ON ST. ATTICUS, BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
Year of Christ 425.
CommentaryAtticus, Bishop of Constantinople (St.)
From various sources.
Section I. The celebrated memory of Atticus's holiness: his sacred veneration. Writers of his deeds.
[1] Many men who opposed St. John Chrysostom with keen zeal afterwards recognized their error and flourished with every praise of holiness. Among them was St. Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, St. Atticus initially opposed St. Chrysostom. who, carried away by immoderate zeal and by no means according to knowledge, not only opposed St. Chrysostom but after Arsacius succeeded to his chair while Chrysostom was still alive. He later brilliantly atoned for this crime by repentance and good deeds, and by writing letters persuaded St. Cyril of Alexandria to inscribe the name of Chrysostom in the diptychs — which the latter eventually did, partly spurred by the persistent admonitions of St. Isidore of Pelusium, partly by divine revelation and the kindness of the Virgin Mother of God. The diptychs, which will be mentioned frequently here and elsewhere, were ecclesiastical books, indeed in two parts (whence they were called "diptycha" Greek: diptycha): one of the still living, in which the names of the illuminated and the baptized were written by a priest or deacon; the other of the dead, which comprised the names, status, rank, and date of death of the hierarchs. On these, see Meursius in his Glossary, and La Cerda in his Sacred Adversaria, chapter 42, no. 1, and chapter 148, no. 6.
[2] The Fathers of the Council of Ephesus extol St. Atticus's vigilance in purging heresies and his sincerity in defending the orthodox faith. He is praised by the Holy Fathers and by Pope Celestine. St. Cyril does so in various letters and treatises, but especially in the book dedicated to the most pious queens, which is prefixed to the Council. Theodoret in the Polymorphus, St. Prosper in his book On the Ungrateful against the Pelagians, and especially Pope St. Celestine in various letters — by whom St. Atticus is called "a man of holy memory, of most reverend remembrance, and a Catholic bishop." Thus in Letter 12, sent during the consulship of Fl. Aetius and Fl. Valerius (that is, the year of Christ 432) to the Emperor Theodosius, concerning Maximian, the elected Bishop of Constantinople: "The Roman Church," he says, "bears witness to him as to a part of its own body, for it always counted and numbered him among its own; so do the merits of his predecessors, to whom he devoutly adhered. For he was so united to the man of most reverend memory, Atticus, the most valiant champion of the Catholic faith, in mind equally and in office, that even then the insignia of the future episcopate in that same man shone forth." In Letter 13, written the same year to the said Maximian: "Follow the examples of the former pontiffs by whom you were educated and nurtured: the learning of the most blessed John in preaching, the vigilance of St. Atticus in purging heresies, the simple purity of your predecessor Sisinnius, whom we believe you have succeeded — so that we may rejoice (as we used to) in that church." And in Letter 7 he attests that proceedings were sent to him by the then Catholic bishop Atticus; which, together with his other works, of which remnants survive here and there among ancient writers, have perished.
[3] He is venerated on January 8 and October 10. Other testimonies of Pope St. Celestine will be given at the end of the life. We thought it necessary to offer these preliminary remarks lest, because of the somewhat harsh style of certain writers toward St. Atticus, his sanctity might perhaps be called into doubt — he for whom the Greeks in the Menaia have designated this day, January 8, as sacred, with these words: "On the same day, St. Atticus, Patriarch of Constantinople, rested in peace." He did not die on this day, but perhaps his body was then elevated or heavenly honors were first bestowed upon him. For he died on October 10, on which day he is celebrated by the Carthusians of Cologne in the Additions to Usuard. "Atticus," they say, "Bishop of Constantinople and Confessor, whose virtues are discussed in Book 11 of the Tripartite History." The German Martyrology on the same day: "St. Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, of whom one reads in the Tripartite History." Ferrarius in the Catalogue of the Saints of Constantinople: "St. Atticus the Bishop," and he notes that he is highly commended by Pope Celestine.
[4] His deeds are recounted, besides the authors already cited, by Pope St. Innocent in various letters (though he died eight years before Atticus). Socrates, Books 6 and 7 of his Ecclesiastical History. Theodoret, Book 5, chapter 34, of his Ecclesiastical History. Sozomen, Books 8 and 9 of his Ecclesiastical History. Synesius, Bishop of Cyrene, Letter 66 to Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria. Who narrate his deeds. Palladius, Bishop of Helenopolis, in his Dialogue on the Life of St. Chrysostom (or whoever the author of this work may be), of whom we shall treat on January 27. And all of these were contemporaries of St. Atticus. From the Greeks, other writers of the life of St. Chrysostom followed: George, Bishop of Alexandria; the Emperor Leo; and Metaphrastes — of whom we shall treat more precisely at that place. Theodore the Reader, Book 2 of his Collectanea. The author of the Alexandrian Chronicle. Nicephorus in his Catalogue of Bishops. Photius in his Library. George Cedrenus in his Historical Compendium. John Zonaras and Michael Glycas in their Annals — though by the latter not so much St. Atticus is described as certain of his deeds are attributed to Proclus. Finally, following the cited authors, Nicephorus Callistus treats of him extensively in Book 14 of his Ecclesiastical History. Among the Latin authors, besides the already cited Popes St. Innocent and St. Celestine, he is mentioned by Cassiodorus in Books 10 and 11 of the Tripartite History, Marcellinus Comes in his Chronicle, Paul the Deacon in Book 14 of the Miscellaneous History, and Jacobus Billius in Book 1 of his Sacred Observations, chapter 26; and passim by more recent chronographers, among whom Baronius treats of him extensively in volume 5 of the Annals. Among our own, he is reported by Petavius in Book 13 of his Doctrine of Times, Jacobus Gualterius in his Chronographic Table, Raderus in the Sacred Court of the Emperor Theodosius, and others.
Section II. His private life. Promotion to the episcopate. Translation of the relics of St. Samuel.
[5] Sozomen, Book 8, chapter 27: "Arsacius, having presided over the Church of Constantinople for a short time, died. With many vying for the succession, in the fourth month after his death, Atticus was ordained — a priest of the Constantinopolitan clergy, one of the conspirators against John. He was by birth from Sebasteia in Armenia; Homeland: but from childhood he was instructed in religion by monks who were followers of the Macedonian heresy, childhood education: who at that time were distinguished at Sebasteia in the pursuit of this philosophy, having proceeded from the school of Eustathius, whom we have already mentioned above as having been the bishop and leader of the most distinguished monks there. When he had reached manhood, however, he transferred to the Catholic Church. Conversion: And since he was prudent by nature rather than by learning, he was a schemer in the conduct of affairs — shrewdness: one who sufficed both for laying snares and for evading them, with a deceitful disposition, so that he was pleasing to many."
[6] "In ecclesiastical sermons he was mediocre, so that they seemed to the hearers neither worthy of being written down nor entirely devoid of learning. Sermons: For since he was affected, whenever he found an opportunity he read the most distinguished Greek writers; and by the very fact that he was considered unlearned, while he was discoursing on these matters, he often escaped the notice even of the learned. He was reputed to be assiduous toward men of his own opinion, but formidable toward those of differing views; easily able to strike fear into these whenever he wished, and soon to appear changed and gentle." And such, they say, was the man as those who knew him attest. That Sozomen could have learned this from personal knowledge is shown by the lifetimes of both men, since in Book 9, chapter 2, he writes that he was present at the translation of the relics of the holy Forty Soldiers and Martyrs at Sebasteia in Armenia (of whom we shall treat on March 9), which occurred in the year of Christ 438.
[7] That St. Atticus, while still a priest, was one of the conspirators against John is established from the pseudo-synod at Chalcedon, in the suburb of Rufinus, at the place called "The Oak" (Greek: Drys), He testifies against St. Chrysostom at the pseudo-synod. convened against St. Chrysostom by Theophilus of Alexandria in the year of Christ 402, in which Atticus gave testimony against the same St. Chrysostom, as Photius states in his Library, Section 59: "Then the third chapter of the accusation made by John the deacon was also examined (namely that, as he said before, Chrysostom had sold a great quantity of precious objects). In this chapter, Arsacius the archpriest, who succeeded Chrysostom himself, and Atticus the priest, summoned as witnesses in some manner, gave testimony, as did also Elpidius the priest. The same men, and with them also Acacius the priest, testified to the fourth charge (that he had sold the marbles of St. Anastasia, which Nectarius had left for adorning that church with marbles). After these charges had been thus examined, the aforesaid priests, and besides them Eudaemon and Onesimus, demanded that the sentence be hastened. Accordingly Paul, Bishop of Heraclea, the president of the synod, wished all to pronounce sentence, and it was decreed, as seemed good to them, that the blessed man should be expelled from his see, beginning with Gymnasius the Bishop and ending with Theophilus of Alexandria — forty-five in all." So Photius. The Macedonian heresy, whose follower St. Atticus was in his early youth, was propagated by Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople, and denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit; it is expounded by St. Augustine, Heresy 52, and St. Epiphanius, 52, and was condemned by the Fathers at the second ecumenical council, the first of Constantinople.
[8] Nicephorus, Book 13, chapter 29, reports the same things we have cited from Sozomen. And Socrates briefly summarizes them thus, Book 6, chapter 18: He is made Bishop of Constantinople. "Arsacius did not hold that episcopate for long, for in the following year, during the second consulship of Stilicho and the first of Anthemius, he died on the third day before the Ides of November. Since many labored intensely over the selection of a bishop, and much time elapsed on that account, in the following year — Arcadius being consul for the sixth time and Probus for the first — Atticus, a man of outstanding piety, born at Sebasteia in Armenia, having cultivated the monastic way of life from early youth, of moderate learning indeed but stronger in natural prudence, was made Bishop of Constantinople." Stilicho was consul for the second time with his colleague Anthemius in the year of Christ 405, in which year Arsacius died on November 11. Since Atticus was made bishop four months after Arsacius's death, as Sozomen and Nicephorus report, this probably occurred on March 11, a Sunday, in the year of Christ 406, when Arcadius Augustus for the sixth time and Probus were consuls.
[9] The relics of St. Samuel are transferred to Constantinople. During the consulship of the same men, with Atticus already holding the episcopate, the relics of the great priest and prophet Samuel — father, teacher, and judge of all the kings — were translated from Judea to Constantinople, from the town of Shiloh, as our Salianus maintains in volume 3 of the Annals of the Old Testament Church, at the year of the world 2977, nos. 7 and 17. Theodore the Reader, Book 2 of the Collectanea: "Under the rule of Arcadius," he says, "and under the Patriarch Atticus, the relics of St. Samuel were brought to Constantinople and placed in his prophetic shrine near the Hebdomon, on the twelfth day before the Kalends of July June 20." Nicephorus, Book 14, chapter 10, has the same. St. Jerome, in his treatise against the heretic Vigilantius, testifies that these sacred relics were translated with magnificent pomp. "He grieves," he says, "that the relics of the martyrs are covered with a precious veil, and are not wrapped in rags or haircloth, or thrown on a dung heap, so that Vigilantius alone, drunk and asleep, may be worshipped. Are we then sacrilegious when we enter the basilicas of the Apostles? Was the Emperor Constantine sacrilegious, who transferred the holy relics of Andrew, Luke, and Timothy to Constantinople — relics in whose presence demons roar, and the inhabitants of Vigilantius confess that they feel their presence? Is the present Augustus Arcadius also to be called sacrilegious, who long after translated the bones of the blessed Samuel from Judea to Thrace? Are all bishops to be judged not only sacrilegious but also foolish, who carried so worthless a thing — ashes dissolved to dust — in silk and a golden vessel? Are the peoples of all the churches foolish, who came out to meet the holy relics and received them with such joy, as though they beheld the living and present prophet, so that swarms of people were joined from Palestine all the way to Chalcedon, and they resounded with one voice in praise of Christ?"
The Alexandrian Chronicle adds: "In the same year, during the consulship of Arcadius Augustus for the sixth time and Probus, the relics of St. Samuel were brought to Constantinople by the steps or stairway of Chalcedon, in the month of Artemesios, on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of June May 19, with Arcadius Augustus and Anthemius the Praetorian Prefect leading the procession, together with the consuls, Aemilianus the City Prefect, and the entire Senate. They were deposited for a time in the most holy Great Church" — while perhaps a temple was being built for them, to which they would be transferred, as Baronius supposes in his notes on the Roman Martyrology under August 20 (on which day we shall treat of St. Samuel) and in the Annals for this year, no. 56, and Salianus at the cited year, no. 18. This they infer from these words of Procopius, Book 5, On the Buildings of the Emperor Justinian: "Phreata de, e dexamenas okodomesato houtos eis to tou hagiou Samouel, phrear kai teichos" [He built wells or cisterns in this way: in the church of St. Samuel, a well and a wall, etc.]. Whether the temple of St. Samuel was begun to be built by the counsel and assistance of St. Atticus, we do not conjecture; but the words of Theodore the Reader and Nicephorus suppose it was built very soon after, since they report the relics were brought into his prophetic shrine near the Hebdomon, with no mention made of a temporary deposit in the most holy Great Church — a church different from the temple of St. Sophia, which had been destroyed by fire two years after the expulsion of St. Chrysostom and was rebuilt in the following years and dedicated by St. Atticus, as we shall say in its place.
Annotation* Book 3, chapter 13.
Section III. Grave enmities between Atticus and the supporters of St. Chrysostom.
[10] Atticus afflicts in various ways those who refuse to communicate with him. Palladius, in his Dialogue on the Life of St. Chrysostom, about the middle: "Atticus the Priest," he says, "is substituted for Arsacius — the chief architect of the entire machination against John. When he observed that no Western bishop would communicate with him, nor the people of the city itself, on account of the things that had been so unjustly and wickedly done, he — a man ignorant of the divine Scriptures — acted so that those who would not communicate were compelled by imperial rescripts. He had a rescript against bishops with this threat: 'If any bishop does not communicate with Theophilus, Porphyrius, and Atticus, let him be expelled from his church and stripped entirely of his property.' Hence some, overburdened beyond what was fair, communicated even against their will. But the poorer and those weaker in sound faith were drawn to communicate by certain gifts. Those, however, who despised family, fatherland, corruptible glory, and bodily oppression preserved the freedom of their spirit by flight, frequently recalling that evangelical saying: 'If they persecute you in one city, flee to another' Matthew 10:23, and saying to themselves that proverb: 'Riches will not profit in the day of wrath' Proverbs 11:4. Some of them went to Rome, others to the mountains, others were sheltered from Judaic iniquity in monasteries of God's servants. The rescript contained provisions against laymen who held positions of dignity, that they should be deprived of their office and all dignity; soldiers should lose their military belt; the common people and remaining artisans, having paid a heavy weight of gold, should be subjected to exile. While these things were being done, prayers were offered daily in the open air with great affliction by the more faithful, out of zeal and love for the Savior, who said: 'I am the way and the truth' John 14:6, and again: 'Be of good courage, I have overcome the world'" John 16:33.
[11] So writes Palladius. Similar things are reported by others in the life of St. Chrysostom. "Arsacius dies," says the Emperor Leo, "and Atticus succeeds him. What was done by him? Accusations, ordinations of unworthy metropolitans — things worthy of memory." The legates of the Pope and other bishops are wretchedly harassed. "Certain good men, unable to bear seeing these things, go to Rome; and when the bishop of Rome had learned the details from them, he reports each thing to the Emperor Honorius." But the embassy of legates sent by St. Chrysostom to Rome had occurred the previous year, while Arsacius was still alive. When a council was then held at Rome, legates were sent this year to the East, who on the way — because they refused to communicate with Atticus — suffered terrible things. To them, says George of Alexandria, "either those from the imperial court or Atticus's followers sent messengers, offering them three thousand coins, demanding that they be persuaded to communicate with Atticus and cover the sentence passed against John with silence." Somewhat differently Metaphrastes: "It is uncertain," he says, "whether from those who belonged to the Empress's party or from those of Atticus, certain men approached them wishing — not for nothing, nor at a small price, but upon acceptance of three thousand gold pieces — that they would communicate with Atticus and disregard the cause of John." Nicephorus, Book 13, chapter 33, has similar accounts. Other bishops too, who had partly been sent to Rome by St. Chrysostom and had partly defended his innocence, were all either exiled, imprisoned, or harassed in other ways. After these things are narrated, it is added in Palladius's Dialogue: "The rest of John's communion partly communicated with Atticus, compelled by necessity, and were transferred to other churches of Asia; and of the rest we do not know where they are."
[12] Synesius, in Letter 66 to Theophilus, writes that this enmity was largely put to rest with the death of St. Chrysostom. For after his death (since he died on November 14 in the year of Christ 407, at Comana on the Euxine Sea), Theophilus of Alexandria wrote a learned and polished treatise to the blessed Atticus, which Synesius testifies he had read through. After the death of St. Chrysostom the proscribed are received back. In this treatise Theophilus was leading Atticus to receive back the men who had been condemned and proscribed by various sentences — evidently on account of their having entered into communion with St. Chrysostom — or who were in voluntary exile, so that with the granting of permission for them to return to their homes, the dissensions might gradually be laid aside with Chrysostom's death. Meanwhile, Pope Innocent wrote very sharp letters to the Emperor, in which he excommunicated both the Emperor himself, the Empress, and Theophilus, and declared that the name of the deceased Arsacius should be erased from the roll of bishops. He does not even mention Atticus by name, as is clear from the letters themselves, which are produced by George of Alexandria in his life of St. Chrysostom, by Gennadius, Glycas, and Baronius from a Vatican Greek codex — though they vary everywhere in translation. We give them here as they are cited in volume 1 of the Councils from Nicephorus, and they read as follows:
[13] "The voice of the blood of my brother John cries to God against you, O Emperor, just as once that of the just Abel against the fratricide Cain; and he will by all means be avenged. Nor have you done this only, but even in a time of peace you have stirred up a great persecution against God and his Church. Letter of Pope St. Innocent to the Emperor Arcadius. You have cast from his throne, without judgment, the great teacher of the entire world, and together with him you have persecuted Christ. Nor do I so complain about him (for he has obtained his lot, that is, his inheritance with the holy Apostles in the kingdom of God and our Savior Jesus Christ), although the loss is intolerable; but I am afflicted because I am anxious first for the salvation of your souls, and then for those who, bereft of his most wise spiritual and divine teaching and instruction, are being consumed by famine of the word of God. For not only has the Church of Constantinople suffered the loss of that honeyed tongue, but the whole world under the sun has been reduced to orphanhood by the loss of so divine a man — through the persuasion of one woman who exhibited this spectacle and farce. But she will receive both her present punishment here and a future eternal torment coming upon her not many days hence. For although the blessed John has departed this life, having kept the faith and strengthened the wavering, he has nevertheless obtained for eternal ages the inheritance of everlasting delights and immortal life. But the new Delilah, Eudoxia, who gradually shaved you with the razor of error or seduction, has brought upon herself execration from the mouths of many, binding together a heavy and unbearable weight of sins and adding it to her former sins."
[14] "Therefore I, the least and a sinner, to whom the throne of the great Apostle Peter has been entrusted, separate and reject you and her from the reception of the immaculate mysteries of Christ our God. Arcadius and Eudoxia are excommunicated; I also decree that every bishop or cleric of the holy order of the Church of God who shall dare to administer or offer them to you has forfeited his dignity from the very hour in which you read the present letters of my bonds. But if, as powerful men, you shall have forced anyone to do so, and have transgressed the canons handed down to you by the Savior through the holy Apostles, know that this will be no small sin for you on that terrible day of judgment — when the honor and dignity of this life will be able to help no one, but the secret and hidden things of hearts will be poured out and displayed before the eyes of all. As for Arsacius, whom you brought forth onto the episcopal throne in place of the great John, the deceased Arsacius: we depose him even after his death, together with all the bishops who deliberately communicated with him; and his name shall not be inscribed in the sacred register of bishops, for he is unworthy of that honor who polluted the episcopate as if by adultery. For 'every plant which my Father in heaven has not planted shall be uprooted.' To the condemnation of Theophilus we add deposition and absolute alienation from Christianity." Theophilus of Alexandria. George of Alexandria concludes thus: "To the deposition of Theophilus, we add the censure of excommunication, anathema, and complete and perfect alienation from Christianity."
[15] Nicephorus, Book 13, chapter 33, says this letter was given to Arcadius, Atticus, and Theophilus, by which he subjected them to excommunication and deposition. But in chapter 24, after reciting the letter in which no mention is made of Atticus, he adds: "Nor indeed did he fail to accuse Atticus, St. Atticus suspended from sacred functions. who after Arsacius had seized the throne of that great man." Pope St. Innocent, in Letter 17, volume 1 of the Councils, which is addressed to Alexander, Bishop of Antioch, writes that he had suspended him — or, as he said before concerning Theophilus, deposed him. We believe this censure was inflicted on both by the letter cited above, not yet sent to them. "Arcadius," says George of Alexandria, "upon receiving these letters, was plunged into grief and wasting away with anxious dejection of spirit. He ordered an inquiry to determine whether any of those who had devised treacherous schemes against the blessed John still remained in the city. Now there were in that city (as it happened) Menas, Theotecnus, and Eschaerion, cousins of Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, and Acacius, who had taken his side, as well as Severianus, Bishop of Gabala. When the emperor had learned that these men were in the city, he ordered them to be brought with all ignominy and disgrace and to be shut up in prison until he had carefully investigated their deeds. Then he diligently inquired against the bishops who had performed this tragic spectacle." Arcadius wrote the same to Innocent, as Baronius reports from the Vatican codex. For having cast the blame for the deposition of St. Chrysostom upon the bishops, he adds: "Among whom we have ordered that Acacius and Severianus, who are still here, and those who followed the wicked Theophilus, be seized with the greatest possible speed; and also those who are there, that they may pay the penalties due for their actions." In all of this there is a deep silence about Atticus — perhaps because, having been suspended from sacred functions by the decree of St. Innocent, he had immediately complied, recalled the proscribed and exiled bishops to their own sees, and while his case was being examined, acquiesced in the sentence to be pronounced.
[16] His case is examined. George of Alexandria suggests this: "When Pope Innocent," he says, "had understood from reading Arcadius's reply the emperor's repentance, he marveled at his humble modesty. Furthermore, learning from the report of those who acted in authority that vengeance had been sought upon those who had treated the great John harshly, he writes to the most pious Proclus, Bishop of Cyzicus, that he should go up to Constantinople, make the emperors partakers of the undefiled mysteries, and feed that church until Atticus's case had been examined and it could be determined whether he was worthy to be entrusted with the episcopate of that great city. Proclus, upon receiving the Pope's letter, delegated the governance of the Church of Cyzicus to trustworthy and holy clerics who would supply his place in his absence, and went up to Constantinople. After completing the sacrifice, he distributed to them the undefiled offering. Lingering in the city for some days and expounding the Scriptures to the people, he in some degree consoled and relieved their grief," etc.
[17] We believe that the resolution of St. Atticus's case, which the author does not touch upon here, was successfully concluded, led by the very words of St. Innocent. For he, many years later, when another controversy had arisen because the name of St. Chrysostom had not been inscribed in the sacred diptychs, writes thus to Alexander of Antioch: He is absolved. "We have received the letters of Bishop Atticus, since they were presented together with yours, lest by an injustice to you he who had long since been suspended by us should be rejected. And yet, as you will graciously take care to reread, we have set forth abundantly enough in the proceedings what should be observed in his case — so that if in all things he has asked to share in your counsels and actions, so holy as they are, favor should certainly be extended to him by you, and the grace of communion and correspondence should be prolonged to him by our benefit." Twenty-four bishops subscribed.
[18] [He later incurred another, lesser excommunication, distinct from this suspension.] So writes Innocent. But that suspension inflicted long ago, distinct from the "akoinonesia" (Greek: apo tes akoinonesias) — that is, the denial of the grace of communion and correspondence — seems to differ both in time and in the gravity of the penalty. For the suspension was inflicted at this time when St. Chrysostom ceased to live, before Alexander was promoted to the episcopate, and was lifted. This is shown, besides the cited letter of Innocent, by the rest of Atticus's life. The other "akoinonesia," however, was not lifted until after Alexander's death, when Theodotus was made Bishop of Antioch, as will be shown below from Atticus's letter to St. Cyril. When it was inflicted is not certain. A similar "akoinonesia" is called by Jean Morin in Book 2 of his Ecclesiastical Exercises, chapters 17, 18, and 19, the "minimal excommunication," which he shows was very commonly used at that time and consisted roughly in the following restrictions: that one should not communicate with fellow bishops either civilly or religiously; that clerics recommended by him should not be received; that he should have no commerce of formal letters with his colleagues; and finally, that he should be excluded from authority, voting, and seating at councils. Meanwhile, however, he retained in his own church and diocese full and unimpaired authority, dignity, and communion with the clergy and diocesan people. Thus St. Leo ordered that certain bishops who had given their consent to the Eutychian heresy at the council of Ephesus should be content with the communion of their own diocese and be deprived of the charity and embrace of the rest. It will not be superfluous to quote his words here, which he writes thus to Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople: "What was established in the presence and activity of our representatives, we approve — that they should meanwhile be content with the communion of their own churches. But together with our legates whom we have sent, sharing our solicitude with you, we wish it to be arranged: that those who, with full satisfaction, condemn what was wrongly done and choose rather to accuse than to defend themselves, may rejoice in the unity of our peace and communion," etc. This is Letter 40, given on the Ides of April during the consulship of Adelphius, that is, the year of Christ 451.
Section IV. His praiseworthy administration of the episcopate. The miracle of a Jew healed during baptism.
[19] Socrates, Book 8 actually Book 7, chapters 1, 2, 3, 4: "After the death of the Emperor Arcadius on the Kalends of May during the consulship of Bassus and Philippus (year of Christ 408), The learning, prudence, and conduct of St. Atticus. with the Emperor Theodosius now in the eighth year of his age, Atticus had administered the Episcopate of Constantinople for three years with the greatest praise. A man, as we have shown above, of moderate learning, but outstanding in piety and prudence; and for this reason the churches in his time were greatly enlarged. For not only did he unite the supporters of his own faith by concord, but he also astounded the heretics with his prudence. He certainly wished to cause them no trouble, but when he had thoroughly frightened them, he in turn showed himself gentle and easy toward them. Moreover, he did not neglect the pursuit of learning: for he devoted much effort to perusing the works of ancient writers and spent a great part of the night on them, and for this reason he could not be ensnared or dazzled by the subtleties of either philosophers or sophists. He was courteous and kind to those who came into conversation with him, and he seemed to grieve with those who were afflicted. In short, he became all things to all men, as the Apostle says. 1 Corinthians 9:22 At first, when he held the rank of priest, he learned by heart the sermons he had composed with the greatest care and recited them in the church. Afterwards, by frequent practice and diligence, having gained greater boldness, he began to preach extemporaneously and followed a more popular method of teaching. But his sermons were not of such a kind as to be deservedly memorized by listeners or committed to writing for posterity. But we seem to have said enough and more about his nature, character, and learning. Let us now come to the events of his times worthy of human memory."
[20] "A certain Theodosius, Bishop of Synada, a city of Phrygia Pacatiana, Bishop Theodosius persecutes the heretic Agapetus out of greed. severely persecuted the heretics (for there were many in that city from the Macedonian sect) and banished them not only from the city but also from the countryside. He undertook this not in the manner of the Orthodox Church, which is not accustomed to persecuting people, nor was he driven by zeal for right and sincere faith, but serving the greed of sordid gain in order to extort money from the heretics. And so he left nothing undone that pertained to harassing the Macedonians: he began to arm the hands of the clergy of his church against them, to employ almost unlimited stratagems to disturb them, and never ceased bringing them bound before the court. He afflicted Agapetus, their bishop, above all others with various inconveniences and troubles. But when the leading men of the province seemed to him not to have sufficient power and authority to punish the Macedonians, he hurried to Constantinople and demanded an order from the Prefect of the province. While Bishop Theodosius was lingering in Constantinople on these matters, Agapetus — whom I said was the head of the Macedonian sect — returned to the right and sound opinion on the faith. For having taken counsel with his entire clergy and convoked the people of his church, he persuaded them In his absence, Agapetus converts and is received as the true bishop. to accept the faith of the Consubstantial. Having done this, he hastened with the great multitude — indeed with the entire people — to the church. After prayers were completed, he took possession of the seat in which Theodosius had been accustomed to sit. As soon as he had bound the people together in the bonds of concord, he thenceforth taught the faith of the Consubstantial; and thus he gained control of the administration of the churches belonging to the city of Synada."
[21] "When these matters had been settled, shortly afterwards Theodosius returned to Synada, relying on the mandate of the Prefect that he had brought with him. Ignorant of the things that had happened in his absence, he went straight to the church. Expelled thence by all who were present, he again set out for Constantinople. Atticus advises Theodosius to be at peace: As soon as he arrived, he began to deplore his situation gravely before Bishop Atticus, declaring that he had been unjustly ejected from the episcopate. But Atticus, when he understood that the matter had turned out happily for the benefit of the Church, tried to soothe Theodosius with words, advising him to pursue a quiet and trouble-free way of life and to prefer the common good of all to his own private interests. He confirms Agapetus. He also wrote to Agapetus to retain the episcopate and not to suspect that any trouble would come to him from the offended feelings of Theodosius."
[22] "And as this one event, which I have just recounted as having occurred in the times of Atticus, was of the greatest benefit to the Church, so those same times were also distinguished by miracles and gifts of healing. For a Jew who had been afflicted with paralysis for many years and confined to bed, having tried every kind of cure and medical treatment and all Jewish prayers and vows without finding any remedy at all, finally took refuge in Christian baptism, A paralytic Jew, baptized by Atticus, immediately recovers. firmly persuaded that by the aid of this true physician he would be restored to perfect health. This matter was promptly reported to Atticus. He therefore instructed the Jew in the articles of faith, proclaimed hope in Christ to him, and ordered him to be carried on his bed to the baptistery. The Jew, oppressed by paralysis, as soon as he had received baptism with sincere faith and was lifted from the baptismal font, was immediately freed from his disease and restored to health. This divine healing was demonstrated to the people of our times by the power of Christ. By this miracle many pagans were indeed led to believe and received baptism. But the Jews, although they sought signs and miracles, could not be led to believe by signs." Nicephorus narrates the same things in Book 14, chapters 11 and 12.
[23] This occurred in the year 409. Paul the Deacon, Book 14 of the Miscellaneous History, chapter 1, and Cedrenus, under the year of Theodosius II, Christ 409, report this miracle of the healed Jew. "In the year from the founding of the City, 1165," says Paul, "Theodosius the Younger reigned in the East; in the second year of his reign, Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, by admonishing, persuading, and baptizing a certain paralytic Jew, brought him back healthy from the font; for it is said that he progressed according to God." Cedrenus also: "In the second year of the reign of the younger Theodosius, Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, having brought a certain Jew afflicted with dislocation of the limbs to the Christian religion by persuasion, led him forth baptized and healthy from the font." Baronius narrates the same from Socrates, but under the first year of Theodosius, that is, Christ 408.
Section V. Dissension over the name of St. Chrysostom not being inscribed in the diptychs. Various acts of piety by Atticus toward the saints and neighbors.
[24] Atticus refuses to inscribe the name of St. Chrysostom in the diptychs. Although the outstanding virtue of Atticus shone widely, it was still obscured by a certain cloud, because, led by a false persuasion, he did not inscribe the name of St. Chrysostom in the diptychs or sacred tablets. For this reason he was not received into communion by Pope Innocent and other Western bishops — Maximian the Bishop having interceded in vain with Pope Innocent on this account, asking him to give letters of communion to Atticus. This Maximian was one of the Macedonian bishops to whom an extant letter (163) of St. Chrysostom was addressed while he was in exile. He is also mentioned in letters of Innocent: one to the bishops of Macedonia, likewise assembled in a provincial synod during the consulship of Constantius in the year of Christ 414; and another given in the case of Bubalius and Taurianus, when Maximian himself was serving as legate in Rome. The former is cited as Letter 7 and the latter as Letter 16 of Innocent, in volume 1 of the Councils, Part 1. Our Andreas Schottus, in his eulogy on the life and writings of St. Cyril, calls this Maximian the Patriarch of Constantinople, as though he were the same man who succeeded Nestorius. But we do not agree with Schottus, because Nicephorus writes in Book 14, chapter 37, that Maximian was assumed to the Patriarchate in place of Nestorius from the order of priests — not from any episcopal see — long after the death of St. Atticus, having previously lived in the monastic life. The letters of Innocent to this Maximian concerning the case of Atticus read as follows:
[25] Pope St. Innocent denies him letters of communion. "We marvel that your prudence should ask us to write to Atticus, Bishop of the city of Constantinople, both by your own petition and by a submitted document, which is appended below — from whom you have not even brought any letters at all addressed either to us or to your synod. Do not think that what has been granted to those who petition, after examination of the case, should be given to one who does not petition. For suspended communion is restored to one who demonstrates that the causes for which it was imposed have now been removed, and who declares that the conditions of peace have been fulfilled. Yet Atticus, neither among you nor among us (as I said), by sending any of his people, either wished to say or demonstrated that this had been accomplished — in the manner in which our brother and fellow bishop Alexander of the Antiochene Church both pursued and proved by a worthy delegation. Having deigned to be present at all of these proceedings, you know how I examined each matter in detail from our previous writings about the case of the most blessed John, our former bishop, so as to show to all those concerned that everything that needed to be done at Antioch had been accomplished. Having embraced their peace, we accordingly give assurance and show by a broad path to all who will make the same request; if only those in question have also shown that they have done or accomplished the same things from their position, and have formally requested through a solemn delegation that communion be restored to them, as these others did. We therefore await both the declaration of the aforesaid that all the conditions, which we have prescribed at various times, have been fulfilled, and the petition for communion — so that we may rightly restore it to one who both petitions and proves himself to deserve it, dearest brother. For you long since received most complete letters on all matters addressed to the holy synod of our brothers."
Baronius places these letters in the year of Christ 408; but they were written no earlier than after the provincial synod of Macedonia, to which we said Innocent wrote in the year of Christ 414, as the synod itself indicates in the cited letter. Alexander, Bishop of Antioch — whom Theodoret, Book 5, chapter 35 of his Ecclesiastical History, notes was the first to have the name of the great John inscribed in the tables of the Church, and whose reconciliation Innocent, in Letter 15 addressed to him, calls "the first fruits of peace" — that Alexander, I say, governed the Church of Antioch until about the year of Christ 420 or beyond, as will be shown below.
[26] At the same time that Maximian, zealous for the peace of the churches, was interceding for Atticus with Innocent, St. Atticus dedicates the temple of Sophia. the latter, together with the people of Constantinople, was restoring the most august temple of Sophia, which had been reduced to ashes with all its ornaments when St. Chrysostom was sent into exile. Marcellinus Comes writes that this work was completed in the year of Christ 415, Indiction 13, during the consulship of Honorius X and Theodosius VI: "The Church of Constantinople, long since burned by fire, was restored and dedicated during this consulship, with Bishop Atticus governing that same church." And the author of the Alexandrian Chronicle: "In the same year, the Great Church at Constantinople was dedicated in the month of Gorpiaeus, on the sixth day before the Ides of October October 10, a Sunday. And the relics of Joseph the son of Jacob He deposits in it the relics of the patriarch St. Joseph and of St. Zacharias. and of Zacharias the father of St. John the Baptist were translated to Constantinople by the stairway of Chalcedon, in the month of Gorpiaeus, on the sixth day before the Nones of October October 2, a Saturday, with the Patriarch Atticus of Constantinople and Moses, Bishop of Antaradus in Phoenicia, carrying the relics in two small chests, while they themselves sat on caparisoned horses, which they deposited in the Great Church; the procession being led by Ursus, the prefect of the city, with the entire Senate." The Burichalia are not some type of vessel, as Raderus supposes, but caparisoned horses, as Meursius also observed in his Glossary; and "bourichos" (Greek: bourichos) among the Greeks and "buricus" in Paulinus, Letter 10 (to Severus), is taken to mean a horse.
[27] Which Zacharias this was. The Greeks treat of St. Joseph in the Menaia on December 19. The Roman Martyrology mentions St. Zacharias, the father of St. John the Baptist, on November 5. But Sozomen, Book 9, chapters 16 and 17, and after him Nicephorus, Book 14, chapter 9, Baronius under this year 415, and Raderus, chapter 13 of the Sacred Court, report that the relics of the ancient prophet Zacharias were discovered under Theodosius the Younger. They all affirm that this was the Zacharias whom King Joash of Judah killed in the court of the house of the Lord, 2 Paralipomenon 24:21. Baronius, in his notes on the Roman Martyrology under September 6, says it was the body of Zacharias the Prophet and Hagiographer, who is venerated on that day along with another Zacharias; Baronius refers the reader to his cited Annals and to Sozomen and Nicephorus. Our Tirinus, in his preface to Zacharias, agrees with Baronius. Cedrenus refers this translation to the nineteenth year of Theodosius with these words: "In the nineteenth year, the relics of the prophet Zacharias and of Stephen, the first of the martyrs, and of Lawrence were deposited. Then for the first time the memory of John Chrysostom was solemnly celebrated." But these things would have occurred after the death of St. Atticus. In the Alexandrian Chronicle edited by Raderus and in the other version appended by Scaliger to the Eusebian Chronicle, this translation is read to have occurred "meni Gorpieo pro s Nonon Septembrion hemera sabbato" [in the month of Gorpiaeus, on the sixth day before the Nones of September, a Saturday]. There is an error in "the sixth before the Nones of September," and "October" should be substituted, since the day Saturday and the month Gorpiaeus agree; but September has only four days before the Nones.
[28] Atticus writes a book on faith and virginity. Theodosius, having observed the divine prudence, piety, and chastity of his sister St. Pulcheria — of whom we shall speak in her life on September 10 — thought he would govern the Empire far more securely if he employed so great a sister's wisdom in the partnership of rule and counsel. Accordingly, in Indiction 12, during the consulship of Constantius and Constans, in the year of Christ 414, on the fourth day before the Nones of July July 4, he named her Augusta. So report the Chronicles of Marcellinus Comes and the Alexandrian. Pulcheria, to secure the Empire for her brother, both abstained from marriage herself and led her three sisters to the same vow. What advice Atticus may have offered in these matters, the writers wrap in silence; but we gather from the Chronicle of Marcellinus Comes that he accomplished many illustrious things, in which, under Indiction 14, during the consulship of Theodosius VII and Palladius, the following is read: "Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, wrote a very excellent book to the queens — the daughters of the Emperor Arcadius — on faith and virginity, in which, anticipating the Nestorian dogma, he refutes it." These and other monuments of his industry, wisdom, and piety have been consumed by devouring time. How weighty they were, however, we learn from Theodoret, Cyril, and the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus, who, drawing on him as a learned and orthodox bishop, attack Nestorius and other heretics. We judge it not inappropriate to present some of these passages here.
[29] Fragments of his works. Theodoret, in Dialogue 2 of the Polymorphus, cites the following from his letter to Eupsychius: "What, then, was it fitting for the most wise One to do? Through the intercession of the assumed flesh and the union of God the Word with the man born of Mary, both are brought about: that Christ, who was united from both natures, by his divinity arranging all things, remained in the authority of his impassible nature; while conversing with death through the flesh, he showed at once both to the flesh — to which he was joined by kinship of race — that he despised death through death, and at the same time he also confirmed the rights of the new covenant by death." St. Cyril, in the book dedicated to the most pious queens, which is found in Part 1 of the Council of Ephesus, cites the following from a sermon of St. Atticus, apparently delivered on Christmas Day: "Today Christ the Lord, in his benevolence, was born as man. For from God he had already been born long before." He adds further: "The Word of benevolence, since by his own nature he was not capable of self-emptying, is emptied. For having assumed the form of a servant, he emptied himself. He who was without flesh is clothed in flesh. The Word was made flesh. He who, because of his incorporeal nature, could not be touched, becomes palpable. He who knew no beginning receives, according to the body, a beginning. He who was absolutely perfect takes on growth. He who cannot change makes progress. He who is rich is born in an inn. He who covers the sky with clouds is wrapped in swaddling clothes. He who was King is laid in a manger." The same passages are cited by the Fathers in Part 2 of the Council of Ephesus, Act 1, to refute the heresy of Nestorius. [III] Then from the same author the following is added: "If anyone is made uncertain by the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten, the Virgin's childbearing, the sharing in sufferings, the cross, death, and resurrection, let him learn and recognize that these things bring salvation to the world; yet they ought not to be considered unworthy of the benevolence of the superior nature. For if it is shameful for God to dwell in a Virgin, it would be more shameful to have created her. But if in creating her he incurred no disgrace, neither did he judge it worthy of reproach to dwell in his creature. And if suffering is evil, how great a good is it to be freed from sufferings! Therefore he died, being immortal, that he might bring death to death; and he rose again, establishing our resurrection. And he undertook all these things not by the nature of his Deity but by the assumption of flesh: the former dwelling in the sanctuary of its impassibility, the latter suffering and enduring all things, so that he might become the leader and lawgiver of the best way of life." Whether these were taken from his excellent book on faith and virginity, we are uncertain.
[30] Petavius, Book 13 of the Doctrine of Times, reports from Theophanes that Isdegerdes, King of the Persians, moved by the holiness and miracles of Maruthas, Bishop of Mesopotamia, had almost become a Christian; but when Maruthas died and the bishop Abdaas of Persia had with misguided zeal set fire to a Fire-temple, a severe persecution arose against the Christians in the year of Christ 415, lasting for five years. Certainly, in Indiction 3, during the consulship of Theodosius IX and Constantius III — that is, the year of Christ 420 — Marcellinus writes that persecution raged against Christians in Persia. Socrates, Book 7, chapter 18, writes that during this persecution, St. Atticus extended the bowels of mercy to Christians fleeing from Persia to the Romans. "When Isdegerdes, King of the Persians, who had not at all persecuted the Christians dwelling in Persia, died," he says, He helps Christian exiles. "Baratanes his son, having taken up the reins of the kingdom, impelled by the Magi to do so, savagely harassed the Christians and inflicted upon them various tortures and torments in the Persian manner. Therefore the Christians who lived among the Persians, compelled by necessity, fled to the Romans and begged them not to allow them to be so wretchedly oppressed. Bishop Atticus kindly received these suppliants, turned all his care and attention to bringing them aid, and made the matter known to the Emperor Theodosius."
Section VI. The name of St. Chrysostom inscribed in the diptychs.
[31] We believe that amid these illustrious works of piety, St. Atticus wrote repeatedly to the Roman Pontiff Innocent; but because the controversy that had arisen over inscribing the name of St. Chrysostom in the sacred tablets had not yet been resolved, the denial of the grace of communion and correspondence compelled Atticus to communicate his writings through Alexander of Antioch, as we said from the letter of St. Innocent to Alexander in Section 2. Meanwhile, Pope St. Innocent died in the year of Christ 417; from whose death George of Alexandria writes that the letters of Atticus's episcopate were abrogated and erased. St. Zosimus, a Greek, succeeded St. Innocent, and when Zosimus died near the end of the following year, St. Boniface succeeded him. He sends legates to Rome. We believe that the embassies Atticus sent, which Theodoret mentions in Book 5, chapter 34 of his Ecclesiastical History, were directed principally to these popes. "Indeed," he says, "after the death of that outstanding teacher of the whole world (Chrysostom), the bishops of the West refused to communicate with the bishops of Egypt, the East, the Bosphorus, and Thrace until they had entered the name of that most holy man in the tablets containing the names of deceased bishops. And they did not even deign to greet Arsacius, his successor. But Atticus, who succeeded Arsacius and who had often sent legates to them and often sought peace, they finally received after he had inscribed the name of John in the tablets."
[32] Socrates, Book 7, chapter 25, describes this inscription of St. Chrysostom's name in the diptychs as follows: "Bishop Atticus increased the affairs of the Church wonderfully; for he administered them with prudence and diligently exhorted the people to virtue by his teaching. When he saw that the Church was divided because the Johannites held their assemblies outside it, he directed that mention be made of John in the prayers, He inscribes the name of St. Chrysostom in the sacred tablets. as is customary for other bishops. For he hoped that by this means many of them would return to the Church." Cedrenus holds that this occurred in the fourteenth year of the Emperor Theodosius (which was the year of Christ 421). "In the same year," he says, "Bishop Atticus entered the name of John Chrysostom in the sacred tablets." Since it is established from St. Atticus's own letter to St. Cyril — in which he persuades him also to inscribe Chrysostom's name in the sacred tablets — that the death of Alexander, Bishop of Antioch, about the year 421. and the consecration of his successor Theodotus had occurred before St. Atticus inserted the memory of St. Chrysostom into the sacred prayers, it appears this was done no earlier than the year of Christ 421, as Cedrenus writes, or the following year 422. Baronius refers it to the year of Christ 412, and Alexander's death to the preceding year — in which he errs, as can be proven by many arguments besides the cited passage of Cedrenus.
[33] Theodoret, Book 5, chapter 35 of his Ecclesiastical History, shows that Alexander administered the Church of Antioch when St. Cyril was succeeding Theophilus at Alexandria, which occurred in October of the year 412. Alexander had therefore not died in the preceding year. How long Alexander of Antioch survived. Theodoret's words are: "At the same time, Cyril, the nephew of Theophilus, became Bishop of Alexandria, succeeding his uncle in that see. The episcopate of the Church of Jerusalem was then held by John, a man of great distinction, who had succeeded Cyril, of whom mention was made above. And the Church of Antioch was administered by Alexander, whose pious manner of life was beautifully in accord with his episcopate." It is then established from the above-cited letter of Pope Innocent to Bishop Maximian of Macedonia, written after the provincial synod held there in the year of Christ 414, that St. Atticus had not even sent any letters to the Pope or to the synod, and that consequently communion had been denied him — which would have been two years after it is supposed that the name of St. John was inscribed in the sacred tablets. Furthermore, that Bishop Alexander survived until the year of Christ 420 is most certainly established from Theodoret's Theophilus, or Book 9, On the Lives of the Fathers, chapter 12. St. Zeno (whom we shall celebrate on February 10, as described in that chapter), having begun the anchoritic life after the death of Valens (which occurred during the consulship of Valens VI and Valentinian II, as Idacius notes in the consular fasti, that is, in the year of Christ 378, on the fifth day before the Ides of August), had persevered in it for forty years. He was recognized — an old man indeed, but still of sufficiently robust strength, carrying a jar in his hand — by Theodoret himself, who was then a young man reading the sacred books to the people of God at Antioch, barely producing a slight down on his face, as he testifies of himself. This year of Christ can be gathered with sufficient clarity to be 418. After some further time had elapsed (it is uncertain how long), Zeno, afflicted with poor health, handed over whatever money he had to Bishop Alexander to be distributed among the poor. Having survived another year, he departed from life, and Alexander, as the executor of his testament, is supposed to have survived him. St. Zeno perhaps died on February 10 of the year of Christ 420, and Alexander may have followed him in the course of that same year. Thus Theodotus would have been made Bishop of Antioch the following year, and in that year St. Atticus, having inscribed the name of St. Chrysostom in the sacred tablets, could have written to St. Cyril. When Theodotus succeeded him.
[34] These things will be more clearly evident from the letter of St. Atticus to St. Cyril, so that it is remarkable that Baronius should accelerate the death of Alexander and condemn as mistaken those who write that Alexander survived to the time of Boniface. Theodoret, Book 5, chapter 37 of his Ecclesiastical History, and Nicephorus, Book 14, chapter 30, write thus concerning the succession of both sees, Roman and Antiochene: "Innocent, Bishop of Rome, was succeeded by Boniface; Boniface by Zosimus" (in reversed order, since Zosimus preceded Boniface); "Zosimus by Celestine. At Antioch, when the blessed Alexander had died, Theodotus — a pearl of continence, as it were — obtained the leadership of the Church," etc. This passage, cited for the commendation of this man, seems to weave the catalogue of Roman Pontiffs to indicate the succession of Theodotus. How long he held office. The other Nicephorus, in his catalogue of the Bishops of Antioch, attributes to Theodotus only four years (so that from the length of his episcopate a chronological reckoning may also be sought). Baronius decides he died in the year of Christ 427, though he holds that Theodotus was present at some synod with Sisinnius, Bishop of Constantinople, against the Messalians; he asserts the location is unknown. Petavius, Book 13 of the Doctrine of Times, writes that the synod was held at Side in Pamphylia. But Photius, who alone mentions it in Section 52, clearly indicates it was held at Constantinople, where he says Theodotus was summoned along with the other bishops for the purpose of Sisinnius's consecration. This consecration took place during the consulship of Theodosius XIII and Valentinian II, that is, the year of Christ 426, on the day before the Kalends of March February 28, according to Marcellinus and Socrates. Since he lived to that year and was bishop for only four years, he could not have succeeded Alexander before the year 422. Accordingly, it was only in this year at the earliest that Atticus, having inscribed the name of St. Chrysostom in the diptychs, gave the following letter to St. Cyril; which, together with another letter on the same subject to the deacons Peter and Aedesius, from Nicephorus Book 14, chapter 26, we shall insert here.
Section VII. Letter to St. Cyril on inscribing the name of St. Chrysostom in the diptychs.
[35] Atticus to Cyril, greetings. We have fallen into a situation we had not anticipated, and we acquiesce by necessity in what has turned out less according to our wishes, preferring utility to strict justice. And with our thoughts inclined toward the concord of the people, In observing the sacred canons, one must also accommodate the times. we inflict no damage upon the canons of the Fathers, but we prefer the peace of the whole world to exact verbal observance. For I am well aware that the blessed Paulinus too, when he was issuing ecclesiastical regulations, wisely made use of occasions with prudent dispensation. I also know that your Father, who is counted among the Saints, the Apostolic Theophilus, in the confusion and tumult raised by the partisans of Greek superstition, set aside strict observance for a brief time in favor of peace. For the greatest cities, resembling a sea tossed by waves, are accustomed to be governed and administered according to the judgment of their citizens not so much by the utmost observance of laws and regulations as by the most expedient counsels and decisions conducive to peace and concord. Now hear the reason I write this letter.
[36] Your holiness knows, and indeed beholds with those same eyes with which our Father Theophilus, who is among the saints, The supporters of Chrysostom hold assemblies outside. beheld what kind of and how great a disturbance invaded this great city, and how the more holy faith and piety was endangered to the point of being utterly uprooted — even to the extent that the people, for the most part split by faction, held assemblies outside the walls, and many priests and our colleagues the bishops, withdrawing from mutual communion, very nearly tore up the good planting of the Lord Jesus Christ, since the advantage of peace had been somewhat disrupted. But indeed with much labor, much sweat, and many perils full of desperation, most of the greatest evils were calmed by the prayers of our common Fathers and also of your piety and by their concerted action. And that turmoil was quieted, Alexander labors to have his name received into the diptychs. and concord and serene tranquillity prevails in the churches of the whole world.
[37] But when certain persons wished only the name of the blessed John to be inscribed in the mystic tablets, the blessed Bishop Alexander — I mean the Bishop of Antioch — came to Constantinople, spoke many bold words, and eagerly tried to stir up the people so that, even against our will, the name of the one we have mentioned would necessarily be inscribed. This matter was explained in full detail to your piety by the most devout deacons and ministers of God, Peter and Aedesius. A long time passed, and we began to be pressed by the necessity that arises from popular governance, yet we did not concern ourselves with the remnants of schism and dissension. Then Acacius, a most God-loving man, sent letters to us from the East, Acacius urges the same. requesting that we pardon the most reverend bishop Theodotus of Antioch for the act he had been forced to do by the people — namely, inscribing the name of John in the sacred tablets. And then the good priest who brought the letters to us, indicating the reason for his coming, spread this matter abroad among the populace of the great city and made known to the people the purport of the letter sent to us, so that the city was very nearly filled with a tumult of the entire populace. At this point I was truly alarmed and, fearing the utmost peril regarding the gravest matters, Theodosius consents. I approached the most pious Emperor and negotiated with him about peace and the tranquil state of affairs. And he replied that there would be no danger or inconvenience if the name of the deceased man were inscribed for the sake of tranquillity, peace, and the concord of the people.
[38] And so, persuaded by this consideration (for how could I, forestalled by necessity, not do it?), Atticus at last does it. lest the affairs of our religion depend on the judgment of the multitude through a single permitted precedent, and lest we accustom the city itself to popular governance, I ordered that name to be entered in the register. Wherefore (as I believe) I have neither sinned against the sacred canons nor defrauded the judgment of the Fathers. For mention is made of him among the deceased not only with bishops but also with priests, deacons, and even laypeople and women — with all of whom we have no communion of the priesthood nor participation in those things that are mystically received at the sacred table. For there is a great difference between the deceased and the living, so that even the books are kept separate on account of the different status of those whose memory is preserved. For the honorable burial of Saul did not harm David, nor did the Arian sectary Eudoxius, placed under the same holier altar of sacrifice, harm the Apostles; nor did Paulinus and Evagrius — who were the leaders of schism and dissension in the Church of Antioch — harm the Church, since after their death, not a few years ago, they were inscribed in the mystic tablets for the sake of the peace and concord of the people. He urges the same upon Cyril. Therefore do you too command the churches of Egypt, for the sake of pacifying the churches of the whole world, to inscribe the name of that deceased man. For in this way you will neither transgress the canons of the Fathers nor will you fail to esteem most highly the concord of all the churches together. And I am persuaded that you will write back to us what is fitting, with a view to common agreement and brotherhood. I and all those who are with me salute all the brotherhood that is with you.
[39] This is what Atticus wrote to Cyril. But pressing the matter even further, he also gave another letter to his deacons Peter and Aedesius, in these words: "To our God-loving brother, Bishop Cyril, we have written by letter, as was fitting, about the matters that have been transacted regarding the inscription of the name of John in the ecclesiastical tablets. No less do we also write to your piety, which knows our affairs better than others — namely, that they have resulted in peace and tranquillity, chiefly by the decision of the most pious Emperors, and then of all the Eastern bishops, and indeed also of the Western ones — with John having been inserted in the sacred tablets not as a bishop, but as one who was once a bishop, so that his memory might be honored for the sake of the common peace of the whole world. We write, moreover, lest — with concord now prevailing almost everywhere — we alone, by not assenting to it, seem at the same time to oppose the most pious Emperors and, with certain adverse winds arising, harm our own most necessary affairs and the Church of Christ. So much for these matters. Your departure has brought us into great longing, because we do not derive the same pleasure from the company of those who are now with us as we did from your company, so that we are almost disturbed by the novelty of their acquaintance, which differs greatly from our familiarity with you. Wherefore, setting all things aside, make every effort to return to us henceforth, for you will find a more intense affection among us than before, on account of the difference of manners which we have experienced." After Cyril received a letter of this kind, Nicephorus adds, he was very much averse to the matter, as is clear enough from his letters, which he recites in chapter 27, about which we too shall speak in his life on January 28. A portion is recited by Facundus, Bishop of Hermiane, in Book 4.
AnnotationsSection VIII. The Conversion of the Empress Eudocia. The ecclesiastical authority of Atticus. His almsgiving.
[40] In Indiction 3, says Marcellinus in his Chronicle, during the consulship of Eustathius and Agricola, that is, the year of Christ 421, the Emperor Theodosius married Eudocia, the Achaean woman. The Alexandrine Chronicle agrees with these words: "In this year, under the same consuls and the cited Indiction, Theodosius Augustus, having taken Athenais — called Eudocia — as his wife, celebrated the marriage in the month of Daesius, on the seventh day before the Ides of June." Athenais, baptized by Atticus, is called Eudocia. "When the Emperor married this Athenais," says Socrates, Book 7, chapter 21, "Bishop Atticus, who was making her a Christian, during the baptism named her Eudocia." Cedrenus also says, citing the passage referred to: "In the same year, Leontius the philosopher died at Athens. In his will he bequeathed all his property to his sons, leaving to his daughter Athenais only one hundred gold coins, with this added reason: 'Her own fortune will suffice for her.' When Pulcheria saw this Athenais, who had been brought from Athens to Constantinople, and noted that she excelled both in bodily beauty and in outstanding talent and eloquence, she sent her to Atticus, Bishop of the city, who baptized her, gave her the name Eudocia, and presented her in marriage to her brother the Emperor." So Cedrenus. The death of her father, the arrival of Athenais at Constantinople, and her conversion to the Christian faith are assigned to the preceding year in the Alexandrine Chronicle, which our Raderus follows in chapter 4 of the Aula Sancta. Paul the Deacon, Book 14 of the Historia Miscella, after narrating the defeat that Theodosius inflicted upon the Persians, adds in chapter 7: "After the victory gained over the Persians with the help of God, many Romans powerful in eloquence were composing praises of the Emperor, Superbly educated. whose wife composed many poems in heroic meter, for she was eloquent, the daughter of Leontius the Sophist of Athens, educated in all branches of learning by her father. When the Emperor was about to marry her, Bishop Atticus made her a Christian and at baptism, when she was previously called Athenais, imposed upon her the name Eudoxia."
[41] In this same year Theodosius decreed that the rights of the Bishop of Constantinople should extend to Illyricum, in Law 6, De Sacrosanctis Ecclesiis, and Law 45, De Episcopis et Clericis, of the Theodosian Code. The text of the law is as follows: The eminence of the See of Constantinople, after that of Rome. "With all innovation ceasing, we command that the ancient practice and the former ecclesiastical canons, which have held until now, be observed also throughout all the provinces of Illyricum. If any matter of doubt should arise, it ought to be reserved — not without the knowledge of the most reverend bishop of the sacred law of the Church of Constantinople, which enjoys the prerogative of old Rome — for the assembly of priests and their holy judgment." Given on the day before the Ides of July, during the consulship of Eustathius and Agricola. This prerogative of old Rome was conceded, or at least arrogated, by canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in the year of Christ 381, in these words: "The Bishop of the city of Constantinople ought to have the honor of primacy after the Bishop of Rome, because it is the New Rome." Although the Roman Pontiff did not ratify this decree, he seems either to have specially delegated that power to Atticus or rather to have looked the other way. Socrates implies this in Book 7, chapter 28: "When the Bishop of Cyzicus died, Specially conceded to Atticus. Sisinnius designated Proclus as Bishop of Cyzicus. But before Proclus could travel to that city, the Cyzicenes forestalled him and ordained the monk Dalmatius as their bishop. They did this in disregard of that law which forbids anyone to be designated bishop without the decision and authority of the Bishop of Constantinople. The reason they disregarded the law was that, as they supposed, it granted that authority to Atticus alone by name."
[42] His liberality toward the needy is described thus by the same Socrates, chapter 25: "Moreover," he says, "he was so inclined to giving The liberality of Atticus toward the poor. that he not only diligently provided for the poor in his own churches, but also sent money to neighboring cities to relieve the want of the needy. For to Calliopius, a priest of the Church of Nicaea, he sent three hundred gold coins, together with a letter to this effect: 'Atticus to Calliopius, greetings in the Lord. I have been informed that an infinite number of people in your city are oppressed by hunger and are in need of the alms of the pious. When I say an infinite number, I mean a multitude whose exact count I cannot determine. Since, then, I myself received a sum of money from Him who lavishly supplies, as if with a full hand, riches to those who manage them well, and since it happens that some are pressed by want so that others who have wealth but do not bestow it upon the needy may be fully tested — do you, dearest brother, accept these three hundred gold coins from me and spend them on the poor as you see fit. Whom he especially wished to be helped. But be willing to confer them not on those who, for the sake of their belly, practice begging as a kind of trade throughout their entire life, but on those who are ashamed to beg. And in this duty of charity, do not take into account any consideration of sect or religion; nor indeed should you have any regard for those who differ from us in the opinion of the faith; but apply yourself to this one thing alone: that those who are tormented by hunger may be relieved with food.' In this way he diligently provided for the needy, even those who were far distant from him."
[43] And a little further on: "To this may be added," he says, "that Atticus was skilful in assigning apt names to places. He assigns fitting names to certain places. For the station situated at the mouth of the Black Sea, which had been called by its old name Pharmakea, that is, 'the Sorceress,' he renamed Therapeia, that is, 'Healing' or 'Cure,' so that when he happened to hold an assembly there, he would not designate a place for the purpose bearing an ugly name. He also named a certain suburb of Constantinople Argyropolis, for the following reason: Chrysopolis is an ancient station at the very head of the Bosphorus. Many ancient writers mention it, such as Strabo, Nicolaus of Damascus, and the admirable and eloquent Xenophon, who in Book 6 of the Anabasis and in Book 1 of the Hellenica records that it was enclosed by a wall by Alcibiades, and that a dekateutarion — that is, a place for the collection of tithes — was built in it; for those who set sail from the Pontus pay their tithes there. And so Atticus, recognizing that the place opposite had been honored with so splendid a name, declared that this one too should be called Argyropolis. And as soon as he had uttered this, the place immediately obtained that name."
Section IX. The Church defended against heretics. The death of St. Atticus.
[45] St. Atticus is praised by many holy Fathers for having been a notable champion of orthodoxy and a vigorous combatant against heresies. St. Prosper, in his book De Ingratis, against the Pelagians, celebrates his distinguished deed in refuting and rejecting the embassy of the Pelagians He refutes and rejects the Pelagians. with these verses:
"What shall I say of the care that the good priest wielded in the great city of Constantinople, with learned speech, Atticus, refuting the ambassadors of the heretics by the ancient faith — from which their impious hearts, though they covered themselves with a veil of outward form, bore the torments of judgment and silent repulse?"
But also Augustine, says Baronius under the year 425, number 20, when arguing against Julian and affirming that the Pelagian heresy was condemned at Constantinople, celebrated the praises of Bishop Atticus. He writes against the Messalians. Concerning his zeal against the Messalian heretics, Photius writes thus in his Bibliotheca, section 52: "Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, also wrote to the bishops in Pamphylia, urging them to drive out the Messalians from everywhere as accursed and abominable. Moreover, the same man wrote similarly to Amphilochius, who presided at Side." This Amphilochius was Bishop of Iconium, who together with twenty-five other bishops held a synod at Side in Pamphylia against the Messalians. Gaulterius briefly and clearly enumerates their errors in the Chronographic Table, fourth century, chapter 21.
[46] He calls the holy Virgin Mary the Mother of God. St. Cyril of Alexandria testifies that the most sacred Virgin Mary was called Theotokos by St. Atticus, in Letter 2 to Nestorius, Letter 7 to the clergy of Constantinople — who were laboring under dissensions on that account — and Letter 14 to Acacius, Bishop of Beroea, where he argues thus against this blasphemous excommunication of Nestorius: "If anyone says that Mary is the Mother of God, let him be anathema": "What, then, shall we do with the holy Fathers in the churches of the orthodox who have been struck with anathema? For I find that also the celebrated Athanasius frequently called her the Mother of God in his commentaries. And not he alone, but also our blessed Father Theophilus, and many other holy Fathers and bishops of those times — both Basil and Gregory, and the blessed Atticus himself. And I think there was no one among the orthodox who was afraid to call her the Mother of God," etc.
[47] Socrates, in the cited chapter 25, reports that Atticus, lest the followers of Sabbatius should venerate their founder, had his corpse secretly removed. "Moreover," he says, [He orders the body of the heretic Sabbatius to be secretly exhumed, lest it be venerated by his followers.] "when he once heard that those who had separated from the Novatians on account of the observance of the feast of Easter had transported the body of Sabbatius from the island of Rhodes (for it was there that he died in exile), had honored it with burial, and were offering prayers at his tomb, he sent certain persons there by night and gave them instructions to bury the body of Sabbatius in another sepulchre. When those who had come there according to their custom found the tomb dug up, they thereafter ceased to venerate the sepulchre of Sabbatius."
[48] Billius, in Book 1, chapter 26 of his Sacred Observations, has noted concerning Socrates that he preferred to follow the perfidy and impious schism of Novatus rather than embrace the faith and unity of the Church, and that therefore he took occasion, not only when offered but sometimes when deliberately sought, to record many things in praise of the Novatians, to attribute and ascribe miracles to their piety and the holiness of their life, etc. Billius and Baronius believe that the apophthegms that follow are of this kind, and were not so much pronounced by Atticus as attributed to him by Socrates. We thought it necessary to note this before citing Socrates's words. "Furthermore," he says in the passage cited, "when certain persons told him that the Novatians ought not to hold assemblies within the cities, he replied: 'You do not know what great afflictions we endured when we were tossed by the fierce storm of persecution under the reigns of Constantius and Valens, [Certain things said and done by Atticus in favor of the Novatians, or attributed to him by the Novatian Socrates.] and that at other times too they showed themselves witnesses of our faith. Moreover, having been separated from the Church long ago, they have not attempted to innovate anything regarding the faith.' Add to this that when he was at Nicaea for the purpose of ordaining a bishop, and there saw Asclepiades, the Novatian bishop, very advanced in age, he asked him how many years he had been bishop. When the latter replied 'fifty,' he said: 'Blessed indeed are you, who have administered so illustrious an office for so long a time.' To the same Asclepiades he further said: 'I praise Novatus, but I cannot at all approve the Novatians.' Asclepiades, marveling at this remark as unusual and very strange, said: 'How do you say this, Bishop?' Then Atticus replied: 'I praise him because he refused to communicate with those who had sacrificed to idols; for I myself would have done the very same thing. But I do not approve the Novatians because they exclude laypeople who have committed slight offenses from communion.' To this Asclepiades replied: 'Besides the sin of sacrificing to idols, there are many other sins unto death, as is clear from the sacred writings; for which you exclude only clerics, but we exclude even laypeople from communion, leaving the power of pardoning them to God alone.'"
[49] Atticus foretells his own death. And Atticus himself foreknew his own death. For as he was departing from Nicaea, he said to Calliopius, a priest of that church: "Make haste to come to Constantinople before autumn, so that you may see me alive once more; for if you delay, you will not find me still enjoying life." Nor was he mistaken in saying this; for in the twenty-first year of his episcopate, on the sixth day before the Ides of October, he died, He dies on October 10, in the year 425. in the eleventh consulship of Theodosius and the first of Caesar Valentinian. The Emperor Theodosius, returning from Thessalonica, did not arrive in time for his funeral. For on the day before the Emperor entered Constantinople, Atticus had already been laid in his tomb. So far Socrates. Nicephorus, Book 14, chapter 24, narrates nearly the same things, and all other authors agree on the year of his death and the duration of his episcopal administration. Finally, Pope St. Celestine, in Letter 7, which is found in volume 1 of the Council of Ephesus, chapter 17, written to Nestorius during the consulship of Theodosius XIII and Valentinian III (that is, the year of Christ 430), honors him with this eulogy: "Atticus of holy memory, a teacher of the Catholic faith and truly the successor of the blessed John even in these matters, He is praised by Pope Celestine. so persecuted them (the Pelagians) on behalf of the common King, that not even the opportunity of remaining there was afforded to them. After his passing, the greatest solicitude remained with us, as we inquired whether his successor would also succeed him in his faith, because good things are difficult to continue; for evil things often succeed each other in alternation. Yet after him we had as colleague the holy Sisinnius, celebrated for his simplicity and sanctity, who preached the faith which he had found." The Greeks celebrate him in the Menaea on October 11. Sisinnius was succeeded by Nestorius, who, having been sent into exile for his impiety, was followed as bishop by Maximian, whom we have mentioned above. Maximian's successor was St. Proclus, who (to transfer here the words of Socrates, Book 7, chapter 40) "when he had reached manhood, spent much time with Bishop Atticus and was his secretary. Atticus raised him, as he advanced greatly in learning and virtue, to the rank of deacon. And when he was deemed worthy of the honor of the priesthood, he was designated by Sisinnius, as I showed above, for the episcopate of Cyzicus. But these things had already taken place. At that time, however, he obtained the episcopal see of the Church of Constantinople. He was a man of outstanding moral integrity beyond others. For having been trained by Atticus, he diligently imitated all his virtues. The forbearance with which Atticus too was endowed, he cultivated far more than Atticus. For Atticus, when the time demanded it, struck terror into heretics. Proclus showed himself gentle and easy to all," etc. We shall treat more fully of St. Proclus, along with the Roman Martyrology, on October 24.