Evagrius Scholasticus (535-590), a Syrian Church historian wrote the following about the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo. It shows that the council Fathers did not believe that Leo’s tome had immediate binding authority on those at the Council, thus it being debated and discussed:
. . .with regard to
the passage of Leo’s letter which contains: ‘For, in communion with the other,
each form is active in respect to that its particular nature is, the Word
accomplishing that which is of the Word, while the body achieves what is of the
body. And of these the former shines forth in the miracles, while the latter is
subjected to the insults . . . ‘, when the Illyrian and Palestinian bishops expressed
doubt, the same Aetius read a chapter of Cyril which contained the following: ‘Whereas
there are some of the expressions which are particularly appropriate to
Divinity, thus again there are others which are appropriate to humanity, while
others occupy a sort of middle rank and represent the Son of God as being God
and man together in the same.
And after this when
the aforesaid bishops expressed doubts about another part of Leo’s letter,
which contained: ‘For if most certainly indeed in the Lord Jesus Christ there
is one person of God and man, nevertheless the thing through which the insult
is common in each is one thing, and that through which the glory is established
in common is another thing. For from us He has the humanity which is inferior
to the Father, but from the Father He has the Divinity in which He is equal
with the Father . . . ‘, Theodoret weighed matters up and said that the blessed
Cyril too had said as follows, word for word: ‘And after becoming man and not laying
aside his own nature, He remained what He was, and one thing dwelt in something
different, namely the divine nature with men.;
After this, when the
illustrious officials enquired whether anyone was still doubtful, they all said
that they were no longer in doubt. After this Atticus, Bishop of Nicopolis,
requested that they have an adjournment of a few days so that what seemed right
to God and the holy Fathers might be formulated with unruffled through and
untroubled consideration. He requested that they also take the letter of Cyril
which was written to Nestorious, in which he exhorted him to agree to his
Twelve Chapters, to which everyone agreed. And after the official proposed that
they should have an adjournment of five days to assemble with Anatolius, the
prelate of Constantinople, all the bishops acclaimed, saying, ‘We believe thus,
we all believe thus; just as Leo, thus do we believe. None of us is doubtful; we
have all subscribed.’
With regard to this
the following was proposed in these terms: ‘It is not necessary for all of you
to assemble; but since it is appropriate that the doubtful should be assured,
the most devout archbishop Anatolius should selected from the subscribers those
whom he esteems for instruction of the doubtful.’ To this those in the Synod added
as follows: ‘We beg concerning the Fathers: the Fathers in the Synod, those who
share Leo’s views in the Synod, the Fathers in the Synod; our voices to the
emperor, our pleas to the orthodox one, our pleas to the Augusta. We have all
done wrong, let there be forgiveness for all.’
Those of the Church
of Constantinople cried out: ‘Few are shouting, the Synod does not speak.’
After this the Easterners shouted out: ‘The Egyptian into exile.’ The Illyrians
roared: ‘We beg, mercy for all.’ After this the Easterners, ‘The Egyptians into
exile.’ And as the Illyrians were making similar requests, the clergy of
Constantinople cried out: ‘Dioscorus into exile, the Egyptian into exile, the
heretic into exile; Christ deposed Dioscorus,’ After this the Illyrians and
their associate bishops again: ‘We have all done wrong, forgive all. Dioscorus
to the Synod, Dioscorus to the churches.’ And after similar proceedings the
business of this gathering was terminated.
At the subsequent
gathering, when the senate proposed that the formulae which had already been
presented should be read out, the secretary Constantine read out the following
from a paper, word for word:
Concerning the orthodox
and universal faith we resolve that a more precise investigation should be made
at the next opportunity, after one day when the assembly is more complete. But
as for Flavian of pious memory and Eusebius, the most devout bishop from examination
of what was done and decided and from the very words of some who were leaders
of the Council then, who confess that they were mistaken and had deposed these
men invalidly, 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 with the same penalty 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, and Eusebius, the most devout
bishop of Anakara, 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, should in accordance with the canons be estranged
from the dignity of bishop, and all consequentials should be decided by the
sacred eminence.
Then after other
things had been read, the assembled bishops, on being asked if the writings of
Leo were in accord with the faith of the 318 holy Fathers who had assembled at
Nicaea, and with that of the 150 at the imperial city, Anatolius, the prelate
of Constantinople, and all those gathered together, replied that the letter of
Leo was in accord with what the aforesaid holy Fathers said. (The
Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus [trans. Michael Whitby;
Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000], Book 2, 83-87, pp. 116-19)