Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople

of the division of the Church, when he saw the followers of John celebrating their sacred solemnities apart by themselves, ordered that the memory of John should be held in the prayers, as was customary for other bishops who had fallen asleep, hoping by this to recall the majority to the Church." ^A However, the author of the *Historia tripartita* and other ancient writers extol with great praise the pastoral vigilance of Atticus, his fervent zeal for the Catholic faith, his munificence in mercy toward the poor, and his other virtues, as can be seen in our work on the eighth day of January, where Bollandus illustrated his acts.

3. We, mindful of our intention to compose especially the chronological series of the bishops of Constantinople, omitting other deeds of Atticus, proceed to his death, which Socrates, lib. vii, cap. 25, relates thus: "Moreover, Atticus also foresaw the time of his passing; for when he was about to depart for Nicaea, he said to Calliopius, a presbyter of that place: 'Take care to come to Constantinople before autumn, if you wish to see me still alive.' When he had said this, he did not stray from the truth; for in the twenty-first year of his episcopacy, on the sixth day of the Ides of October, he departed from this life, in the eleventh consulship of Theodosius and the first of Valentinian Caesar." These denote the year of Christ 425, and the tenth day of October. From these, correct the chronological error of our Papebrochius, who, in *Tomus III Junii*, p. 307, casually assigned the death of St. Atticus to the year 428. Doubtless, Socrates, in calculating the twenty-first year of his episcopacy, was mistaken, or an error crept into his number; ^B for since Atticus ascended the Constantinopolitan throne in the first months of the year 406, as was said above, from the beginning of the year 406 until the month of October of the year 425, no more than nineteen years had elapsed, and Atticus had not yet completed his twentieth year of episcopacy before his death, as Baronius, Pagius, and other learned men have observed before me. Wherefore, in the various catalogues of the prelates of Constantinople in Banduri, *Tomus I Imperii Orientalis* from p. 188, twenty years are better and roundly attributed to Atticus.

4. Our Bollandus regarded it as a matter of religion ^D to remove Saint Atticus, the Bishop of Constantinople, whose name he had read inscribed in certain Greek and Latin Menologies, from the possession of his veneration from time immemorial. Hence, for the eighth day of January, he laboriously collected his acts from various ancient writers and began his commentary thus: "Many attacked Saint Chrysostom with sharp study, who nevertheless afterward acknowledged their error and flourished with every praise of holiness. Among these was Saint Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, who, carried away by immoderate zeal and not according to knowledge, not only opposed Saint Chrysostom but succeeded him after Arsacius into his throne while he was still alive: which is fitting for God alone, and which he would have more prudently left to the supreme searcher of hearts. I do not wish here to object to Tillemont the common rule of law, whereby anyone is presumed good for so long as he is not proven bad. I do not wish to oppose to him the most well-known law of Christian charity, by which we are commanded to explain the actions of our neighbor kindly, as long as they are not convicted of manifest malice. Finally, I do not wish here to bring forward the various virtues of St. Atticus, which can be found in his Acts on the eighth day of January. I contend solely for this, that Atticus did not persevere in his immoderate zeal against St. Chrysostom and in the illegitimate possession of his episcopacy until death. And this I shall endeavor to show by a double argument, one of which will be from the posterior, and the other *ad hominem*, as they commonly say in the schools. A… ^C he was then penitent for his crime and excellently made amends for his deeds, and by letters written to the holy Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, he was the author of the inscription of Chrysostom’s name in the diptychs.

5. Bollandus, in the following number, exhibits certain honorable testimonies of ancient writers concerning St. Atticus, which he deemed ought to be placed before his Acts, "lest," he says, "by the harsher style of some against the holy Atticus, his holiness might perhaps be called into doubt." Besides other things which Bollandus did not see, or could not see, to prove the holiness of this Atticus, one can allege a fragment of the epistle of the blessed Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, which is cited in the Council of Chalcedon in our Harduin, *Tomus II Conciliorum*, col. 654, among the various testimonies of the holy Fathers, "who both confessed two natures in Christ, and truly asserted that God the Word, consubstantial with the Father, was also made consubstantial with us according to the flesh from Mary," as is read in the same place, col. 651. To these add the ancient Acts of St. Dalmatius, which are to be elucidated for the third day of August, and in which, in Anselmo Banduri, *Tomus II Imperii Orientalis*, p. 699, that prelate of Constantinople is deservedly decorated with the title of saint: "Nor did the holy Bishop Atticus die long after, in whose place Sisinnius was substituted, a pious and religious man."

6. Tillemont, *Tomus XII Monument. Eccl.*, p. 416, does not acquiesce in all these; but on the contrary, with Bollandus cited in the margin, he freely attacks the reputation of Atticus, and boldly declares that he never gave any signs of repentance, and did nothing to repair his illegitimate ordination. Yea, he interprets the plainly laudable actions of St. Atticus—for instance, his mercy toward the poor—in a worse light, and, after exploding or malignantly explaining his praises, he finally concludes on p. 419 that it is not without cause to be feared that the desire of exalting himself and dominating others (whether he could achieve this by authority and benevolence, or at least by terror) was the principal inclination of his soul in Atticus, or "the dominant greed of his heart," as I may more faithfully express in Latin the French phrase of Tillemont.

8. Theodoret, in book V of his *Ecclesiastical History*, chap. 35, thus establishes the foundation of our opinion: "But after the master of the world had passed away, the bishops of the West did not admit the communion of the bishops of Egypt, the East, and the Bosphorus and Thrace until they had written the name of the divine man" (that is, Saint John Chrysostom) "among the deceased bishops. And Arsacius, who had succeeded him, they did not even deign to greet; but Atticus, the successor of Arsacius, they finally received after many embassies and petitions for peace, when he had inscribed the name in the records." ^B Do you hear, in this place, "many embassies and petitions for peace" being mentioned? With what boldness, then, could Tillemont assert that Atticus never did anything to repair his illegitimate ordination? Or is he to be called one who did nothing, who frequently asked for peace from those whom he had offended by his unjust occupation of the Constantinopolitan see, and who sent many embassies to be reconciled to the Roman Church? Indeed, I will admit that at the time of Pope Innocent I, the intercession of Bishop Maximianus for Atticus was useless, because he had not yet fulfilled the conditions proposed by Innocent. But from this very fact I conclude that afterwards, all those things which Innocent had demanded were done by Atticus before he was received into the communion of the Roman Church.

9. You have heard of the letter of Innocent himself to Maximianus, which at Labbe, vol. II of the *Councils*, col. 1266 and the following, sounds as follows: "We wonder that your prudence asks for writings to Atticus, the bishop of the city of Constantinople, from us, both from our own pronouncement and from the attached petition, from whom you have not brought even any letters to us or to your synod; and do not think that it should be granted to one not asking, that which you see has been granted to those who asked, after a reasoned discussion; for withheld communion is restored to one demonstrating that the causes by which it had occurred have now been wiped away, and claiming that the conditions of peace have been fulfilled. Which Atticus, by sending some of his own men, wished neither to say nor to demonstrate had been completed, either among you or among us (as I said), just as our brother ^C and fellow-bishop Alexander of the Church of Antioch, with a worthy embassy, has both followed and proven. You have perceived that he deigned to be present at all these things, just as I have previously discussed one by one all the things of our writings concerning the cause of the most blessed John, our former bishop, so that those things which showed them quite evidently in all things, all the things which ought to have been done at Antioch, had been completed. Embracing their peace, we have surely given our faith and, by a great path, have shown it to all who were to request the same; provided, however, that the things which were discussed and completed, they themselves also one day demonstrate that they have done or completed for their own place, and that they have requested that communion be returned to them, as those men have, by a solemnly directed embassy."

10. We therefore await the profession regarding the completion of all the conditions which we have predicted at various times, and the petition for communion, so that we may rightfully return it to one both asking and proving that he deserves the same. Now, exactly what conditions Innocent required, and how he wished them to be carried out, he declares sufficiently in the letter which he gave in the same cause to Acacius, bishop of Beroea, where in Labbe, in the volume just cited, col. 1270, he writes as follows after other things: "Therefore, we have sent these to your unanimity to be delivered to our most excellent brother and fellow-bishop Alexander; namely that, if all enmities, all rivalry—both regarding the name of this wonderful bishop, Saint John, and regarding all the participants in that same communion—have departed from your animosity, you should receive these letters of our society, most dear brother; provided that all the things which have been confirmed by these acts are acknowledged in your own voice before our beloved mediator Alexander, as befits one communicating. From these letters of Innocent ^D I infer the following: first, that Atticus had not yet done anything in the year 415, in which this prior letter seems to have been written, to obtain the communion of the Roman Church; second, that no hope of this communion remained for Atticus unless he fulfilled the conditions proposed by Innocent; third, that Innocent did not only ask those opposing Chrysostom that they should inscribe the name of that holy prelate in the sacred records, but also that they should lay aside every enmity and rivalry against his supporters, and that these things should be acknowledged in their own voice before Alexander, or another designated by the Roman pontiff, as befitted those longing for communion and renouncing their error.

11. Since, therefore, Atticus, according to Theodoret, after "many embassies and petitions for peace," was finally received into the communion of the Roman Church, I most probably conclude that he had previously fully fulfilled the conditions offered by Innocent, and thus had given sufficient signs of penance; for the most eminent Baronius in *Annales*, in the year of Christ 408, no. 41, correctly observes regarding the prior letter of Innocent: "The Roman pontiff is not accustomed to restore communion unless the conditions previously proposed have been fulfilled and those errors for which they deserved to be interdicted from communion have been corrected." If, therefore, Atticus was deprived of communion because of the unjust persecution of St. Chrysostom and the illegitimate occupation of the Constantinopolitan see, he ought first to have performed all those things which were prescribed by the Roman pontiffs for the correction of these errors.

12. It matters little whether he inserted the name of St. Chrysostom into the diptychs under Innocent himself, as some wish, or under his noble successors Zosimus or Boniface; for I could not easily be persuaded that these vigorous defenders of apostolic authority would have been any softer in that matter, especially since Boniface, in an epistle to

certain Macedonian bishops, in Labbe, volume IV of the Councils, col. 1708, intimates that Innocent was not difficult in admitting the adversaries of St. Chrysostom to communion, and after other things, he speaks thus to our purpose: ^A “A short time ago, that is, under my predecessor of blessed memory, Innocent, the pontiffs of the Oriental Churches, grieving that they were cut off from the communion of blessed Peter, sought peace through legates, as your charity remembers; at which time the apostolic see granted all things without difficulty.” Now let us attack our adversary with his own weapons, and, as is commonly said, let us use an argumentum ad hominem.

13. Tillemont, in volume XIV of the *Mémoires ecclésiastiques*, p. 280, confesses that St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his immoderate zeal against St. John Chrysostom, persisted longer than all others, and himself preferred to remain separated from the Roman Church and perhaps many others, rather than to inscribe his name in the diptychs. But then, citing in the margin Nicephorus Callistus, bk. XIV *Hist. eccles.*, ch. 28, he excuses the erroneous persuasion of St. Cyril with these words of Nicephorus: “But since this dissension stemmed indeed from emulation, though not according to knowledge, and not from envy nor from diabolical contention, it seemed good to God that a man excelling in both doctrine and virtue should not limp in this one thing, so as to be hindered ^B from reaching the height of perfection. For they were human, and subject to human affections.” This excuse can also be brought forward for Atticus.

14. Finally, Tillemont, in the same place, narrates from the same Nicephorus Callistus how St. Cyril at length inserted the name of St. Chrysostom into the sacred tablets, as we recorded for January 28th in the Acts of St. Cyril, § 6. But Tillemont adds there of his own account that Cyril had without difficulty obtained communion with the Roman Church, over which Zosimus then presided, having undoubtedly sent an embassy to Rome. But he alleges no witnesses or documents for this embassy, as he is accustomed to do everywhere else in the other monuments of his *Ecclesiastical History*. By this silence, he indicated that he had nowhere found a Roman embassy of Cyril among ancient writers, and that he had inferred it *a posteriori* only because it was evidently required by the Roman pontiffs among the conditions for communion and peace. Therefore, let the adversary not take it ill that we have used the same type of argument above, and concluded *a posteriori* that St. Atticus (whose Roman embassies are at least attested by Theodoret) satisfied all the conditions that were required by Pope Innocent.

15. If Tillemont attributes such authority to Nicephorus Callistus, we are also permitted to allege the same author, who in bk. XIV, ch. 24, praises Atticus thus: “But Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, exerted himself wonderfully so that the Church might gain its increase; for he directed it with ^C the highest prudence, and by his continuous teaching he excited the people to the study of virtue; and he was so prone to mercy and generosity that he not only thought he must provide for those who were in his parishes, but also sent much money to neighboring Churches for the consolation of the poor.” The same virtues of St. Atticus are remembered by Socrates in bk. VII, ch. 25, whom, however, Tillemont rejects. Moreover, the same Nicephorus, bk. XIV, ch. 25, intimates that Atticus truly returned to favor after the death of St. Chrysostom, and that his amendment and repentance were such “that having removed from himself the reproach which he had incurred for having treated the followers of John badly, he veiled it with other good deeds.” What, therefore, did Bollandus sin in stating, at the beginning of his Commentary, that St. Atticus had expiated the crimes of his unjust persecution and illegitimate invasion through repentance and right actions?

16. Finally, Nicephorus concludes the cited chapter 25 thus: “But since Atticus the bishop also saw that the Church was rent asunder on account of the Johannites, by the judgment of the princes he himself also ordered that mention of him be made in the prayers, just as was the custom for other bishops who had departed this life. And from that time peace existed, until later his remains were also brought into the imperial city. In this way, Atticus magnificently abolished the envy into which he had fallen on account of the divine John. Nor did he only do this; but he also persuaded others who refused to insert the memory of John into their prayers, and especially Cyril, the prelate of Alexandria, who hated John with hostility because he had dissented from his uncle Theophilus.” Then Nicephorus in the following chapters recites the letters of Atticus and Cyril, written back and forth in this cause, from which Tillemont, in volume XII of his *Mémoires ecclésiastiques*, p. 416, infers that Atticus added hypocrisy to his other sins if he had in his mind the sentiments which he expressed in those letters. Truly a harsh judgment!

17. I frankly confess that no difficulty can be raised from the two epistles of St. Atticus, since in them he signifies that he was induced by fear and necessity rather than by love or repentance to celebrate the memory of St. John Chrysostom in the diptychs. Furthermore, Atticus, in an epistle written to the deacons Peter and Aedesius, seems to intimate that the deposition of Chrysostom at the pseudo-synod of the Oak was legitimate. But since the writings and deeds of illustrious or holy men should always be explained in the better sense, we could first suspect that Atticus initially thought that it would suffice for his reconciliation and the peace of the Churches if he inserted the name of Chrysostom into the sacred tablets in any way whatsoever. Thus he could propose this softer condition of peace to St. Cyril, whom he knew to be most opposed to John Chrysostom, so that he might more easily embrace it. But who would assert that this hypothesis of Atticus was approved by the Roman Church? Perhaps this was the first condition of peace which Atticus offered to the Roman see, and apart from which the Roman Church required from him

other things which had to be fulfilled before he could be restored to communion. For when Theodoret writes that Atticus, ^A after many legations and petitions for peace, was finally admitted by the Westerners to communion, he sufficiently indicates that many conditions were proposed on both sides before an agreement was reached between Atticus and the Roman Church.

18. Add to this that the Orientals had been exhorted by Atticus to reconcile themselves to the defenders of John Chrysostom. We gather this clearly from Synesius, the Cyrenian bishop and a contemporary author, who, on the occasion of a certain Alexander, whom St. John Chrysostom had consecrated as bishop of Basinopolis, writes in Epistle 66 to Theotimus, among other things, as follows: "He was joined to John, now deceased, by friendship; for the memory of the dead ought to be honored by us, because all ill-will is laid aside with this life. He was joined to him in friendship before the churches were torn by sedition, and he was declared bishop of the Bithynians of Basinopolis by his hands. But after the discord arose, he remained a friend to the one by whom he had been appointed, and he was among those who followed his cause during the sedition. But after the sentence of the council prevailed, the sedition remained for some time. But why should I describe this to one who knows it, indeed to one who himself administered the reconciliation that was made? ^B Especially since I have read a learned document which you wrote, if I am not mistaken, to the blessed Atticus, urging him toward the reception of those men who were evidently following the party of Chrysostom." Perhaps Atticus, moved by these and other exhortations of his Oriental friends, later entered into a sincere friendship with the supporters of Chrysostom and fully satisfied the conditions which the Roman Church demanded of him. If this conjecture of ours is not pleasing, I offer another answer.

19. Atticus was on one hand troubled by the erroneous opinion that by honoring the memory of John Chrysostom he would not observe the ecclesiastical canons sufficiently exactly; ^C on the other hand, he saw himself separated from the Roman see, and the Church agitated by great disturbances because it refused to celebrate the memory of Chrysostom. When he had hesitated for a long time in this perplexing state of affairs regarding what it would be better for him to do, he finally preferred obedience to the scrupulous observation of the canons and the common peace of the Church, as he himself declares in his letter to Cyril with these words: "Inclined by our meditations toward the concord of the people, we bring no detriment to the canons of the Fathers; but we prefer the peace of the whole world to the exact observation of words." Then he proves with certain examples that sometimes, on account of charity or public utility, something must be remitted from the severity of ecclesiastical constitutions.

20. Therefore, the whole blame of St. Atticus consists in this, that after the restoration of the memory of St. Chrysostom (if indeed this was the perfect and final restoration of the Chrysostomian memory, about which matter we disputed a little above in no. 17), he had not yet been fully convinced of the unjust deposition of St. Chrysostom, and ^D still erroneously thought that the ecclesiastical canons favored his session. But at that time St. Cyril was involved in the same error, as is evident from his responsory epistle to Atticus, which begins thus in Nicephorus Callistus, lib. XIV, cap. 27: "Having read the letters which were sent to me by your piety, I understood that the name of John was inscribed in the sacred tablets. But when I questioned those who came from there to us, I heard that he had been enrolled not in the catalogue of laymen, but of bishops. Moreover, to me, looking down and pondering in my mind whether those who did this followed the decrees of the Nicene Fathers, and giving some thought with the lights of my mind to that great council, the entire college of those holy Fathers seems to refuse with, as it were, eyes, and to resist with all their might, so that I may not hasten to approve that matter. For how will he be reckoned among the priests of God, or bear their lot, from whom the priestly dignity has been abrogated? For how will he be in the catalogue of sacred ministers, who has been ejected from ecclesiastical duties?" I omit the rest of St. Cyril’s epistle, which is full of very harsh expressions and odious comparisons against St. Chrysostom, as Facundus of Hermiane also complains in his *Defense of the Three Chapters* of the Council of Chalcedon, lib. IV, cap. 1, after citing a fragment of the same epistle.

21. It is not at all likely that St. Atticus persisted in that opinion, since the Roman Church demanded many conditions of peace from him, as we said above. Indeed, even if I were to grant for free that he had incautiously persisted in that error, should he therefore be immediately erased from the album of the saints? ^C To omit other things here, how will St. Cyril be left in the catalogue of saints, who in the year 451 or 452, after he had long since inserted the name of St. Chrysostom into the diptychs, yet writes thus in a letter to Acacius of Beroea: "I wish, however, to recall to your holiness something useful [Lupus reads: *as he*], which pertains to the present time: for when your holy synod was gathered in great Constantinople, when John was accused, and then many comments were recorded in writing concerning him, and it was about to happen that a definition would be brought forth against him, and I was one of those standing by, I know that I heard your holiness saying thus to the holy synod: 'For if I knew that now, if we granted forgiveness to John, he would become better than himself and would recede from the hardness and asperity which is in him, I would have prayed for him.' Therefore, your holiness was again judged admirable also concerning this, as one who spoke the truth. What, therefore, was it fitting for the holy synod to do, which found him unrepentant and so stubborn, who resisted the right faith?" Christianus Lupus published this letter of St. Cyril, among others of various Fathers relating to the Council of Ephesus, at Louvain in the year 1682, cap. 56, from page 129, and Stephanus Baluzius in his *Nova Conciliorum collectione*, or *Supplement to the collections*

of Philip Labbe, Paris 1707, from col. 758, reprinted there, where it can be read in its entirety in either place.

22 From the whole context of this epistle it appears that Cyril wishes to persuade Acacius that Nestorius, the heresiarch, was rightly and deservedly condemned. But to prove this more clearly, he alleges among other things the example of John Chrysostom, and argues from a similarity in roughly this manner: John Chrysostom was deposed from his episcopacy at the holy synod at the Oak for stubbornness and harshness (thus did the adversaries falsely label the blessed prelate's invincible constancy), from which Acacius had truly predicted he would never recede. Why, therefore, did the holy Council of Ephesus not depose Nestorius for the heresy he was stubbornly defending? But it appears S. Cyril is hinting by this reasoning that he was not yet convinced ^A at that time of the injustice of Chrysostom's deposition; for if he had acknowledged S. Chrysostom’s innocence at that time, what force would his argumentation have? How could he set up the odious comparison between the heretic Nestorius and S. John Chrysostom? How, finally, could the most iniquitous conciliabulum at the Oak, in which S. Chrysostom had been falsely accused and condemned, be termed here a "holy synod" by Cyril, and be compared with the holy Council of Ephesus?

23 From this, according to Tillemont’s opinion, I could infer that the name of Cyril, just like that of Atticus, should be erased from the ecclesiastical registers, since Cyril in this epistle does not yet acknowledge the injustice he had inflicted upon S. John Chrysostom, nor does he offer any indication here of repentance; for which reason Tillemont in volume XII of *Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique*, pages 416 and 425, particularly criticizes Atticus and strikes him from the catalogue of the saints. If, therefore, he erases Atticus from the white list of the saints on this account, why does he leave Cyril on it? Not to dwell on this longer, I propose a single dilemma to Tillemont. Either Cyril retracted his erroneous opinion regarding the deposition of S. Chrysostom after the letters were sent to Acacius, or he remained in it until his death. If he wishes the former, let him produce authors worthy of belief, or Cyril's own writings in which this retraction is expressly read. At least in the Acts of S. Cyril, which he ^B has copiously illustrated from ancient writers in volume XIV of the *Mémoires*, from page 267 up to 676, he has not produced any witness to this retraction thus far. If he chooses the second part of the dilemma, it follows that this innocent error of Cyril does not harm his sanctity.

24 But perhaps Tillemont will attempt to decline this dilemma by recurring to a rule of criticism, which he relates in volume XIV of the *Mémoires* on page 798 as follows: "Historians so frequently omit matters that are most true and sometimes most memorable that it is dangerous to draw certain conclusions from their silence." From this he will infer that S. Cyril later likely recognized and retracted his error, even though we do not read this in S. Cyril himself or in other ancient writers. I understand all this thoroughly, and I also gladly admit that I should excuse S. Cyril ^C for the stubbornly erroneous and iniquitous nature of his judgment. But in return, I demand that the same rule have a place for S. Atticus. If, therefore, Atticus did not yet sufficiently know the injustice of the Chrysostomian deposition when he was writing to S. Cyril, let it be said according to this rule of Tillemont, which I approve and embrace, that he later acknowledged the iniquity of that judgment, even though ancient writers have not clearly transmitted that knowledge to posterity. According to those things we said above, perhaps at that time Atticus had not yet completely reconciled himself with the Roman Church, which, however, he later achieved, even though antiquity has not explicitly expressed the perfection of that reconciliation. Without doubt, the first or primary condition of peace was that the name of S. Chrysostom should be inscribed on the diptychs, besides which, according to the aforementioned, Atticus still had to fulfill other matters, of which ancient historians have made no mention ^D as having been fulfilled by him. Moreover, I merely ask that S. Cyril and S. Atticus be judged equally according to this Tillemontian rule.

25 I do not see how an adversary can escape this, unless he flees to the other rule which he prescribes for himself and others in volume X of the *Mémoires*, page 541, and by which he defends the sanctity of Flavian of Antioch, which was in doubt: "Therefore it must be said that the Greek Church followed an ancient tradition when it venerates him" (namely, Flavian, of whom he is speaking there) "with public cult. But if there should occur in his deeds any things which seem with difficulty to be reconciled with the spirit of charity, which alone makes men holy, it is necessary to remember that we are humans, illuminated by too weak and dim a light, to judge rightly of human actions and their circumstances." But indeed, does this axiom not favor Atticus just as much as it does Flavian? Cannot it be said here also that the Greeks (and I add some Latin Martyrologies as well) followed an ancient tradition when they inserted Atticus into their sacred Fasti? In a word, whatever the adversary has said here, we will affirm the same regarding Atticus. Certainly, if Tillemont had observed the rules he himself handed down, he would not have made such a harsh and reckless judgment about an illustrious man, whom antiquity adorned with great praises, some of which we will briefly gather here for the sake of the adversary.

26 Indeed, S. Cyril of Alexandria, in his *Epistle to the Clergy of Constantinople*, in Labbe, volume III of the *Councils*, col. 383, asks regarding Nestorius: "Is he equal to or wiser than the blessed Atticus?" Pope Celestine, in his letters to Nestorius, praises the vigilance of S. Atticus against the Pelagians, ibid., col. 353, thus: "Finally, Atticus of holy memory, a master of the Catholic faith, and a successor truly to the blessed John even unto these things, pursued them so much for the sake of the common King that the opportunity to even stand was not granted to them there. A very great concern remained with us after his passing, as we sought whether his successor would also follow in his faith, because it is difficult to continue what is good; for frequently through alternate vicis

when things go against them. ^A Would the Roman pontiff call Atticus the true successor of St. John Chrysostom if Atticus had done nothing to repair the illegitimate invasion of the Constantinopolitan see, as Tillemont asserts with too much rashness? Add that Pope Celestine in the same epistle to Nestorius indicates sufficiently that Atticus cultivated friendship with the Roman pontiffs, while in the same place, col. 361, he complains thus about Nestorius' excessive indulgence toward the Pelagians: "They should at least be cast out, if they are likewise displeasing elsewhere. Why, however, are those things which were done there at that time being questioned, when it is certain that the acts were sent to us from the then-catholic bishop Atticus? Why did Sisinnius of holy memory not question these things?" Because he had certainly approved them as justly condemned under his predecessor. ^B From this it is sufficiently clear that St. Atticus maintained a friendly communion of letters with the Roman Church.

27. The same pontiff, in the *Epistle to the clergy and people of Constantinople* cited just above in the volume of Labbe, col. 365, after celebrating the praises of St. Chrysostom, speaks thus of his successor: "For Bishop Atticus of holy memory ruled the Christian people by the example of his predecessor, and pursued the sacrilegious frenzies of the heretics." Furthermore, Celestine, in the same volume, col. 1073, adorns St. Maximian, Bishop of Constantinople, with this eulogy because he had lived in closest union with St. Atticus: "For he was so joined in mind and office to that man of most reverend memory, Atticus, a most valiant defender of the catholic faith, that even then the insignia of the future episcopate in him were shining forth." But from this very conjunction of St. Maximian with Atticus, our opinion is confirmed: ^C for, according to the vulgar saying, love either finds or makes equals, who would easily believe that the most holy Maximian was joined to this prelate by so firm a bond of friendship if Atticus had remained an unjust possessor of the Constantinopolitan throne, and had been such as Tillemont depicted him? Finally, the same Roman pontiff, in the following column, exhorts this St. Maximian thus: "Follow the examples of the former pontiffs, by whom you were educated and nourished; [follow] the most blessed John in preaching wisdom, holy Atticus in the vigilance of clearing away heresies, and your predecessor Sisinnius, whose successor we believe you to be, in simple purity."

28. St. Prosper, in the poem *Against the Ungrateful*, which was most recently edited at Paris in the year 1711 among his Works at col. 145, proclaims the zeal of Atticus against the Pelagians at col. 121 in these verses: What shall I say of the care that the good priest Atticus bore in the great city of Constantinople, Refuting the legates of the heretics with his learned mouth and ancient faith? Through which, at that time, impious hearts, Though they might cover themselves under an obscured veil of the form of judgment, bore the torments of a silent repulse. I pass over here certain councils of the East, which held that bishop in such high regard that, among other holy Fathers, they cited the writings of the blessed Atticus against the heretics. I also omit Theodoret, Socrates, and Pope Leo the Great, who all extolled Atticus with great praises; for these few testimonies of holy men, which we have produced concerning him, we judge to be by far preferable to all of Tillemont's conjectures and cavillations. Now is the time, after this skirmish, to take up the thread of our history again, and conclude the vindication of St. Atticus, to whom St. Sisinnius I succeeded.

EPISCOPAL LETTER OF ST. ATTICUS OF CP. TO THE FATHERS OF THE AFRICAN COUNCIL

To the holy lords, most deservedly most blessed brothers, the co-bishops Aurelius, Valentinus, and the other most dear ones, established in the synod held at Carthage, Atticus the bishop.

Through our son Marcellus, your subdeacon, I received the writing of your charity with all thanksgiving, giving thanks to the Lord that I have deserved to enjoy the blessing of so many brothers, most blessed lords and brothers. You write, indeed, that I should direct the most true canons, established by the Fathers at the metropolis of Nicaea in Bithynia, under the verification of the faith. ^D And who is there who would deny to his brothers the common faith or the statutes established by the Fathers? For which reason, through the same son of mine, Marcellus your subdeacon—who is in too much of a hurry—I have directed, as you ordered, the canons as they were established by the Fathers in the city of Nicaea, in their entirety; asking that your holy congregation deign to pray much for me. And in another hand: May our God keep your holiness, which we desire, holy brothers.

ST. ATTICUS' LETTER TO ST. CYRIL, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA

De S. Joannis Chrysostomi nomine diptychis inserendo. Vide inter S. Cyrilli epistolas, Opp. tom. V, parte II, p. 201-203.

EJUSDEM LETTER AD PETRUM ET AEDESIUM

LETTER OF THE SAME TO CALLIOPE

ANNO DOMINI CDXLVI.

S. PROCLUS CONSTANTINOPOLITANUS EPISCOPUS

NOTITIA

^A 1. We understand from Socrates (a) that Proclus, having diligently applied himself to the cultivation of letters and the disciplines from his early youth, was promoted to the rank of lector. Afterward, he served Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, whose notary he also became; and it is maintained that he was ordained deacon and presbyter by him. Meanwhile, upon the death of the prelate of the Cyzicenes, as the same Socrates writes (b), Sisinnius, the successor of Atticus, ordained him bishop to govern that Church. But the Cyzicenes, anticipating him, took care to have another man, named Dalmatius, constituted bishop for themselves. Proclus, therefore, returning to Constantinople, obtained there, by preaching frequently, great renown for his name (c). He was a man, if anyone was, endowed with the finest character. Whither, again and again, he was sought by the wishes of the people to occupy the Constantinopolitan see, whether after the death of Atticus and Sisinnius, or after the abdication of Nestorius, as the aforementioned historian informs us (d); ^B finally, according to the same witness (e), after Maximian had fulfilled his destiny in the consulship of Areobindus and Aspar, on the day before the Ides of April, that is, in the year of Christ 434, he was placed upon the pontifical throne of that Church. After he had performed many noble deeds in defense of the Catholic faith, having completed thirteen years and a few months in the Byzantine see, he departed from the living at the end of the year 447. However, the opinion of learned men is not in agreement regarding this chronological notation of the year and day of Proclus's death, as may be seen in Pagi (f) and Tillemont (g), whom I would have you consult.

II. That the holy Proclus possessed ^A a great measure of learning and eloquence is clearly established by the testimonies of the ancients which we have prefixed to his works. The blessed prelate wrote much, yet not everything has reached us. Whatever could be recovered from his literary remains—homilies, epistles, fragments, etc.—was collected with sufficient diligence after Elmenhorst by Vincent Riccardus, who translated them into Latin and adorned them with very rich annotations, and committed them to the Roman presses in the year 1630. Subsequently, Francis Combefis reviewed the twenty homilies or orations of Proclus according to manuscript codices, translated them again into Latin, and provided them with brief notes (a), offering this explanation of his own purpose to the reader (b): "It seemed good to add the Orations of St. Proclus, edited at Rome by Vincent Riccardus, to other works of ours in this volume, by which the Mother of God, the Virgin, is most highly celebrated; and, in many respects ^B by some collation of manuscripts and a new (and better) version, to return them to the light of the public, having ordered those thick and dense [annotations] to be removed, nor often [using] digressions, or even less suitable notes of Riccardus: just as the nature of our plan here does not allow for more to be written. Everything that might seem necessary for elucidating the text, I shall set forth in brief discourses." Thus he spoke. On which account, regarding the homilies, we have deemed his edition to be superior and to be preferred to the Riccardian; and we have decided that the brief annotations which the editor relegated to the bottom of the pages for the reader’s convenience should be placed at the foot of the pages. For the rest, we have taken them from Riccardus. Furthermore, the small notes which we have inserted everywhere reveal what work our efforts have performed, especially in printing the epistles of Proclus. It will not be futile, moreover, for the reader to peruse the judgment ^C which the illustrious Tillemont passed upon the writings attributed to the holy Proclus (c).

ANOTHER NOTICE

St. Proclus, while still a young man, was especially dear to St. John Chrysostom and rose through the ranks of the sacred ministry to the dignity of a presbyter in the Church of Constantinople. When, in the year 426, he had been ordained bishop of Cyzicus by Sisinnius, bishop of Constantinople, the citizens of that city, before Proclus could betake himself thither, elected another bishop for themselves. Upon learning this, Proclus, being a lover of peace, remained in Constantinople, and there became very famous for his sermons preached to the people (d).

Afterward, when Nestorius began to disseminate his errors in Constantinople, Proclus, still living there, vigorously attacked them in a most celebrated oration publicly delivered in the church. He was a man of extraordinary kindness and gentleness, and of no less diligence, by which, although he was unwilling to employ external force against heretics, he strove, by constantly contending for the truth against the erring and being accustomed to victory, ^D to lead them to the way of truth (e). Wherefore, being sought again and again by the wishes of the people to occupy the Constantinopolitan see, at length after the death of Maximian (in the year 434) he was installed on the pontifical throne of that Church (f); and he immediately sent a synodical letter to Cyril of Alexandria, John of Antioch, and other bishops of the East, by which he informed them of his confirmation (g). Two years later (in the year 436) disputes arose concerning Theodore, formerly bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia, who had died many years before, and who, in his books which were celebrated far and wide, had preceded Nestorius. The Nestorians, especially in Armenia and Persia, attempted to propagate doctrines excerpted from these books under the commendation of such a great name. But when Acacius of Melitene and Rabulas, bishop of Edessa, learned the matter, they warned the Armenians to beware of the error which veiled itself under great names; but the bishops of Cilicia, having accepted the patronage of Theodore, asserted in letters sent to Armenia that the warnings of Acacius and Rabulas proceeded from nothing but a spirit of contention. Thus, the bishops of Armenia, brought into doubt by the conflicting voices on both sides, decided in council to consult Proclus on that matter, to whom they sent two presbyters as legates with...

^A a roll exhibiting the state of the affair, to which was joined a volume containing excerpts from the books of Theodore which were circulating in Armenia and Persia. Proclus, having diligently examined the matter in synod, directed that most famous Tome to the bishops of Armenia, in which he bore clear testimony to the true faith. He sent the same Tome also to John of Antioch, seeking from him, for the sake of preserving the common faith, that he would receive and subscribe to it together with his council. This John and the synod of the Orient gathered around him in fact willingly performed ^B. Furthermore, Proclus, using prudent counsel, had submitted in his Tome the chapters containing the Nestorian heresy, which were circulating in Armenia, to be condemned, yet without the name of their author, Theodore, so that the name of Theodore might be spared because of the offense to the Orientals, and his perverse dogmas, once condemned, might be excluded ^C. But the imprudent zeal of certain monks frustrated his wise counsel of this kind; they were crying out through all the Orient that these excerpts and chapters should be condemned along with the author, Theodore, himself, and thus stirred up great disturbances. Concerning this matter, Proclus candidly explained his tempered method of proceeding to John, who was complaining a great deal, and urged upon his legates in that difficult affair a height of moderation once again [E]. Among the other bishops of the Orient who were in communion with the Catholics, Ibas, the successor of Rabulas of Edessa—who had died in the midst of these disputes—was being most defamed for an inclination toward Nestorian errors; for which reason Proclus, equally as studious of preserving the pure faith and genuine peace, insisted with excellent letters that John might move him to subscribe to the Tome and to condemn the subjoined chapters. A few years later (a. 444), having championed Athanasius, the exiled bishop of the Perrhenes, he asked Domnus, the bishop of Antioch, in written letters with all charity and modesty, that he might re-examine his case. Proclus died in the year 446, conspicuous everywhere by the fame of his sanctity [H].

[S. Procli Orations and Epistles]

1. Seventeen orations in his name are circulating, some of which are, however, without a doubt spurious, others at least are suspected.

To these pertain: 1. Sermons on the feasts of the Lord, namely, On the Nativity of the Lord, On the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, on the day after the Lord’s Nativity.

and of his circumcision on the eighth day after his birth (A. Mai, loc. cit., p. LXXXIV–VII); on the Holy Theophany or the Epiphany of the Lord (orat. VII); a sermon on the Incarnation, delivered on the Saturday before Lent (A. Mai, loc. cit., p. LXXXVIII–XCII); On the Transfiguration (orat. VIII); On Palm Sunday (orat. IX); on the fifth day of the week, On the Lord's Supper (orat. X); on Good Friday, On the Passion of the Lord (orat. XI); one on the Resurrection of the Lord delivered on the night of Pascha (orat. XII); three on Holy Pascha (orat. XIII, XIV, and XV); one on the Ascension of the Lord (A. Mai, loc. cit., p. LXXVII–LXXXIII); and finally, one On Holy Pentecost (orat. XVI). 2. Praises of the Saints. Among these, the most celebrated is that praise ^A of the holy Mother of God, Mary, delivered in the presence of Nestorius and frequently attacked by him (orat. I); and another of similar subject matter (orat. V). Added to these are a very fervent praise of the holy apostle Paul (orat. XIX), of the holy apostle Andrew (orat. XX), and of St. John Chrysostom (orat. XXI). To these must be added the sermon on the holy martyr Clement, bishop of Ancyra in Galatia (A. Mai, loc. cit., p. XCIV–VIII). 3. The Treatise on the tradition of the divine Liturgy (or rather, no more than a fragment, by which the chief authors of the liturgies among the Greeks are listed, and especially the origin of the liturgies of St. Basil and John Chrysostom is expounded, which is called into doubt by some). II. Seven letters of St. Proclus survive today, the most celebrated of which by far is: The Tome (or Letter on the faith) to the Armenians, in which the mystery of the Incarnation of the Lord is set forth most accurately, so much so that Catholic bishops throughout the East subscribed to it as a norm of right faith, and the Romans themselves ^B pontiffs extolled him with the highest praises. The remaining letters or fragments of letters (namely, ep. 3, 4, 10, 11, 13, 17) everywhere display his remarkable charity, and breathe no less a zeal for the faith than a love for peace and justice. From the doctrine of St. Proclus, that which is most worthy of note is that he maintains in express terms, quite often in the Tome to the Armenians, and in that most celebrated Praise of the holy Mother of God (orat. I), the inviolate virginity of St. Mary even after childbirth. Editions: The Opuscula of St. Proclus, Greek and Latin, ed. G. Elmenhorst, Leiden 1617 in 8°. (This edition contains only four orations and three letters and the Treatise on the tradition of the divine liturgy, mostly in Greek and Latin; see regarding individuals, Hoffmann, Lexicon Bibliographicum, vol. III, s.v. Proclus, p. 473–74.) The Analecta of St. Proclus (or Collected Works) by Vincentius Riccardus, Greek and Latin with commentary, Rome 1630 in 4°. – P. Combefis in the Auctarium Novum Bibliothecae Patrum, Paris 1648, vol. I, p. 302–496, edited again in Greek and Latin with notes the twenty homilies or orations of St. Proclus (omitting only the oration of Asterius of Amasea). Finally, all the works of St. Proclus which have been discovered thus far, collected from the edition of Riccardus and Combefis, are set forth excellently in Greek and Latin in Galland, Bibliotheca Patrum, vol. IX, p. 601–704, where also (p. 703–4) certain fragments from lost orations and from several letters of Proclus are found. To these one must now add the sermons discovered by A. Mai, the first of which is set forth in Greek and Latin, while the rest are in Latin only.

TESTIMONIA OF THE ANCIENTS REGARDING ST. PROCLUS, BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE

Idem ibid., p. 1727, to John of Antioch and the synod. Ἐν τῇ πρὸς ᾿Αρμενίους Ἐπιστολῇ, τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας λόγον ὀρθοτομῶν, διεκήρυξε σαφῶς ὁ ὁσιώτατος καὶ θεοσεβέστατος ἀδελφὸς ἡμῶν, καὶ συνεπίσκοπος In the Letter to the Armenians, when he was rightly handling the word of truth, he clearly preached, the most holy and God-fearing brother of ours and co-bishop Pro-