any truth in the accusation (Mansi, VI, 625).
145
It should be remembered that the party opposed to Dioscorus
at Chalcedon counted heavily on the support of the state, and
that they hoped to hold him solely responsible for the decision of
449. The Commissioners, however, did not agree with them fully.
For at the close of the long process of trial they gave their verdict.
Dioscorus of Alexandria, they said, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Tha-
lassius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustathius of Berytus,
and Basil of Seleucia were the men who had controlled the
Council of 449, and that they should all be deposed forthwith.
This verdict itself is based on the questionable assumption that
Eutyches had been justly condemned. At the same time it is signi-
ficant, for it virtually called in question the justifiability of singling
out Dioscorus as the man responsible for the Council of 449 and
established the fact that its decisions were conciliar.
. It should be noted in the present context that the Home
Synod of Constantinople had condemned Eutyches, assuming as
orthodox three propositions: One, that Jesus Christ is 'two
natures after the Incarnation' ; two, that He is ' of the same sub-
stance with us ' as well as ' of the same substance with the
Father' ; and three, that He is not 'one incarnate nature of Gqd
the Word'. The Council of 449 showed that a considerable part
of Eastern Christendom would resistthe theological position baseq.
on these propositions, and that Dioscorus was its leader. It would
appear that the men who were at the leadership of the Council of
Chalcedon endeavoured, counting on state support, to throw over-
board Dioscorus and make out that the entire East stood with the
theological basis of the condemnation of Eutyches. However,
the verdict of the Commissioners, condemning six men, and not
Dioscorus alone, did not seem to have left room for .its achieve-
ment. Was it this problem that the victorious party was trying, as
we shan see in a moment, to get over by arranging a special
gathering of their own and passing a resolution in favour of de-
posing Dioscorus ?
In the absence of the men condemned by the Commissioners,
who were most probably taken under custody by the state, the
second session of the Council met on lOth October. With a view
to arriving at a d e i s i o ~ regarding the question of the faith, the
Commissioners ruled that the Creeds of Nicaea and Constanti-
nople, the second letter of Cyril to Nestorius, the Formulary of
Reunion and the Tome of Leo be read to the assembly. The
third letter of Cyril to N estorius was not even mentioned in this
connection, though the Commissioners referred to the Formulary
which had been composed only in 433 as a document read and
approved at Ephesus in 431.
8
The Palestinian and the Illyrian
bishops, however, raised objection to three passages in the Tome
and Atticus of Nicopolis asked for time to read and compare the
Tome with the third letter of Cyril to Nestorius. In the end the
Commissioners declared a period of five days as interval for the
Mansi, VI, 937.
146
bishops to meet with AnatoJius of Constantinople and have their
doubts cleared regarding the Tome. - .
Three days later, on 13th October, about two hundred
9
of a
total number of about three hundred and flfty
10
btshops met
together without the Commissioners. Presided over by the chief
of the Roman delegation, this gathering took up for examination
a new petition against Dioscorus containing only the old and un-
proved charges. The Patriarch of Alexandria was now summoned
times to appear and make his defence. He refused to
ply on the main ground that he could not be present before an
assembly which was meeting without the Commissioners and the
men condemned with him. During its sitting four other petitions
against Dioscorus were also submitted. One of them, presented
by a deacon of Alexandria, alleged that Dioscorus had, on his
way to Chalcedon, excommunicated Pope Leo of Rome.
11
To this
the Roman delegation added another charge, namely that
Dioscorus had offered koinonia to Eutyches before the latter had
been reinstates). by the Council of Ephesus in 449.
12
Taking the
word in the sense of Eucharistic fellowship, scholars like Kidd,
Hefele, Sellers, and others have blamed Dioscorus for violating
the discipline of the qhurch. the fact is that if it meant
Eucharistic fellowship, Archbishop Leo was not less of that
offen<;!t) than Dioscorus ; for the Roman delegation testified
Chalcedon that he had offered koinoniaJ
13
to Theodoret of Cyrus
while the latter was awaiting exoneration by Chalcedon against a
sentence of deposition pronounced by the second Council of
Ephesus.
Before the bishops gave their verdict against Dioscorus the
Roman delegation made a rather lengthy statement about him. It
was concluded in these words :
Wherefore, Leo, the most blessed and holy Archbishop
of the greater and elder Rome, has by the agency of ourselves
and the present Synod, in conjunction with the thrice-holy
and all-honoured Peter, the Rock of the Catholic Church and
the Foundation of the orthodox Faith, deprived him of all
the episcopal dignity, and severed him from every {lriestly
function. Accordingly, this holy and great Synod
the provisions of the canon on the aforesaid Dioscorus. u
In their verdict the bishops simply said that Dioscorus was
-deposed on the ground of disobedience and contempt of the
Council.
16
On a later occasion Anatolius of Constantinople, one
Hefele: History of the Councils of the Church, Eng. tr., Vol. ill,
p. 320. Mansi's list of participants at this session has only two hundred
names.
'"Mansi's list contains only about three hundred and fifty names.
"Mansi, VI, 1009.
" Mansi, VI, 1045.
"Mansi, VII, 189'-192.
" Mansi, VI, 1045-1048.
"Mansi. VI. 1093-1096.
14:7
of the chief at the Council, made it clear that Dioscorus
had not been deposed on a point of faith.
16
,
Sellers admits that Dioscorus was not a preacher. of the
" confusion " of" the two natures of Jesus Christ', and that for him
'the Lord's manhood is real-for he is no follower of Apollinarius
-and remains real" in its union with the divine .Logos '.
17
In
other words Dioscorus was a teacher of Alexandrine orthodoxy.
then was he deposed ? Why is it that only a little more
than 'of delegates to the Council participated in the act
of expelling him the Church ? Why did these _bishops con-
vene a special meeting for the purpose and why dtd they meet
in the absence of the Imperial Commissioners who were present
at every session of the Council ? These are some of the questions
which should be answered on the basis of documentary evidence,
if an accurate history of the Council of Chalcedon is to be con-
structed at all.
The Tome and the Chalcedonian Definition of the Faith.-
On 17th October, the fourth day after the deposition of Dioscorus,
the third session of the Council was held with the Imperial Com-
missioners presiding. They opened the proceedings by summariz-
ing the decisions of the two previous sessions, but saying not even
a word about the gathering of the bishops that deposed Dioscorus
on 13th October. Soon the Tome was accepted without the ex-
pression of a single word of disagreement from anr one present.
Now the bishops clamoured for the readmission o the five men
who had been condemned with Oioscorus. On this occasion the
Commissioners answered, 'We have referred their question to
the emperor, and are awaiting his reply. As for your excom-
munication of Dioscorus and your decision to readmit the other
five, both the emperor and we are ignorant of it. For everything
that has been done at the holy Synod, it shall be to
Gbd'.
18
Is not this statement a clear indication that the Com-
missioners were not in favour of meting out to Dioscorus any
special treatment?
The emperor wanted to have two ideas worked out through
the Council. In the first place, he cared to have the Tome
accepted by the Council as a document of the faith; and second-
ly, he was rather insistent that a statement of the faith be drawn
up and approved by the As already noted, t?e bishops
accepted the Tome; but when 1t came to l:he question of the
statement of the faith, the Eastern bishops presented a draft
definition and demanded its adoption by the Council. Surprising-
ly enough, it contained only the phrase' of two natures', which
had been fully approved by Dioscorus. It may .be noted that the
conflict between the party of Dioscorus on the one hand and that
of the Antiochenes and the W estems on the other centred round
148
" Mansi, VII, 104.
17
Sellers: The Council of Chalcedon, op. cit., pp. 30-32.
11
Mansi, VII, 48.
I
two phrases. The former insisted that Jesus Christ should be
spoken of only as 'of two natures ' ; the latter that He must
be affirmed to be 'in two natures'. The draft definition of the
bishops, however, deliberately excluded the phrase 'in two
natures' and employed 'of two natures'.
The Eastern delegates had come to the assembly, not onLy
with _their draft definition with the phrase two natures', but
also ready even to fight, if need be, for its adoption.
1 0
Seeing
their determination, the Roman delegation gave out the threat
that if the phrase 'in two natures' which the Tome had employed
was not going to be adopted in the definition of the faith, they
would tender their resignation and dissociate themselves from the
Council.
20
Even this did not perturb the Eastems, and the
Illyrian bishops retorted to the effect that those who were op-
posed to the draft Clefinition were N estorians and that they might
feel free to wend their way to Rome.u
The Commissioners had to employ different means t9 bring
the men to a receptive mood. In the first place, they suggested
the formation of a Committee to draw up a new statement. The.
bishops could see no need for that. Secondly, they asked the
bishops whether they had not accepted the Tome, and they
answered in the affirlll.ative. The Commissioners now pointed out
that the phrase ' in two natures' was central to that document and
that it should be adopted in the statement to be drawn, up. The
bishops retorted in effect that just as they had accepted the Tome,
let the bishop of Rome subscribe to their statement and make it
possible for a mutual recognition of orthodoxy. In the end the
Commissioners achieved the goal by playing Leo . and Dioscorus
against each other. The condemned Dioscorus, they said, was
willing to accept the phrase ' of two natures' ; but Archbishop
Leo insisted on 'in two natures' ; whom did they want to follow ?
Pressed to that unexpected corner, the bishops answered that they
would follow Leo. In that case, demanded the Commissioners,
they ought to agree to adopt the phrase ' in two natures' in the
definition. The logic of the argument was irresistible and the
bishops simply made their submission. The Chalcedonian Defini-
tion of the Faith was then drawn up and the Council formally
accepted it.
Conclusion.-For any real understanding of the Council of
Chalcedon the facts mentioned above are of the utmost signific-
ance. The present regrets to say that he has not seen any
modem work on the Council in which these facts are all at least
mentioned. It is not possible in a short paper like this to attempt
a reconstruction of the history of the Council of Chalcedon. The
following points may simply be noted:
" See Mansi, VII, 100-104, for the determined effort of the bishops to
have their 'draft definition adopted by the Council with the phrase 'of two
natures' and. without 'in two natures'.
Mansi, VII, 101.
" Mansi, vn, 105.
149
I
1. Granting unhesitatingly that the ideas ascrib!'ld to
Eutyches are heretical, the fact is that neither. at the Home
of Constantinople nor at the Council of Chalcedon was it clearly
established that he had taught them. .
2. Though Dioscorus was. accused of many charges at
Chalcedon, not even one of them was proved against him. The
surprising fact is that the ideas ascribed by many to Dioscorus
have really no basis either in his statements made at Chalcedon
or in the fragments of his writings that have come down to us.
3. The Chalcedonian Definition of the Faith came to adopt
the phrase 'in two natures' very much against the wish of a great
bloc of Eastern bishops. This was done, so far as we have evi-
dence, not subsequent to a theological discussion of the issues,
but on the logic that the bishop of Rome to be respected
more than a condemned Dioscorus, that the fdrmer had employed
the phrase in the Tome, and that therefore it had to be accepted.
CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS NUMBER
The Rev. Dr. V. C. Samuel is on the staff of the Serampore College .
. The Rev. Dr. P. D. Devanandan is Director, Christian Institute
for the Study of Religion and Society, Bangalore.
The Rev. Emmanuel Sadiq is Director, Henry Martyn School,
Aligarh.
The Rev. J. Kumaresan is on the staff of the Gurukul Lutheran
Theological College, .Madras.
150