Proclus

ON ST. PROCLUS, BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE,

IN THE YEAR 446.

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.

Proclus, confessor and bishop, at Constantinople (S.)

BY J. V. H.

§ I. The memory of the saint is celebrated in the calendars on various days; he seems to have been born at Constantinople, whose Church he served from infancy; he is made bishop of Cyzicus, but is rejected by the people.

The memory of St. Proclus, bishop of Constantinople, is kept on this day by the Roman Martyrology in these words: The memory of St. Proclus At Constantinople, of St. Proclus, bishop. The Calendar of the Church of Constantinople, published by Stephen Morcelli, under the same day, the 24th of October, has: Memory of St. Proclus, archbishop of Constantinople. Similarly the Menology of Basil places St. Proclus on this day and weaves his encomium: encomium texit: Ὁ ἐν ἁγιοις πατηρ ἡμων Προκλος, εὐλαβης ὠν, και σοφος και ἐναρετος, ἐχειροτονηθη παρα του ἁγιου Σισιννιου πατριαρχου Κωνσταντινουπολεως ἐπισκοπος Κυζικου. Ἀπελθων δε και μὴ δεχθεις παρα των ἐκει κληρικων, ἁιρετικων ὁντων, ὐπετρεψεν ἐν Κωνσταντινουπολει, τον μεταξυ σχολαζων χρονον καὶ προσεχων ἑαυτῷ τε και τη αναγνωσει. Τελευτησαντος δε Μαξιμιανου του πατριαρχου, ἐτι του λειψανου ἀυτου κειμενου ἐν τῳ ἱερατειω του ἁγιωτατης του Θεου μεγαλης ἐκκλησιας, προχειριζεται πατριαρχης Κωνσταντινουπολεως, και ἐνθρονιζεται κατ᾽ ἀυτην την μεγαλην ἑβδομαδα εν τῃ ἁγιᾳ πεμπτῃ του σωτηριου παθους του Κυριου ἡμων Ἰησου Χριστου. Και καλως πολιτευσαμενος και μετα την χειροτονιαν, και πολλους δια της διδασκαλιας ἀυτου ὠφελησας, ἐπισκοπησεν ἐτη δωδεκα και μηνας τρεις, και τελειωθεις, ἀνεπαυσατο. Our holy father Proclus, distinguished for piety, wisdom and virtue, created bishop of Cyzicus by Sisinnius, patriarch of Constantinople, and not received by the clerics of Cyzicus, since they were heretics, returned to Constantinople, and there spent his days, giving himself to himself and to reading. And when Maximian the patriarch had died, while his remains still lay in the sanctuary of the most holy and great church of God, he was elected patriarch of Constantinople in his place, and is placed on the throne in Holy Week, on the Thursday of the saving Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. And when after his ordination he had conducted himself splendidly, and had profited many by his teaching, having completed in the episcopate twelve years and three months, he rested in peace. To this day also the Greek Menology of Cardinal Sirleto, published by Canisius, refers the following eulogy Thesaurus Monumentorum, volume III, part I, page 481.: On the same day, the commemoration of our holy father Proclus, patriarch of Constantinople, who, distinguished by his skill in sacred letters and by uprightness of morals, when he had ruled his episcopate well for twelve years and three months, passed in peace to the Lord.

[2] in the sacred calendars From the sacred calendars adduced so far, however, it must by no means be deduced that the 24th day of October is the death-day of St. Proclus. For there are others who assign other days to his annual celebration. Thus the Menology of the Horologion of the Greeks, published at Venice in the year 1532, celebrates the saint on the 10th of November, and indeed his σεπτην μεταστασιν, his venerable passing, as if he had died on that day: but the Horologion, likewise published at Venice in the year 1845, places the celebration on the 20th of November. For this reason I suspected that the typesetter had erred in the number, by omitting one mark X, or X for the XXth of November. But the Greek text too has I', not K', and thus the 10th day: my suspicion was increased also by this, that in both Horologia that day is noted as the eve of the entry of the most holy Mother of God into the temple: templum: προεορτια της ἐν τῳ ναῳ ἐισοδου της Θεοτοκου. The feast of the entry of the holy Mother of God into the temple itself therefore ought to fall on the 11th day of November. Although other Menologies that I have been able to consult attach this celebration to the 21st day of the same month: which the Roman Church likewise does, under the title of the Presentation of the Blessed Mother of God Mary in the temple. Whether therefore some error has crept into the older Horologion I should not dare to pronounce. This is certain: the Calendar of Constantinople, published by Stephen Morcelli, does not record a festivity of this kind, as not yet instituted Calendar of Constantinople, volume II, page 250.. Let these things be said in passing. For the rest, the calendars cited show that the feast of St. Proclus is not celebrated on one day among the Greeks. Wherefore the day of his death would be wrongly deduced from the day of the festivity: for, as our people note in the Chronological History of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, at the threshold of volume I of the Acts of the Saints of August Page 42., they are mistaken who persuade themselves that St. Proclus passed from this life on the 24th of October, because on that day his feast is kept in the ecclesiastical Calendars. But we learn by daily experience that the annual festivity of the Saints is very often celebrated, on account of the discovery of relics, a translation or other causes, on another day than that on which they died. And this reasoning is here all the more effective because, as we have seen, the festivity of St. Proclus is celebrated on various days.

[3] he is listed on various days: The Graeco-Muscovite Ephemerides, published by our Papebroch and Joseph Assemani, also list St. Proclus at the 20th of November: as do likewise the Menaia published in the year 1843. In these, however, his chief praises lie in this, that he was a disciple, follower and imitator of St. John Chrysostom, and brought back his body to Constantinople in solemn procession; and vindicated the divine maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary against Nestorius and his followers. We bring forward by way of example two verses or Στιχηρα written by the hymnographer [Compare Nicholas Raye, Treatise on the Greek Akolouthia, at the head of volume II, Acta SS. of June, page XVI.]: Λαμπρως ἐδογματισας και θεοφρονως ἐκηρυξας, Θεοτοκον την ἀχρατον, κορην την κυησασαν τον προ αἰωνων Κτιστην και Δεσποτην, Υἱον και Λογον του Πατρος, και ἐπ᾽ ἐσχατων δι᾽ ἡμας ἀνθρωπον γενομενον θεληματι, και μη τραπεντα της φυσεως· και Νεστοριον ᾐσχυνας ἀσεβη και παραφρονα - Ναματων ἐξηντλησας των χρυσαυγων, παναοιδιμε, του σοφου θεοκηρυκος· οὑπερ και διαδοχος και της εὐσεβειας ὠφθης και καθεδρας, ἐπιστηριζων διδαχαις της ἀληθειας Χριστου το ποιμνιον· και τουτου το ἁγνοτατον και πανσεβασμιον λειψανον, ὡσπερ κοσμον τερπνοτατον, τῃ ἐκκλησιᾳ ἀπεδωκας. You have taught glorious things and holily preached the undefiled Mother of God, the Virgin bearing the eternal Creator and Lord, the Son and Word of the Father, who at length for us of his own will became man, his nature remaining unchanged. And you have confounded the impious and demented Nestorius. — You have drained, venerable man, the precious springs of the divine herald; of whose piety and chair you are heir, you have strengthened the flock of Christ by the doctrine of truth; and his (Chrysostom's) most pure and most holy body, like a most splendid gem, you have restored to the Church (of Constantinople).

[4] probably born at Constantinople, Moreover no one, so far as we know up to now, wrote the Life of St. Proclus. Which indeed greatly grieves our Papebroch, treating of the saint in the Graeco-Muscovite Tables: His Works, he says Acta SS. volume I of May, at the head, page LIII., are extant published in Greek and Latin: would that his Life also were! Hence the deeds of the holy prelate must be collected from the Acts of the Councils, from his works and from those Histories which treat of ecclesiastical affairs. And hence it comes about that what is related here and there of the fatherland, age and youth of St. Proclus we seem to attain rather by conjectures than by suitable testimonies. He is said by some to have been born at Constantinople Butler, 24th of October; Moroni, Dizionario, under Proclo.; and indeed probably: since it is certainly established that he was created both deacon and presbyter in that city; whence it is rightly conjectured that he received the office of lector there too. And since St. Proclus attained this rank from early, as Socrates has it in book VII, chapter 41, age, ἐκ πρώτης ἡλικίας, it is natural to judge that he was born at Constantinople Tillemont, Mém. Ecclés. volume XIV, page 704.. At what time the saint was born we must again conjecture. Remy Ceillier Hist. des Aut. Ecclés. volume XIII, page 472. and Tillemont Mém. Ecclés. volume XIV, page 704. rightly determine that it took place no later than the year 390, led by this reasoning, that already in the year 426 there was question of promoting St. Proclus to the see of Constantinople. If, however, he was a disciple of St. John Chrysostom, who went into exile from Constantinople in the year 404, it seems necessary

to set his birth back ten years, and to say that he was born about the year 380. For it is not sufficiently probable that the holy man Chrysostom, assailed by so many calumnies, employed as keeper of his chamber a young lad in the first flower of his age. But this very discipleship can be called in question, since the testimonies for it do not seem firm enough. It therefore comes up for examination.

[5] He was a disciple of St. Chrysostom, The chief witness of the discipleship of St. Proclus under St. John Chrysostom is generally adduced to be George of Alexandria, the writer of the Life of St. Chrysostom. His age is uncertain, and Photius frankly confesses that he does not know it: the learned, however, think that he belongs to the seventh century and that he drew his material chiefly from Cyril of Alexandria, Socrates, Theodoret and others: for which reason Allatius vindicates his credit in very ample words Fabricius, Bibliotheca græca, volume XII, page 16, Hamburg edition.. And George the biographer, in Surius at the 27th of January, § XXXII, relates that a certain noble, cast out of the imperial court, took refuge with Chrysostom for solace and intercession: and because he feared his enemies if he approached the bishop in the daytime, he asked for a nocturnal audience. St. Proclus, whose office it was to admit those coming to the bishop, tells the man to wait a little, in order to find out whether anyone was dealing with the prelate in the chamber. Proclus, peering through a hole in the door, sees a certain grave man conversing with Chrysostom. He therefore urges the noble to wait a little while, until the other should go out. But the secret conversation went on: until the hour of the morning Lauds, which Chrysostom was accustomed to attend: the admission therefore had to be postponed to the following day. At length it became known to St. Proclus that the man speaking with the holy prelate had been the Apostle Paul, explaining his letters. From this narrative of George of Alexandria we have that St. Proclus was intimate with St. Chrysostom, as one who guarded the entrance to his chamber at night-time: moreover the man who was seeking conversation with the bishop calls St. Proclus father. You ought, he says, my father, to have admitted no one before me: by which word the biographer George hints that St. Proclus was at that time of a more advanced youth.

[6] and ordained deacon by Atticus of Constantinople: But although it seems that it must be admitted that St. Proclus was chamberlain to St. Chrysostom, as the praises composed in his honour very often proclaim; yet a more advanced age must be denied him. For, as Socrates teaches us in book VII, chapter 41, Proclus had been a lector from early age, and as a hearer had applied himself to the teachers of rhetoric. And when he had grown to manhood, he was frequently with Bishop Atticus, and was the amanuensis ὑπογραφευς of his books. And Atticus raised him as he advanced to the Order of the diaconate also: then, having obtained the presbyterate too, he was ordained by Sisinnius to the episcopate of Cyzicus. Now at that time the lawful age for obtaining the diaconate in the Greek Church was twenty-five years, as is clear from canon 14 of the Quini-Sext Council, celebrated in the year 692 Labbe, volume VI of the Councils, column 1149., which renews the canon of the ancient Fathers, that a presbyter be not ordained before thirty years, even if he be a very worthy man… Similarly neither a deacon before twenty-five years. If indeed St. Proclus was a disciple of St. Chrysostom, I do not suppose that he would have wished to adhere to Atticus before the latter had restored the name of his master to the sacred tables. And hence it comes about that St. Proclus exceeded the lawful age by some years before he was ordained deacon. If we then weigh that in the year 426 it was a question of St. Proclus succeeding Atticus in the episcopate of Constantinople, we easily persuade ourselves that the birth year of our saint comes nearer to the common year 380 than to 390. For in the Church of Constantinople there were many men of the first rank, among whom Proclus and Sisinnius were eminent, as Socrates testifies in book VII, chapter 26: After the death of Atticus, who died on the fourth day before the ides (the 10th) of October 425, an enormous contention arose over the ordination of a bishop, some demanding one, others another. For some desired Philip the presbyter; some Proclus, who was also a presbyter. But the whole people by common consent wished for Sisinnius… The zeal of the laity therefore prevailed: and Sisinnius was ordained on the day before the kalends of March, in the consulship next following, which was the twelfth of Theodosius and the second of Valentinian the Younger, Augustus, or the year of Christ 426. From the text of Socrates we have that St. Proclus was promoted by Atticus to the order of the presbyterate, since when he was dying he is called a presbyter of the Church of Constantinople.

[7] after his death he was Sisinnius's competitor for the see of Constantinople; It is clear enough that the chronological arrangement so far established rests especially on the mastership of St. John Chrysostom, to the extent that St. Proclus was his disciple. And indeed the reckoning of time is by no means an obstacle: since St. Chrysostom held the see of Constantinople peacefully for six years, namely from the year of Christ 398 to 404: in which interval of years St. Proclus was living among the clerics at Constantinople. This too is openly taught by George of Alexandria, as we have shown above at number 5: in agreement are the Menaia, celebrating St. Proclus as of equal virtue with St. Chrysostom, and his successor on the throne of Constantinople. The Horologion, which is held as a kind of Greek Breviary, relates that the saint lived in the times of Theodosius the Younger, and was held to be the disciple and amanuensis of Chrysostom: ἐχρηματισε μαθητης και γραφευς του Χρυσοστομου. Which is finally confirmed by Nicephorus Callistus, book XIV, chapter 38, saying Paris edition of Du Duc, 1640, volume II, page 522.: Proclus, having used teachers from his first hair, laboured especially at the art of speaking. Enrolled at a very youthful age in the order of lectors, after his youth was over he was first the follower and minister of St. John Chrysostom, then administering the Church of Constantinople, and his helper in writing books, συνεργος των λογων, and the attendant of his person. He, looking through the cracks of the door, saw Paul dictating into the ear of John the Great, and revealing the more hidden sense of his letters. And when the latter lived in exile, not falling away from affection for him, he was with his successor Bishop Atticus, the scribe of his orations, ὑπογραφευς των ἐκεινου λογων. Whom the latter, advancing in the divine way of life, raised to the rank of the diaconate. It seems therefore from these things that St. Proclus belonged to those who, as Cassiodorus relates in book X of the Tripartite History, chapter 17 Migne, Patrology, volume LXIX, column 1178., celebrated Easter in the baths which are called Constantinian. With whom very many bishops, presbyters and clerics of the sacred order were stirred, celebrating assemblies apart in various places: whence also they were called Joannites: because, namely, abhorring the unjust deposition of St. John Chrysostom, they refused to communicate with those who were usurping his see.

[8] from whom he received the episcopate of Cyzicus, The people of Constantinople preferred Sisinnius as their bishop to St. Proclus, as we said above at number 6. But this rivalry did not bring the two holy men into dissension. For when the See of Cyzicus, the metropolis of the Hellespont, was vacant, Sisinnius promoted his friend Proclus to that chair. The bishop of the people of Cyzicus having died, says Socrates in book VII, chapter 28, Sisinnius ordained Proclus bishop at Cyzicus. And so when Proclus was about to set out for Cyzicus, the people of Cyzicus forestalled him, and ordained a religious man, ἀνδρα ἀσκητικον, by name Dalmatius. And they did this neglecting the law which orders that no ordination of a bishop be made without the judgment of the bishop of Constantinople. And they neglected that law on the ground that it had been issued with reference to the person of Atticus alone. Proclus therefore remained at Constantinople, and although he did not preside over his own Church, he nevertheless flourished by teaching in the churches of Constantinople. Cassiodorus writes the same in the Tripartite History, book XII, chapter 3 Ibid. column 1203.. But who the bishop of Cyzicus was in whose place, after his death, St. Proclus was substituted the catalogues of bishops do not make manifest: for Eleusius, who immediately precedes, already occupied the see of Cyzicus from the year 356 Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, volume I, column 750.; and so could not have reached the year 427; especially as before his episcopate, as Sozomen testifies in book IV, chapter 20, he had served splendidly in the palace. That Dalmatius, who forestalled St. Proclus, is called a religious man ought not to deceive: for in Greek he is called an ascetic man or monk, and the same Sozomen testifies that he was a good man, yet most fierce in harrying those who professed the Son to be consubstantial with the Father. He was, namely, a Semi-Arian, who taught that the Son was like the Father, not consubstantial: and hence it comes about that the Menology of Basil, cited at number 1, says that Dalmatius was elected by heretics. And indeed the people of Cyzicus, refusing a bishop unlike Eleusius, whom, says Socrates in book IV, chapter 6, they attended with incredible love, showed well enough that they obstinately adhered to his errors.

[9] the people however rejecting him and instituting another. As regards the right of ordaining the bishop of Cyzicus, without consulting the clergy and people, which Sisinnius of Constantinople was claiming for himself, it seems to have had its root in canon III, according to Hervetus, of the Council of Constantinople of the year 381, by which it is determined that the bishop of Constantinople shall have the first parts of honour after the Roman bishop, because it is the new Rome Labbe, volume II of the Councils, column 948.. Baronius, at the year 381, § XXXV, holds that canon to be a fiction, as one by which Anatolius of Constantinople did not defend himself when accused by St. Leo the Great of usurped right. But Pagi in his Critique at the same year, § VIII, vindicates its authenticity; first of all because it is reported by the contemporary writers Socrates, book V, chapter 8, Sozomen, book VII, chapter 9, and by the Greek and Latin codices of every age. That Anatolius did not cite the Constantinopolitan canon is not accurate. For St. Leo in letter CVI, addressed to Anatolius Migne, Patrology, volume LIV, column 1005., says that this canon, written sixty years before (more truly seventy years before, as others have it Ibid. column 1007., from the common year 381 to 451) by certain bishops, had never been transmitted to the notice of the apostolic see by the predecessors of Anatolius. From which words it is clear that Anatolius put forward the Constantinopolitan canon to Pope Leo for the sake of his defence. For the rest, it is not our purpose to unfold in more detail the beginnings and progress of the patriarchate of Constantinople, which Michael Le Quien sets forth at length in his proem to the Church of Constantinople Oriens Christianus, volume I, column 1 and following.. Yet the authority of the bishops of Constantinople did not grow without the envy of some: for even this was drawn into a fault against St. Chrysostom, that he extended his jurisdiction to other Churches Hermant, Vie de S. Jean Chrys. page 373.: and in fact we see that the holy man, as Theodoret relates in his History, book V, chapter 28, governed and adorned with laws not only the royal city, but the whole of Thrace, divided into six provinces, and all Asia and Pontus. To this quasi-usucaption a crowning addition was made by law 45 on Bishops of the Theodosian Code (book XVI, title II), by which the bishops of Illyricum are ordered that, if anything doubtful should emerge, it should not, without the knowledge of the most reverend man, the prelate of the most holy law of the City

of Constantinople (which rejoices in the prerogative of Old Rome), be reserved to the priestly assembly and holy judgment.

§ II. Nestorius being deposed and Maximian having ended his life, the saint receives the episcopate of Constantinople: the canons on the translation of bishops and the mildness praised by Socrates are brought to the scale.

Nestorius having been made bishop of Constantinople, While St. Proclus, cast out from the episcopate of Cyzicus, was living in laborious leisure at Constantinople, as one who obtained the greatest glory by preaching in the churches of Constantinople Socrates, book VII, chapter 28., it happened that Sisinnius, when he had not yet completed two years in the episcopate, passed from this light Ibid. at the place cited.. After whose death, on account of men eager for vain glory, it pleased the emperors to promote no one from the Church of Constantinople to the episcopate: although many contended with the utmost zeal that Philip should be ordained, and many also Proclus. It seemed better therefore to call a stranger from Antioch. He was a certain man named Nestorius, born in the City of Germanicia, of sonorous voice and ready eloquence: and for that reason they decided to send for him, as suitable for teaching the people. So after the space of three months had elapsed, Nestorius is brought from Antioch. He was proclaimed by very many for his temperance, but in other respects, of what disposition and what manners he was, all the more prudent gathered at once from his first discourse. For having been ordained on the fourth day before the ides of April, Felix and Taurus being consuls (the 10th of April 428), he at once, addressing the emperor before the whole people, brought out that celebrated saying: Give me, he said, O emperor, the earth purged of heretics; and I will give you heaven in return: war down the heretics with me; I will war down the Persians with you. These words, although some of the common people, who hated heretics, gladly embraced them, yet to those, as I have said, who know how to gather the inner sense of the mind from words, the levity and violence of the man, joined with the eagerness for vain glory, was at once evident: since, not enduring the delay of even the briefest time, he had burst out into words of this kind; and before he had tasted, as the common saying is, the very water of the city, he showed himself a most fierce persecutor Ibid. chapter 28.. Socrates then relates how Nestorius pursued the Arians, Macedonians and Novatians: someone may perhaps judge that these things were said by Socrates more harshly than was just: but if he considers the subsequent action of Nestorius, he will easily see that the severity is not immoderate.

[11] and as he propagated his heresy, publicly Nestorius being ordained, says Liberatus the Deacon in the Breviarium Migne, Patrology, volume LXVIII, column 974., on the first (better, the tenth) day of the month of April, Anastasius the presbyter (a friend and counsellor of Nestorius), teaching before the Church, said: “Let no one presume to call Mary the Mother of God: for Mary was human, and that God should be begotten of a human being is altogether impossible.” When very many of the clerics and laity heard this at the same time, they were greatly disturbed. For they had learned from of old to confess Christ as God, and in no way believed man to be separated from God through the dispensation. A tumult therefore having arisen in the church, Nestorius, wishing to confirm the discourse of Anastasius, because he honoured him, refused to rebuke him as a blasphemer, but frequently taught this before the Church, and agitated the question with contentions, denying the confession of the Mother of God. The first of all to rise up publicly against the doctrine of Nestorius was Eusebius, a layman, afterwards bishop of Dorylaeum: but, as Theophanes further relates in the Chronography Byzantine History, page 61, Venice edition., on a certain Sunday (perhaps the 24th day of March, the vigil of the Annunciation of Blessed Mary), Nestorius himself presiding over the Church, Proclus, being ordered to set forth a sacred discourse, delivered a homily on the Mother of God Θεοτοκον, whose beginning is: The celebration of the Virgin today, brethren. From that time the impious Nestorius became execrable to all on account of his pride and depraved faith. This homily has been preserved for us, of which we present a synopsis. The first words sufficiently indicate that the oration was delivered in a celebrated gathering for the solemnities of Mary; and indeed according to the Annotation added to the beginning of the homily, it seems to have been spoken at the celebration of the Annunciation, του εὐαγγελισμου, of the most blessed Virgin, saluted by the Angel, when, conceiving the Lord Christ, she was truly made Mother of God Migne, Greek Patrology, volume LXV, column 679.. I should certainly not object, had the day not misled the Annotator. For Nestorius, having obtained the see of Constantinople in the month of April 428, could not have enjoined a discourse on Proclus except in the following year, in which the day of the Annunciation, the 25th of March Compare Acta SS. volume III of March, page 534., fell on the Monday: and so, since St. Proclus delivered his sermon on a certain Sunday, ἐν μιᾳ κυριακῃ, it will have to be said that he pronounced it on the vigil, which is to this day solemn among the Greeks Compare the Menaia at the 24th of March.. But let us come to the homily itself.

[12] St. Proclus resists and a homily Having said some things by way of preface on the solemnity, at which all nature exulted, he at once attacks the agitated question: Here, he says Migne, Greek Patrology, volume LXV, column 682., the holy Mother of God and Virgin Mary has now gathered us together, συνεκαλεσε γαρ ἡμας νυν ἐνταυθα ἡ ἁγια Θεοτοκος Παρθενος Μαρια: that undefiled treasure of virginity, the spiritual paradise of the second Adam, the workshop of the union of the natures, το ἐργαστηριον της ἑνωσεως των φυσεων. He then shows that he who was born of a woman was not God bare, nor yet a mere man… A temple, he says further, in which God was made priest; not changing his nature, but putting on, through mercy, him who is according to the order of Melchisedech. “The Word was made flesh” John I, 14., although the Jews do not believe the Lord when he speaks: truly God put on the form of man, even though the Gentiles mock at the miracle. For on that account Paul cried out: “Unto the Jews indeed a scandal, and unto the Gentiles foolishness.” I Corinthians I, 23. For neither did they know the force of the mystery, because the miracle surpasses reason: “For if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.” I Corinthians II, 8. For had the Word not dwelt in the womb, neither would flesh have sat down on the holy throne. If it is a disgrace to God to slip into the womb which he himself had formed, it would be a shame also to minister to men: but if it were a shame to God to minister to men, by no means, being rich, would he have become needy for us. II Corinthians VIII, 9. He who by nature was impassible made himself, on account of his mercy, liable to many sufferings, πολυπατην. By no means did Christ become God by advancement. Far be it. But being God, as faith teaches, moved by mercy he was made man. We do not proclaim a man deified; but we confess God incarnate… He therefore who redeemed us, O Jew, is not a mere man; for the whole nature of men was held oppressed by the slavery of sin: nor yet God alone, destitute of human nature; for he had a body, O Manichee… If Christ is one and God the Word another, the Trinity will no longer be a Holy Trinity: but by your opinion, O heretic, a quaternity. From which words St. Proclus concludes that holy Mary has been declared the Mother of God. Let all contradiction therefore be done away, and let us be enlightened by the doctrine of the Scriptures, that we may also attain the kingdom of the heavens in Christ.

[13] he pronounces, in which he demonstrates that Mary is Mother of God: Although we know nothing in particular of the persecution which St. Proclus suffered from Nestorius for the defence of Catholic dogma, there is nevertheless no doubt that the saint, having spoken such things in the presence of Nestorius himself and pronounced him a heretic, underwent the anger of Nestorius. The proud man will not have spared a public denouncer, who afflicted muttering monks with the heaviest punishments. There exists in the Acts of the council of Ephesus the complaint of Basil the archimandrite and the other monks, addressed to the emperor. Certain men, they say Labbe, volume III of the Councils, column 428., from the number of the most reverend presbyters have not infrequently openly rebuked in public assembly Nestorius, who holds the episcopate of this see (if indeed it is right to call him a bishop), because with obstinate contention of mind he persists in denying that Christ is by nature true God and the holy Virgin the Mother of God, and have fallen away from his communion and are falling away to this present day. There can be no doubt that among those who separated themselves from the communion of Nestorius the heretic St. Proclus too comes to be numbered, whose oration, which we have shown above, is reported in the first place among the Acts of the council of Ephesus Ibid. column 9., and so he was among those who not only secretly withdrew from the fellowship of Nestorius, but among the most religious presbyters who, because they inveighed in the church of Irene Maritima against the depraved dogma sprouting afresh, were deprived of the faculty of speaking. The monks then set forth how they were seized on account of the profession of the true faith: and how, a crowd of attendants beating them, stripped and bound, they were flogged in unworthy ways, stretched at the stake, and assailed with kicks. Finally, they say, we have suffered in the church unjustly from that unjust man such things as men of even the lowest lot do not experience in the civil court, we do not say clerics and monks and archimandrites. For the rest, having been long and much harried there, and wasting with hunger, we were kept under guard for no small time. Nor did his furies, content with this, rest; but by a certain imposture we were handed over to the most magnificent prefect of this most celebrated city: and loaded with iron we are dragged off to prison: drawn out from there again, and shackled with chains as before, we are brought before the praetorium. And when there was plainly no one at hand there to accuse us, we are led back again by the attendants to the place of the accused; and brought back here, we are again struck in the face by him.

[14] Nestorius, persecutor of the clergy, having been deposed, Although, as is clear from the text, besides the monks clerics too are reported to have been ill-treated by Nestorius, we think that these clerics were of the inferior bench; nor are the most reverend presbyters, of whom mention was made a little above, to be counted among them. They were too powerful for Nestorius to dare to subject such men to torments. Nor, for the rest, would the monks have been silent if the chief men of the clergy had been treated in unworthy ways. Although therefore St. Proclus persevered unmoved in the true faith, and did not cease to attack its enemies, he does not seem to have fought for the truth to the point of bodily torments. A bishop, though destitute of his own see, would not have undergone bodily vexations without some memory of the cruelty exercised remaining as survivor. Bishop Nestorius, as often happens, fearing a commotion of the people if he attacked the chief men of the secular clergy, preferred to sharpen his wrath against the monks, who are generally less known to the people. Which for the rest we see today also: for those who busy themselves with inflicting some wound on religion always first rage against the monks, that as by mines they may gradually undermine the Church herself. And what is wonderful, we sometimes see men, otherwise upright and thoroughly Catholic, not indeed openly subscribing to contrivances of this kind, but nevertheless secretly supporting them with certain gibes. But enough of these things.

[15] and Maximian having died, to the see of Constantinople When in the year 431, before the 25th day of June, Nestorius had been deposed in the synod of Ephesus, four months later Maximian was put in his place, a man who had indeed professed the monastic life, but had been enrolled in the order of presbyters Socrates, book VI, chapter 35.. Of St. Maximian our people treat at

the 21st day of April Acta SS. volume II of April, 847.. He sat for two years, five months and eighteen days: for, placed on the chair of Constantinople in the year 431, he ended his life on the Thursday of Holy Week, which in the year 434 fell on the 12th of April, or the day before the ides of the said month Ibid. Preliminary Treatise, volume I of August, page 40*.. And since after the deposition of Nestorius too, as Socrates says Book VII, chapter 35 and 40., a dispute had arisen anew over the election of a bishop, many wanting Philip, more wanting Proclus; the emperor Theodosius, that he might cut away every cause of disturbance, without delay, the body of Maximian not yet being buried, ordered the bishops present to ordain Proclus, ἐνθρονισαι ἐπετρεψεν: for to that matter there were agreeable also the letters of Celestine, bishop of Rome, which had been brought, which he had sent to Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch and Rufus of Thessalonica, teaching that nothing prevented one who had been designated for another Church, or was even a bishop, from being transferred to another Church. Ordained, ἐνθρονισθεις, therefore, Proclus took care of the funeral of the body of Maximian. But, says the said Socrates Book VII, chapter 36., since some, alleging an ecclesiastical canon, prohibited the ordination of Proclus, who had already been named bishop of the city of Cyzicus, I have determined to say a few words on this matter. He then cites examples of bishops transferred from one see to another: and concludes more broadly than is fair that among the elders it was a thing of indifferent use, ἀδιοφορον, to transfer a bishop from one city to another, as often as necessity required. And if it is necessary also to weave into this History the canon established on this matter, it will become altogether plain how falsely it was cited by those who opposed the ordination of Proclus. The canon, then, runs thus: “If any bishop, ordained to any Church, has not gone on to the Church to which he has been ordained, not through his own fault, but either because the people have refused to admit him, or for another cause not proceeding from his own fault, let him share in honour and ministry, provided he brings no trouble to the affairs of the Church in which he is assembled.” This canon is the eighteenth of the council of Antioch celebrated in the year 341 Compare Labbe, volume II of the Councils, column 570..

[16] St. Proclus succeeds, The sacred canons certainly condemned translations of bishops to richer and more honoured Churches; but they admitted cases of necessity or of the utility of the Churches. There was still extant the recent memory of St. Gregory Nazianzen, thrust out from the chair of Constantinople as if occupying another's see; for scarcely fifty years before it had happened Acta SS. volume II of May, page 372.: for this reason the consent of Pope Celestine is held out in front of the election of St. Proclus: which he more probably gave when a successor was to be designated upon the deposition of Nestorius: for then again, as we have seen, there were those who demanded Proclus as bishop for themselves: and Celestine himself had ended his life in the month of July of the year 432, and so almost eighteen months before the death of Maximian of Constantinople. Besides, both the death of St. Maximian and hence the elevation of St. Proclus to the see of Constantinople took place unexpectedly. For it is clear from the surviving fragment of the Synodal Letter of St. Proclus Migne, Greek Patrology, volume LXV, column 886. that Maximian suddenly passed from the present life: whence the Nestorians became bolder, and multitudes, heaped together in many parts of the city, demanded Nestorius back with public clamour, and threatened dangers to the city and burnings to the church. These tumults too were more probably the cause why the emperor Theodosius hastened the promotion of St. Proclus: for Nestorius was still living, banished to Egypt, and died in the year 436. Finally it is worthy of notice that in the translation of St. Proclus from the see of Cyzicus to that of Constantinople the Roman Pontiff intervened as author: for it was a question of a primary see, subject to no other. But lesser bishops were transferred by the authority of the patriarchs, or of those who claimed a like right for themselves. Thus Atticus of Constantinople, as Socrates relates Ibid. at the place cited., carried over to the chair of Troas Sylvanus, who as bishop at Philippopolis could not bear the cold of the region.

[17] whose mildness, And this man (Proclus), says Socrates Book VII, chapter 41., was, if anyone else was, good in disposition and manners; for, trained by Atticus, he imitated whatever good things had been in him; and he showed greater clemency than there had been in Atticus. For the latter had shown himself terrible to heretics at times: but this man was gentle towards all, and considered beforehand that in this way he would attract them more than by violence. For, wishing to harry no heresy, he preserved his dignity safe by mildness, and restored it as a kind of deposit to the Church: in which matter he imitated the emperor Theodosius. For it was ratified and fixed with the latter not to use imperial power against the guilty; and it was the purpose of the former to make little of it if anyone thought of God otherwise than he himself. For these things therefore the emperor Theodosius greatly praised Proclus. Far be it from us, however, to interpret the mildness of St. Proclus in the worse part, and to fasten on him, as the words of Socrates sound, indifferentism, as it is commonly called. St. Proclus hoped that he would attract heretics by gentleness rather than by violence; for which reason he abstained from all vexation, so long as the Catholic faith itself should suffer no detriment. And certainly he who did not fear to vindicate Catholic dogma in the presence of Nestorius himself, and openly to proclaim its contradicters heretics, and to undergo the public indignation of his bishop, then supported indeed by imperial authority, he, I say, having been made bishop while Nestorius was still surviving, did not dissemble Catholic truth, and did not suffer the contrary error, as it stalked abroad, to be freely propagated. Hence the words of Socrates recited above must be taken in a milder interpretation.

[18] praised by Socrates, And this indeed all the more safely, because, since he makes the emperor Theodosius equal to Proclus the bishop, one may judge of the mildness of both from the manner of acting of either against heretics. Let us see, then, how Theodosius wished the Nestorians to be treated. There exists in the Theodosian Code, law 66, on Heretics (XVI, 5), a rescript given in the consulships of Theodosius XV and Valentinian IV, or the year of Christ 435. Nestorius, the author of a monstrous superstition, having been condemned, let the mark of a fitting name be branded on his herd, that they may not abuse the appellation of Christians: but as the Arians by the law of Constantine of divine memory are called Porphyrians from Porphyry on account of the similarity of their impieties; so let the sharers everywhere of the unspeakable sect of Nestorius be called Simonians: that they may rightly seem to have obtained the appellation of him whose crime they have imitated in deserting God. Nor let anyone dare to have or to read or to copy the impious books of the unspeakable and sacrilegious Nestorius, written against the venerable sect of the orthodox and the decrees of the most holy assembly of prelates held at Ephesus: which we decree to be sought out with diligent zeal and publicly burned. So that no one in a disputation on religion shall make any mention of the aforesaid name; or furnish to any of them, for the sake of holding a council, in his house, or villa, or suburban estate, or any place at all, a conventicle secretly or openly, whom we determine to be deprived of all licence of holding an assembly. Let all know that the violator of this law is to be restrained by confiscation of goods. Given on the third day before the nones (the 3rd) of August at Constantinople, Theodosius being consul for the XVth time and he who should be announced. And we see that this law had its effect, in the exile of Irenaeus the count and Photius, which Theodosius inflicted on the obstinate, as the Synodicon shows, chapter 188 Christian Lupus, Works, volume VII, page 346.: likewise sixteen bishops too had to go into exile from their sees, as the cited Synodicon teaches, chapters 182, 183, 184 and 190.

[19] is explained. From these things it becomes manifest that the mildness of Theodosius, praised by Socrates, by no means went as far as freedom to disseminate error, and that severe action was taken against those who could have created dangers to the Catholic faith, such as especially were the bishops, who under a sheep's skin were ravening wolves. Moreover, as was the mildness of the emperor Theodosius, such was that of St. Proclus the bishop: so that he nowhere permitted error freely to stalk abroad. No one, so far as we know, separated himself from his communion as if he connived at those in error: whereas Maximus, deacon and archimandrite, accused John, bishop of Antioch, of sloth, because, as Pagi has it Critique of Baronius, year 435, § VI., he had received into the grace of full communion in his Church certain followers of Nestorius, because they denied it: for which reason Maximus was striving to separate himself from his bishop: but St. Cyril endeavours to persuade him to return to the communion of his bishop, and to pass over the rest by way of dispensation, because, he says, the matter needs great moderation. But the moderation of John of Antioch, excused by St. Cyril, is openly rebuked by St. Proclus, in a letter given to the same John. For when Ibas, bishop of Edessa, was accused of being inclined to Nestorian errors, inasmuch as he had turned the books of Theodore of Mopsuestia into the Syriac tongue and disseminated them through all the East, and had been unwilling to subscribe to the Catholic letter of Proclus to the Armenians, St. Proclus brought the cause of Ibas to John of Antioch, under whose jurisdiction the see of Edessa was established. And he admonished John to inquire against Ibas with brave spirit, mindful of the example of Heli the priest, who incurred divine anger because he spared his sons, who were sinning and provoking others to sin. Heli, he says Migne, Greek Patrology, volume LXV, column 874., worn with age and sacrificing in Silo the things pertaining to the law, did not himself indeed do the things that the boys dared; but he co-operated with them when he did not forbid them as they sinned: since according to true reason, not to forbid is akin to him who commits shameful deeds… For which reason punishment was brought equally both upon those who had done impious things and upon him who did not forbid. We ought not therefore to interpret the mildness of St. Proclus praised by Socrates to mean that he left a free faculty to error, but that he left bodily punishments to the discretion of the emperor, who was likewise praised by the same Socrates for mildness, although, as we have seen, the decreer of heavier punishments. And St. Proclus himself meanwhile, by pastoral vigilance and the ministry of the word, diligently kept the plague from the flock. There is therefore nothing to make us take the incautious words of Socrates in the worse part.

§ III. The saint's letter to the Armenians; the cause of Athanasius, bishop of Perrhe.

St. Proclus writes, being asked That he might more surely destroy the errors condemned in the synod of Ephesus, the emperor Theodosius had consigned the books of Nestorius, as we saw at number 18, to the flames. The Nestorians, to evade the law that had been issued, began to propagate the books of older writers akin to their errors. Chief among these were the bishops Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia: each had commented on almost the whole of Scripture, and had departed from life in the peace of the Church. And so the Nestorians disseminated their volumes, translated into the tongue of the Syrians, Armenians and Persians, through all the provinces. By this art indeed they gained especially two advantages: first, that what Nestorius taught was not new; for the Church of God abhors novelty; second, that men pre-eminently learned and Catholic had taught the same dogmas. But these things, says Liberatus in his Breviarium Ibid. volume LXVIII, column 990., when Acacius of Melitene (in Armenia) and Rabbula

of the city of Edessa (in Syria), bishops, perceived them, they wrote to the bishops of Armenia not to receive the books of Theodore of Mopsuestia, as those of a heretic and the author of the Nestorian dogma; the bishops of Cilicia accusing Rabbula and Acacius of having done this not out of charity, but out of rivalry and contention. For in Cilicia Theodore and Diodore had held the pontificate, and had left a great fame of their name. The venerable bishops of Armenia therefore, Liberatus continues, gathered together and sent two presbyters, Leontius and Aberius, to Proclus, bishop of Constantinople, according to custom, with their memorials and one volume of Theodore of Mopsuestia, wishing to know whether the doctrine of Theodore, or that of Rabbula and Acacius, was proved to be true.

[21] to the Armenians And so Proclus, receiving the memorial of the bishops of Armenia and that volume of Theodore, examining both very diligently, wrote and dispatched a tome to the Armenians, in which, to destroy the subtleties of the Nestorians, who introduce two persons in Christ, he put: “One of the Trinity incarnate”: which he also directed to John of Antioch through his deacon Theodore, containing underneath chapters brought forward by the heretics, asking of him, for the preservation of the common faith, to receive it with his council and to subscribe it. And this is that celebrated tome or letter directed by St. Proclus to the bishops of Armenia, which was provoked by a letter given to the holy prelate and openly denouncing the errors of the man of Mopsuestia, to the effect that he was a pestilent man, or rather a beast, having the diabolic form of a man, by a lying name Theodore, who had the appearance and name of a bishop, lurking in a corner and ignoble place of the world, in Mopsuestia, a mean town of Second Cilicia, descending truly and principally from Paul of Samosata, although in the book “On the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ” he is found in his whole purpose to have used the very words of Photinus and the other heretics, and something worse if there is anything worse. He by the machination and boldness and error of the devil wished to destroy all men with his sharp tongue, like a serpent's, and with the poison that is under the tongue of the asp. Some errors are then brought forward, from which the impiety of Nestorius was born, as one who was a disciple of Theodore. Finally they conclude their letter by asking that, as Nestorius was manifestly and by name condemned in the synod of Ephesus by the universal Church, so likewise Proclus would have the more sacrilegious Theodore, condemned before without his name, condemned by name, with all who up to now in Syria and Cilicia think and teach according to his most impious exposition Migne, Greek Patrology, volume LXV, column 851.. For Theodore had many followers in Syria, because he had long taught in its metropolis Antioch, and in Cilicia, because he had exercised the episcopate in that province for thirty-six years Ceillier, Aut. Eccles. volume X, page 489..

[22] and he explains the Lord's Having set first the praise of the cardinal and especially of the theological virtues, St. Proclus replies to the Armenians by dwelling on the doctrine of the Lord's Incarnation. God himself, he says Migne, Patrology, volume LXV, column 859., without figure, without beginning, uncircumscribed, and the almighty Word, coming, was incarnate: for it was in his power, when he willed, and taking the form of a servant he was made flesh, and born of a Virgin, wishing everywhere to show that he was truly made man: for the very nature of the condition is necessarily followed by beginnings and sufferings… We therefore confess, using both words of Scripture, that he was both made flesh and took the form of a servant, and both, piously understood, are seeds of salvation for us. John I, 14, Philippians II, 7. For by that which he says, “Was made,” the Evangelist suggests the indivisible force of the highest union. For as a unity cannot be divided into two unities; for if it is divided it will no longer be unity, but duality: so what is one by the highest union will never be divided into two. Moreover the word, “Took,” declares the immobility of nature… For neither was he produced from things not existing, who never had a beginning; nor was that unchangeable Word changed from some existing things… But if the swaddling clothes offer to some an occasion of scandal, and that laying in the manger, and that increase in time according to the flesh, and that he slept in the ship, and was wearied by the journey, and hungered at the time, and whatever things befit him who in truth was made man: let them know that while they mock the sufferings, they deny the nature; and while they deny the nature, they do not believe the dispensation; and not believing the dispensation, they do damage to salvation… But they will utter that which is spread abroad in the talk of many, and will weave syllogisms weaker than spiders' webs: If the Trinity is of the same essence, surely the Trinity is impassible: But God the Word is regarded in the Trinity: The Word therefore is impassible. And if God the Word is impassible, it is gathered therefore that the crucified one is another besides God the Word, who is impassible. Truly they weave a spider's web who say these things; and they write on the waters who meditate these empty propositions… What then do we say to these things? Indeed that as far as concerns the reckoning of divinity, the Trinity is consubstantial and impassible: for neither when we say that the Word suffered, do we say that he suffered in respect of divinity: for the divine nature receives no suffering. But confessing that God the Word, one person of the Trinity, was incarnate, to those who inquire with faith we bring a cause for understanding why he was incarnate… Wishing to destroy the sufferings that oppressed the rational flesh, of which the highest citadel was destruction, he is incarnate of a Virgin, as God the Word himself knows, and is formed in condition as a man: for so it pleased him: and he emptied himself in the form of a servant, admitting no circumscription of his deity: and in this way he bestows salvation on the whole race of men, destroying sufferings in his own flesh, but keeping his deity impassible.

[23] the mystery of the Incarnation, Let us flee therefore the turbid and muddy streams of deceptions, heresies, I say, fighting with God … this too newly fabricated and new blasphemy, which far surpasses Judaism in the magnitude of its blasphemy… Stand fast therefore in one spirit, with one mind labouring together for the faith of the Gospel; and be in nothing terrified by your adversaries; but keep the traditions which you have received from the holy and blessed fathers who at Nicaea set forth the right faith, and from the holy and blessed men Basil and Gregory and the rest who thought the same as they, whose names are in the book of life. To his letter St. Proclus had subjoined certain chapters extracted from the books of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which he proposed for condemnation without mentioning the author's name, but these are missing in all the copies Ceillier, Aut. Eccles. volume XIII, page 477.. Moreover the letter of Proclus is said to have been written in the consulship of the most pious Theodosius Augustus for the XVth time and Valentinian for the IVth Pagi, Critique of Baronius, year 435, § XIV.. But this cannot be fitted to the law of Theodosius, cited above at number 18, given in the same year: for within the space of a few months Theodosius would have consigned the books of Nestorius to the fire, the Nestorians would have translated the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia into the Syriac, Armenian and Persian tongues, and spread them through the provinces of those peoples: the bishops would have celebrated synods to avert the evil plague, and directed envoys to St. Proclus at Constantinople; and he finally would have written a dogmatic letter, to be approved by the vote of the chief bishops. If this letter of St. Proclus was given in the year 435, not even five whole months remain for accomplishing all these things; for the Theodosian law was issued on the third day before the ides of August. Some have indeed suspected that the month is faulty and that for August one should read April, by which emendation they judge that there is sufficient time for accomplishing everything Ibid. § XV.. I should not oppose the proposed emendation if it were certain that the letter of St. Proclus was written in the year 435: but it is mutilated at the end, since, as we have said, the chapters to be anathematized are missing: then too not only in the Theodosian Code cited above, but in the Code of Justinian on Heretics (I, 5) the same month of August is set down: so that it is difficult to blame the carelessness of copyists. For this reason we prefer to put off the writing of the letter to the Armenians to the following year 436.

[24] But although, as we said at number 21, the Armenians had denounced Theodore of Mopsuestia, the names of the ringleaders being however omitted, as the father of the error, St. Proclus nevertheless studiously abstained from either condemning or even naming him, fearing new tempests. This manner of acting St. Cyril of Alexandria approved, writing to our saint Works of Cyril, volume V, part II, page 199, Paris edition, 1638. that the emperor had been petitioned by some to anathematize the books of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the said man himself: but that his name was great through the East and his writings held in admiration; and, as they say, all are saddened that a noble man who died in the communion of the Churches is anathematized. For this reason Cyril urges Proclus to spare the name of Theodore. Our holy prelate had therefore acted prudently; and he had sent the letter inscribed to the Armenians to John of Antioch, who, having convoked a synod of the Eastern bishops, approved it Baluze, Nova Collectio Conciliorum, column 946.. But meanwhile it had become widely reported that the letter of Proclus was directed against Theodore of Mopsuestia: for which reason John replies Migne, Greek Patrology, volume LXV, column 877. that his soul is wounded because a man is accused of error who departed well from life, who for forty-five years shone forth brightly in doctrine, and overcame every heresy, and receiving no detraction anywhere from the orthodox in his life, after his departure hence so long ago, and after many contests, after ten thousand books written against errors, is in danger of undergoing the things of heretics. Let it be said here in passing that the writing of ten thousand volumes has been wrongly attributed by some to Theodore Ceillier, Aut. Eccles. volume X, page 492.: for it is a simple rhetorical figure, commonly called synecdoche, a definite number for an indefinite: as is sufficiently established from the same letter, in which a little below it is said that the adversaries are devising ten thousand evils against John; that in the writings of the ancient doctors ten thousand things are found such as are read in Theodore; finally that with ten thousand fathers of the Church things consonant with the extracted chapters are found. This word therefore designates a great multitude, in the same way as we say in Latin, six hundred.

[25] lest he offend the Orientals: But to return to the letter of St. Proclus, it must be known that the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia was placed at the head of the chapters to be rejected by certain persons careless of ecclesiastical peace. But St. Proclus pronounces himself innocent of an imprudence of this kind, writing to John of Antioch. When, he says Migne, Greek Patrology, volume LXV, column 879., did I write to your holiness that either Theodore, or certain others who have long since died, ought to be subjected to anathema, or make mention of anyone by name?… But neither did the most dear Theodotus, the deacon directed by us, receive such commands. In like manner he says Ibid. at the place cited. to his deacon Maximus, who was living at Antioch, that he does not approve what he learned by letter,

that the names of Theodore of Mopsuestia and certain others have been placed at the head of the chapters for anathematizing; since they have already passed to God, and it is superfluous to do injury after death to those who have already left life, whom we never blamed when they were alive. The prudence of St. Proclus was also ratified by the emperor Theodosius, a law being issued that no one should henceforth presume anything against those who died in the peace of the Church Ibid. column 881.. But some did not approve the moderation of the chief prelates: the controversy about the man of Mopsuestia prevailed again and again; so much so that St. Cyril, the mediator as it were of peace, as we have seen, had to draw his pen against Diodore and Theodore, but that work has probably been lost Ceillier, Aut. Eccles. volume XIII, page 369.. Finally the question, agitated for a whole century, was settled by the fifth ecumenical council of Constantinople, celebrated in the year 553, in which anathema was pronounced against Theodore of Mopsuestia Labbe, volume V, column 455., because, as is found below Ibid. column 503., heretics ought to be anathematized even after death.

[26] the cause of Athanasius of Perrhe, The well-known benignity of St. Proclus Athanasius, bishop of Perrhe, had busied himself to forestall by his arts. Perrha or Perrhe is an episcopal city under Heraclea, the metropolis of the province of Euphratensis in Syria, and so belonged to the patriarchate of Antioch Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, volume II, column 943.. This Athanasius, saying that he had been cast out by the malevolence of his clerics, hastened to Constantinople to seek a remedy for his calamity with Proclus. He examined the cause of the ejected bishop in synod, and believing him to be cleared of the crimes objected against him, sent him off to his own patriarch, Domnus of Antioch, the successor of John, with synodal letters, by which he commends him to the prelate of Antioch. The most God-loving bishop of the Church of the Perrhenes, Athanasius, he says Migne, Greek Patrology, volume LXV, column 882., has wept over a tragedy both incredible and not moderately distressing to those who hear it, saying that his clerics, as though having cast away the thought of subjection and supposing that will suffices them for being tyrants of sacred things, have expelled him from the Church, when no just reason existed: and as far as concerned them, have burst into such enormous madness that they even condemned him … and have appointed by their own authority stewards and curators of the Church of God, and have removed from the sacred diptychs the name of him who was then ruling the Church as bishop. He asks therefore that Domnus should succour the priest in his trouble, and after an inquiry should bring help to him who suffers calumny, if indeed he suffers it: but that he should cut off him who makes the calumny, if he has truly calumniated. Further, lest Domnus should suspect that the synodal letter was written to the detriment of his patriarchal right, he subjoins: Let not your religiousness therefore suppose that the said most God-loving bishop has come here to bring injury on the see of the illustrious city of Antioch; but that, fearing certain persons, as he says, who rejoice in seditions and serve their own passion, he might for a time give place to wrath: since he does not cease to proclaim the clemency and mildness and love of justice of your religiousness.

[27] deceived by his arts, St. Cyril writes nearly the same to Domnus in the cause of Athanasius of Perrhe Labbe, volume IV of the Councils, column 724.. Each therefore refers the intricate suit, for he speaks conditionally, to the competent judge, Domnus, patriarch of Antioch. He, complying with the counsels of the supreme men, convoked a synod, in which the bishops with one mouth condemn Athanasius, because he had fled his own judges and had sold lies to SS. Cyril and Proclus. Thus Valerius, bishop of Anazarbus, says Labbe, volume IV of the Councils, column 736.: I too have perceived that the most reverend Athanasius has taught falsehoods to the God-loving and most holy archbishops Proclus and Cyril. For both of his own will he repudiated the episcopate in writing, and being summoned three times by the blessed Panolbius (his metropolitan) he declined a hearing: making use also of repudiation and of his own will, he deserted the city, and was not expelled by his own clerics. Twenty-two other bishops thought similar things (the whole synod consisted of twenty-eight bishops), and so Domnus of Antioch as president delivered the following sentence Ibid. column 749.: It was not indeed my wish to bring forward such a sentence against a bishop, but since it has worthily pleased the holy council that Athanasius should be alien from the episcopate according to the ecclesiastical sanctions, as accused of many and great crimes, and always fleeing from judgment and examination: I too confirm these things, and in what has commonly pleased all I am in accord, judging him to be alien from the pontificate: and I enjoin on the most God-loving bishop John and on the most religious bishops of that province to ordain another bishop in his place for the holy Church of God of the Perrhenes. In the place of Athanasius therefore there was put Sabinian, a monk: to whom it was not permitted to be long at rest. For Athanasius, complaining of his unjust deposition, by the help of Dioscorus of Alexandria and the conciliabulum, commonly the robbery, of Ephesus in the year 449 was restored to the see of the Pyrrhenes. But Sabinian accused Athanasius of usurpation both before the emperor and before the Fathers of the council of Chalcedon, because, he says Ibid. column 721., Dioscorus of Alexandria by his authority, and moreover by tyranny, expelled me from the Church of the Perrhenes, committed to me according to the canons by Stephen, the most holy bishop of our metropolis: and on the contrary brought in Athanasius, a man deposed in the most splendid city of the Antiochenes by many most God-loving bishops. Whence he asks that the injustice he has suffered be repaired.

[28] unhappily he takes up. The Fathers of Chalcedon, in Session XIV, held on the day before the kalends of November 451, ordered the series of the whole affair to be set forth to them: and there having been brought into the midst both the letters of SS. Cyril and Proclus and the Acts of the synod of Antioch, and the opinions of the bishops who had formerly been present at Antioch having been heard besides, the council judged Ibid. column 753. that Sabinian, since after the deposition of the most reverend Athanasius he was ordained by the provincial council, ought to remain in the episcopate of the city of the Perrhenes. But they decree that the causes brought against Athanasius are to be examined before the most holy bishop of Antioch, Maximus, and the council with him: yet so that within eight months, to be reckoned from the present day, an examination be made of those who long ago brought the accusation against him, or if anyone else should wish to press against him concerning these same things. And if indeed he be convicted of having attempted all the things criminally and pecuniarily charged against him and inserted in the acts, or one of them that is worthy of condemnation, not only is he to be alien from the same episcopate, but is to be subjected to the public laws. But if within this time no action be taken against him, or, if action be taken, he be not convicted, as has been said before, Athanasius shall receive the episcopate of the same city and Church through the most holy bishop of Antioch, Maximus: and Sabinian, the most reverend bishop, shall have the dignity of the episcopate and be substituted and maintained as the most reverend bishop of the Antiochenes, Maximus, shall dispose according to the means of the most holy Church of the Pyrrhenes… The holy synod said: Nothing more just, nothing more upright: this is a just judgment, this a just sentence. We nowhere find that the cause of Athanasius was further agitated Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, volume II, column 944.. Moreover, although their well-known mildness deceived SS. Cyril and Proclus, there is nevertheless no reason why it should be turned against them as the fault of rashness, both because they sent on a cause, put forward as unjudged, to the lawful judge for examination, and because the Eastern bishops, kinder than was fair towards the ringleaders of Nestorius, as we saw in the affair of Theodore of Mopsuestia, were putting something suspicious into their opinions.

§ IV. By the privilege of the see of Constantinople the saint claims for himself the institution of various bishops in various provinces; the cult of the Trisagion; the time of his death.

Controversies over the see of Ephesus, A little earlier we read the name of St. Proclus entangled in a very similar controversy in the Acts of the council of Chalcedon. For in Session XI Bassian complained that he had been unjustly thrust out of the see of Ephesus, and that Stephen had been put in his place. Both were present at the council: and Stephen accused Bassian of not having been ordained at Ephesus, but of having, while the holy Church was vacant, collected a crowd of seditious persons, come in upon it and sat there… This man therefore having been expelled according to the canons and cast out, as he deserved, forty Asian bishops, he says Labbe, volume IV of the Councils, column 688., ordained me, by the suffrage of the nobles and leading men and of the whole most reverend clergy and of all the city. Bassian put the question in quite another way, saying Ibid. at the place cited.: I was made bishop canonically, and I show this, and I have been deposed by no one, nor accused by anyone nor blamed. But I too from my youthful age lived for the poor, and I built a ptochium * and put in it seventy beds, and I received in hospitality all the languishing and ulcerated. But Memnon, who was bishop, bearing envy at these things, because I was loved by all, left nothing undone to expel me from the city: and he laid his hands on me to ordain me bishop of Evaza. But I did not acquiesce; and from the third hour to the sixth he afflicted me with blows before the altar, and the holy Gospel and the altar were filled with blood. These things having thus been done, I remained so, neither going to the city (nor in any way communicating with that Church for which I had been named) nor seeing the city itself. I remained so then: and it happened that Memnon himself met the end of his life. After this Basil was ordained. And he, summoning the council of the province and learning from them the violence that I had suffered, and that it had been a contrivance, ordained another bishop in that city, and to me he gave back communion and the place of the episcopate. It happened again that he too met the end of his life, and with much constraint and force the people and clergy and bishops enthroned me in the same city of Ephesus, of whom one bishop, Olympius, is here.

[30] agitated at the council of Chalcedon, What Bassian brings forward here about the consent of the bishops, clergy and people is not true: for Olympius, bishop of Theodosiopolis, called as witness, says quite the contrary. That is, called after the death of Basil to the election of a new prelate of Ephesus, he came alone, remained alone: But on the third day finally, he says Labbe, volume IV of the Councils, column 693., certain of the reverend clerics came and said to me: The other bishops are not here, what is to be done? I said: What can I do alone? For it is outside the reckoning of the canons for a single bishop to dispose of a Church, and especially of so great a metropolis. While therefore I was saying these things to myself, an innumerable multitude surrounded the dwelling in which I was; and I did not know where I was; and before such great power and before the altar, a certain man baring a sword, Holosericus by name, who, I think, is a count's attendant, came, both he and the whole multitude, and carrying me they set out for the church: and thus with two or three hundred men they lifted both me and him to the see, and the enthronement was celebrated. To this narrative Bassian simply opposed the word: He has lied

Ibid. at the place cited.: prudently, however, he had said a little before: One of those who enthroned me is this Olympius: I do not know others, him I remember Ibid. column 692. Bassian's cause was already going to ruin when he put forward that St. Proclus had communicated with him as with the bishop of the Ephesians: and indeed the clergy of Constantinople testified that St. Proclus gave synodal letters, entered the name of Bassian in the sacred diptychs, and that the same had been recited not so long ago Ibid. column 693.. St. Proclus seems, however, from the beginning not to have approved the promotion of Bassian: for Bassian himself hints this, in that coming to Constantinople he was received by the emperor, who made Proclus and Bassian friends Ibid. column 689.: before that, therefore, they were not friends. I should readily believe that the approval flowed from the growing jurisdiction of the bishops of Constantinople, which not a few bishops obliquely assailed. This too is clear from the Ephesian affair itself.

[31] St. Proclus is read to have been entangled; For when the Fathers of Chalcedon had decreed that the ordination of both, namely of Bassian and Stephen, had no force, it was necessary to proceed to a new election. And when the judges, who were present at the council on behalf of the emperor as protector, asked where the canons would have the bishop of the most holy Church of Ephesus ordained Ibid. column 700., the most reverend bishops cried out: In the province. For the Asian bishops had already said that if another bishop were ordained here, the city of the Ephesians would be thrown into disturbance. For this reason Diogenes, bishop of Cyzicus, said that custom held this: and Leontius, bishop of Magnesia, added: From St. Timothy until now twenty-seven bishops have been made, all were ordained at Ephesus; Basil alone (another codex has Bassian) was made here by violence, and many slayings arose from this. But the clerics of Constantinople took exception to the contrary: a certain Philip, presbyter: John of holy memory (Chrysostom), bishop of Constantinople, deposed fifteen bishops, having set out for Asia, and ordained others in their place, and Memnon was ordained here. Actius, archdeacon of the Church of Constantinople, brought forward similar examples, of Castinus, Heraclides and Basil (Bassian?), ordained by Proclus of blessed memory, and the emperor Theodosius of blessed memory co-operated in an ordination of this kind, and Cyril of blessed memory, bishop of Alexandria. Meanwhile the controversy was blazing up, the bishops protesting the ancient custom, the clergy of Constantinople putting forward the privilege of their Church. Wherefore it seemed better to put off the decree to be issued until the next day. On the following day, therefore, the fathers, having annulled the promotion of both rivals, Bassian and Stephen, ordered that they proceed to a new election: yet so that the dignity of a bishop should be preserved to both, and that from the revenues of the Church of Ephesus, for the sake of nourishment and consolation, two hundred gold solidi should be paid each year Ibid. column 705.. This is the first example, as far as I know, of a pension imposed on an ecclesiastical benefice. But they put off the question of the privilege or range of the Church of Constantinople as far as Session XVI, the last: except that Julian, bishop of Cos and legate of the Apostolic See, delivered his opinion in these words Ibid. column 704.: According to the rules indeed neither ought to be: but by clemency let the Asian synod choose who ought to be. Julian therefore granted the right of election to the Asian province, of which Ephesus was the metropolis, from which election he wished by clemency that neither competitor be excluded. This must be observed, because in this very synod of Chalcedon, canon XXVIII Ibid. column 769., the second dignity after the Roman See was assigned to the Church of Constantinople and specifically the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace were attributed to it. It is not our purpose to pursue through all its windings the fate of this canon, which Pope St. Leo contradicted. This, however, is certain, that St. Proclus, in involving himself in the Ephesian affair, could have persuaded himself that a controversy of this kind pertained to the right of his see, which the synod of Constantinople had already sanctioned in the year 381.

[32] who by the pretended privilege of his see But since the question of the primacy of the see of Constantinople was, as we have said, brought to the scale in Session XVI, and the name of our saint recurs in it, we ought to set it forth to some extent. The legates or vicars of the Apostolic See protested that they would not depart from the canon of Nicaea, by which the first dignity after the Roman is attributed to the see of Alexandria, then to that of Antioch and finally to that of Jerusalem Ibid. column 809.. Nevertheless those of Constantinople opposed the decree of the synod celebrated in the time of Nectarius in the year 381, by which indeed the primacy after the Roman bishop was ascribed to the chair of Constantinople, because the city itself is the younger Rome Ibid. volume II, column 954.; yet their own power remained with the bishops of the provinces of Asia, Pontus and Thrace, as is declared there. Meanwhile the bishops of Constantinople, even the most holy ones, were widening the fringes of their jurisdiction, as we saw in the preceding number in John Chrysostom. That this by no means pleased some is shown by the words of Eusebius, bishop of Ancyra, brought forward in this very Session, not consenting to the primacy of the Church of Constantinople: I, he says Labbe, volume IV, column 816., shall speak my word, making no prejudgment in common. That I stand aside from the desire of ordination I have shown by deeds. For Bishop Peter, who has just testified, is bishop of Gangra: for he who was before him, I ordained: for the whole city came to me at Ancyra, bringing decrees. I replied to them saying: I am not of those who desire to ordain. But they recalled to me the former ones, two or three, who had been ordained by the bishop of the Ancyrans. I said: Whatever you may say to me, I do not throw myself into judgment. After this they come entreating the blessed Proclus. And as he was speaking, Philip, most reverend presbyter of the holy Church of Constantinople, said: Your religiousness wrote about Callinicus, and after your holiness the blessed Proclus ordained Peter. Eusebius, bishop of Ancyra, said: The blessed Proclus directed writings to me; I ordained him. All this is not an allegation, but a proof of my will, that after this I may bring in what I ask, or what I contradict. I set out to Gangra, I enthroned the bishop: It so happened that he died within a few days. Again all from the city came and asked that another bishop be made. The same things I now reply to you also: I do not desire to ordain. Seeing my distaste in these matters, they came to Constantinople and brought back the Lord Peter, who has now confessed. Let this then stand for testimony of my will, and that I do not desire to ordain. But I ask that the cities not pay for ordinations: for if those whom the city chooses are not ordained in the cities themselves, approved by the synod of the province, substance is paid out: and I have this proved, who for him who was before me paid back many debts. From these things it is manifest enough that already at that time grave abuses had crept into sacred ordinations, the emendation of which, however, was procured in the council of Chalcedon itself.

[33] various bishops Yet before these things were decreed in the council of Chalcedon and the primacy of the Church of Constantinople confirmed, the authority of the prelates of Constantinople was gradually growing. This the words of Theodoret seem to indicate in his letter to Flavian, LXXXVI in order Works of Theodoret, volume IV, page 1157, Halle edition, 1774.; complaining of Dioscorus of Alexandria, who was striving to widen the rights of his see, he says that he was harried by him, since, adhering to the rules of the holy fathers, we assented to the synodal acts made under Proclus of blessed memory: and that he rebuked us for this once and again, as if we had betrayed the rights of the Antiochenes, as he says, and of the Alexandrians. Besides the deeds alleged so far, therefore, we know that St. Proclus exercised the authority of his see on other occasions too. Thus Theodoret holds out the consent of St. Proclus in the cause of Irenaeus, bishop of the Tyrians, to make his election lawful. For three canonical impediments were objected to Irenaeus: that he was a Nestorian, that he was a bigamist, that he was ordained by Theodoret against the canons. Theodoret discusses the difficulties in letter CX, addressed to Domnus of Antioch Ibid. page 1180.. First of all he shows that Irenaeus was a Catholic, as one who is not known ever to have refused to call the Holy Virgin Mother of God, or to have thought anything else alien to the Gospel decrees. And Irenaeus was ordained by Theodoret by decree of the bishops of Phoenicia, since they had ascertained his zeal and magnanimity and love for the poor and his other virtues and besides his rectitude in dogmas. As regards bigamy, he shows that the Church has sometimes excused an irregularity of this kind: since both Diogenes of Beroea and Domninus of Caesarea, though both bigamists, were ordained. Finally he adds: And not at all ignorant of many other things of this kind, Proclus of blessed memory, bishop of the Constantinopolitans, both himself admitted the ordination and wrote back praising and approving it. The Orientals themselves therefore, if you except a few, concurred in exaggerating the power of the prelates of Constantinople, by whose help they hoped there would be easier and kindlier access to the emperor himself.

[34] he ordains in various provinces: A similar case is reported by Socrates, book VII, chapter 48, in these words: Proclus at the same time, namely in the seventeenth consulship of Theodosius (the year of Christ 439), undertook a thing plainly wonderful, and such as no one of the old bishops had ever done. For Firmus, bishop of Caesarea of Cappadocia, having died, the people of Caesarea came to Constantinople asking for a bishop. And when Proclus was considering whom he should promote to that episcopate, it chanced that all the senators came on the sabbath day into the church to greet him: among whom was also Thalassius, who had administered the prefecture of the provinces and cities of Illyricum: and since the administration of the parts of the East too was soon to be entrusted to him by the emperor; Proclus, laying his hand on him, established him as bishop of Caesarea instead of prefect of the praetorium. What Socrates says, that the form of election used by St. Proclus was new and unheard of; let this indeed be true for the East: although something similar happened in the case of Nectarius the praetor, who, as Socrates says in book V, chapter 8, seized by the people, took up the episcopal office. The annotator Valesius adds Socrates, History, Annotations, page 93. that this happened to Nectarius with the emperor's consent, whereas Thalassius seems to have been suddenly elected. But whatever may be said of the East, certainly in the West there already existed an illustrious example in St. Ambrose, who, as prefect of Liguria and Aemilia, had been sent to Milan to restrain the popular movements which the election of a new bishop was bound to stir up: when suddenly, as Paulinus, the notary of the same saint, relates Migne, Patrology, volume XIV, column 29., an infant leading the way, the whole people acclaimed Ambrose bishop: certainly there was lacking the consent both of Probus, prefect of the praetorium, and of the emperor Valentinian, who afterwards said that he was glad that a judge sent by him was being sought for the priesthood. Yet the promotion of Thalassius did not turn out so happily for the Church of God as that of Ambrose. For Thalassius, whom in the year 439 the single law, title VI, of the Novels of Theodosius names prefect, inclined to Eutyches, deceived by Dioscorus of Alexandria. And although in the council of Chalcedon, of his errors

he had obtained pardon Labbe, volume IV of the Councils, column 507., afterwards nevertheless he seemed to favour the followers of Eutyches Compare Oriens Christianus, volume I, column 376.. But it ought not to be turned into a fault against holy men that human malice sometimes deceives them, or inconstancy bends them: the Church has prudently determined that the highest dignities should be ascended by grades, as of a kind of apprenticeship: what is done contrary to the custom sometimes turns out dangerous.

[35] he promotes the use of the Trisagion; St. Proclus was also involved in a dogmatic controversy born of the Nestorian heresy. The matter is set forth by Denis Petau in his treatise on the Incarnation, book V, chapter 4: While Proclus held the see of Constantinople, a great earthquake stalked not only in that city, but through the neighbouring regions, and indeed the greatest part of the East and West, with enormous slaughter of cities and men and with horror and fear among the survivors. The people of Constantinople, forced by the frequent collapses of houses to leave the city, stayed outside it in the Campus, as it is called, with the emperor Theodosius the Younger and the patriarch. There, while they were striving by prayers and litanies assiduously to make the divinity propitious to them, the earth chanced to be shaken more violently than usual, and all being struck with terror of the public disaster then chiefly imminent, a certain boy was snatched from the midst of the crowd by a sudden force and carried up into the air, so that he no longer appeared; there he heard the heavenly song in which the Angels were singing the divine praises, which was of this kind: “Holy God, Holy Strong One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us.” Ordered to teach this very thing to the rest, he was set down on the earth some little time afterwards. Proclus, hearing this, commanded that it be sung publicly by all; and when this had been done with the utmost eagerness, the earth at once ceased to move. The emperor with his sister Pulcheria made an edict that this hymn should thereafter be sung through the whole world. From which the usage prevailed through all the churches that the divine praises should everywhere begin with this song. The boy, having discharged the office entrusted to him, expired at once, and was buried in the great basilica which was called of Irene: the place from which he had been lifted on high was named ὑψωμα θειον, that is, divine elevation. These things are for the most part drawn from the Chronography of Theophanes Page 80, Paris edition. and other writers. And we know that this Trisagion is still used today by the Latins in the Office of Good Friday and elsewhere.

[36] which the Eutychians strive to twist to their heresy: After a brief interval Peter the Fuller, a Eutychian, intruded into the see of Antioch, dared to add to this heavenly hymn: Who wast crucified for us, have mercy on us, Σταυρωθεις δι᾽ ἡμας, ἐλεησον ἡμας. By this addition, namely, he strove to propagate the error of the Theopaschites, with which he was imbued: to show that God himself suffered not in the flesh, but in his divinity. And hence there grew up another proposition brought forward by the Fuller. One of the Trinity suffered. For the rest, says Petau at the place cited, some Catholics partly bent that formula of the Trisagion hymn, interpolated with evil intent by the Fuller, to the profession of the true faith, by a few inserted little words; and partly interpreted it suitably. Because, namely, some intercalated, O Christ the king: some interpreted the Trisagion of the Word alone: and so the Oriental Catholics retained the appendix of the Fuller, whereas the Byzantines and Westerners, because they thought that the Trisagion was sung to the honour of the whole Trinity, altogether rejected it. As regards the formula, One of the Trinity suffered; some Catholics approved it, relying on the authority of St. Proclus. John Maxentius the monk defends it, saying Bibliotheca Maxima Patrum, volume IX, page 535.: But a little more manifestly than these the Blessed Proclus, bishop of this city, whom the venerable synod of Chalcedon also received, in the letter to the Armenians; when he was asked, against the blasphemies of Theodore, who impiously dogmatized a quaternity in place of the Trinity, to write and refute his blasphemies, spoke of this opinion, saying… I ask, is he who was crucified one of the Trinity, or another? And if indeed one, the quarrel is resolved. But if some other besides the Trinity, the Lord of glory is without doubt a fourth. This saying of Proclus we do not find word for word in the letter to the Armenians, as Petau, already often praised, rightly observes in book V, chapter 3. Yet an equivalent saying is read Migne, Greek Patrology, volume LXV, column 866.: What then do we say to these things? Indeed that as far as concerns the reckoning of divinity, the Trinity is consubstantial and impassible: for neither when we say that the Word suffered, do we say that he suffered in respect of divinity. But if it is rightly and in a Catholic sense said that the Word suffered, namely the second person of the undivided Trinity, there seems to be no reason for disapproving the formula: One of the Trinity suffered. For the rest, since this same saying is attributed to St. Proclus by Pope John II Ibid. volume LXVI, column 21. and Facundus Ibid. volume LXVII, column 530., we with difficulty persuade ourselves that it was not formerly read in the works of our saint: indeed perhaps these words that are cited were found in the chapters subjoined to the letter to the Armenians; but these, as we said above at number 23, are missing in all the copies. There is no leisure to pursue the fortune of this question further. We know that the formula was rejected by Pope Hormisdas Ibid. volume LXIII, column 491. on account of the ill-considered reasoning, as Petau has it in book V, chapter 2, and headlong ardour in inculcating a novelty, untimely rather, and not at all necessary, than either crafty or contaminated by error. For this reason, since shortly afterwards the same formula was approved and received with incredible consent, Pope John II also added his vote Ibid. volume LXVI, column 21..

[37] he dies holily in the year 446 in the month of July. Finally among the merits and praises of St. Proclus there ought to be reckoned the translation of the body of St. John Chrysostom, of which our predecessors treated at length in the Preliminary Commentary on this saint, § LXXXVIII, at the 14th day of September [Acta SS. volume IV of September, page 685. Compare Migne, Greek Patrology, volume LXV, column 827.]: we shall therefore not do what is done. Of the time of the death of the holy prelate our people treated also in the treatise on the Patriarchs of Constantinople Acta SS. volume I of August, page 41*. For some learned men determine his death-year as the common 446, while others prefer the following 447. Their only reason is that the earthquake, on the occasion of which the custom of the Trisagion was widely spread, happened in the year 447, and so St. Proclus outlived it. But the Alexandrian or Paschal Chronicle, which alone reports this year, is not to be held of so much account as to destroy the reasons opposed by the adversaries. We have from the Menology of Basil that St. Proclus occupied the see of Constantinople for twelve years, three months; and that he entered upon it on the Thursday of Holy Week, falling on the 12th day of April, as we noted above at number 15. And if to the year of Christ 434 we add twelve years and three months, we arrive at the middle of the month of July of the year 446, in which we judge it probable that St. Proclus died: this year therefore we have marked at the head of the Historical Commentary which we here close.

* a hospice of the poor