CONCERNING ST. PROTERIUS, PATRIARCH OF ALEXANDRIA, MARTYR
IN THE YEAR 457
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.
Proterius, Patriarch of Alexandria, Martyr (Saint)
By G. H.
Section I. St. Proterius, from Priest made Bishop of Alexandria. Various seditions of the heretics on account of his ordination.
[1] A most vigorous champion of the Christian religion was St. Proterius, first a Priest of the Church of Alexandria, then Archpriest, afterward Bishop or Patriarch. What distinguished deeds he performed in his youth are hidden. St. Cyril then presided over the Church of Alexandria, ordained Bishop in the year 412 in the place of his uncle Theophilus, who died on October 15: St. Proterius, Priest of Alexandria by whom, in the Council of Ephesus, when the functions of the Apostolic See had been delegated to him, the Nestorian heresy was condemned in the year 431. Under this Bishop we believe St. Proterius imbibed orthodox Christian doctrine along with the religion of the priesthood and the chastity of life. When St. Cyril died around the year 445, the impious Dioscorus succeeded, who, in order to entice St. Proterius into his faction, made Archpriest by Dioscorus committed the Church to him and made him Archpriest: as Liberatus, Archdeacon of Carthage, reports in his Summary of the Nestorian and Eutychian Controversy, chapter 14.
[2] The Greeks in the Menaia and in Maximus Cytheraeus in the Lives of the Saints, at February 28, suggest these few deeds performed by St. Proterius as a Priest. This blessed man was a Priest of the Church of Alexandria. When the Alexandrians were summoned to the council, he came to Constantinople, he was not at the Council assembled at Constantinople in the year 448 and fought very much for the holy Fathers against impious heresies. The Bishop of Constantinople was then St. Flavian, whose Life and history of martyrdom we gave on February 18, and we said in Section 2 that the Eutychian heresy had been detected by him and condemned in a provincial synod at Constantinople in the year 448. The acts of this synod are inserted in the first session of the Ecumenical Council held at Chalcedon, and are themselves divided into several sessions: thirty-eight Bishops and twenty-four Archimandrites are found to have subscribed. Nicephorus, however, in book 14 of his Ecclesiastical History, chapter 47, asserts that forty Bishops came to that provincial synod, among whom there were no Egyptian Bishops, whether he was present at Chalcedon in the year 451 nor St. Proterius the Priest himself, who perhaps came to the Council of Chalcedon celebrated in the year 451. This is a city of Bithynia, seven stadia from Constantinople: so that he could first have sailed to Constantinople, and from there crossed to Chalcedon with the rest of the Alexandrian Clergy and laity, who presented libelli against Dioscorus: with the Alexandrian Clergy? among these were Athanasius the Priest, Theodore and Ischyrion the Deacons, and Sophronius, whose libelli survive in the third session of the same Council: in which, when Dioscorus, having been summoned a third time to answer the charges brought against him, did not appear, he was at length deposed from the episcopate by the holy and ecumenical Council and removed from all Ecclesiastical functions on the thirteenth day of October. when Dioscorus was condemned The formula of condemnation sent to Dioscorus is contained on page 535 of volume 8 of the royal Paris edition: and on page 536 is found the synodal letter about the condemnation of Dioscorus, sent to the Alexandrian Clergy who were at Chalcedon, and concludes with these words: Guard therefore all Ecclesiastical property, as those who will render an account to him who, according to the will of God and the direction of our most pious and God-loving Emperors, is to be ordained Bishop of the Church of the great city of Alexandria. another Bishop was to be ordained
[3] Session IV was then celebrated on October 17, at which the Egyptian Bishops, having entered with a statement of faith which they presented to the Emperors, at the command of the Legates of the Apostolic See and the other Bishops, pronounced anathema against Eutyches: but they protested against subscribing to the letter of Pope St. Leo before a new Alexandrian Bishop should be elected, and this was granted them by the council. For, as is read on page 593, the most magnificent and most glorious Judges or the most distinguished Senate said: Since the most reverend Egyptian Bishops before the Egyptian Bishops subscribed to the letter of St. Leo have deferred subscribing to the letter of the most holy Archbishop Leo at this time, not as those opposing the Catholic faith, but saying that it is the custom in the Egyptian region that they can do nothing of this kind without the judgment and command of the Archbishop; it has appeared to us reasonable and merciful that they should wait in the same condition in the royal city and have a postponement until the ordination of the Archbishop of the great city of Alexandria. Hence perhaps some have thought that St. Proterius was made Bishop at the Synod of Chalcedon: which is clearly indicated in the preliminary History of the Council of Chalcedon, page 11, in these words: Dioscorus, in whose place the Synod of Chalcedon had substituted Proterius, St. Proterius was not elected Bishop at Chalcedon was expelled by the Emperor Marcian to a city of Paphlagonia called Gangra, where he also wretchedly breathed his last. The same is asserted in the Greek Menaia and in Cytheraeus in these words: Having fought very much for the holy Fathers against the impious heresies, he is designated Bishop of Alexandria by the synod. Nicephorus Callistus also, in book 15, chapter 8, after mentioning the condemnation and relegation of Dioscorus, adds: The divine Proterius was allotted the episcopate of Alexandria by the common vote of the synod.
[4] Evagrius, however, whom these seem to have followed, in book 2 of his Ecclesiastical History, chapter 5, rather indicates that he was elected in a synod assembled at Alexandria. His words are: After these things, Dioscorus was condemned to dwell at Gangra in Paphlagonia. But Proterius obtained the episcopate by the common vote of the synod of Alexandria. but at Alexandria After these things, that is, after the Council was finished, Dioscorus was condemned by the Emperor Marcian to dwell at Gangra, a city of Paphlagonia. But Proterius obtained the episcopate by the common votes of the synod held at Alexandria. The translator of Evagrius, Christopherson, renders it as having been chosen to administer the episcopate of Alexandria: as if after "of Alexandria" one should understand "of the Church," so that the sense would be: After these things, when Dioscorus had been banished to Gangra, a city of Paphlagonia, Proterius obtained the episcopate of the Church of Alexandria by the common votes of the synod. But the arrangement of the words may seem to favor the former explanation. Theophanes explains the order of events at the year 2 of Marcian thus: Then indeed the synod, in the presence of the Emperor Marcian himself and the Senate, pronounced sentence against Dioscorus and Eutyches, and punished them with deposition. After the sentence was pronounced, the synod was dissolved. The Emperor, having banished Dioscorus to Gangra, broke into praises of the synod and said: after the dissolution of the Council of Chalcedon I owe the greatest thanks to God, the Lord of us all, that with all dissension removed, we have at length arrived at one and the same judgment. Having kindly and humanely received the holy six hundred and thirty Fathers, he dismissed each with peace to their own Sees. And in the place of Dioscorus, Proterius was ordained Bishop of Alexandria. So says Theophanes, and nearly the same things are read in the history of Anastasius, page 42.
[5] It is uncertain, however, whether all the Egyptian Bishops were sent back to Alexandria. Moreover, as is read in session 3 of the Council of Chalcedon, page 594, the most magnificent and most glorious Judges and the most distinguished Senate said: Let the judgment of the most holy Paschasinus, [and with 13 Egyptian Bishops remaining who had not subscribed to the letter of St. Leo] Legate of the Apostolic See, stand firm. Whence the most reverend Egyptian Bishops, remaining in their same condition, shall either give sureties, if this is possible for them; or they shall be trusted upon oath, while they wait for the ordination of the future Bishop of the great city of Alexandria. This concerns the thirteen Bishops who subscribed to the petition presented to the Emperors Valentinian and Marcian, whose names and episcopal Sees are found on page 587. That the other Bishops returned to Egypt, and that St. Proterius was ordained in their presence, Liberatus narrates in chapter 14 in these words: When therefore the great and venerable Council of Chalcedon was completed in twelve conferences and sixteen sessions, Dioscorus was ordered to go into exile in the city of Gangra. by others who returned to Alexandria But those Bishops and Clergy who had come with him returned to Alexandria: Athanasius, Bishop of Busiris, and Nestorius of Phlagone, and Auxonius of Sebennytus, and Macarius of Chabase: who had sat at Chalcedon and had anathematized Eutyches and his doctrine, and subscribed to the letter of Pope Leo along with the condemnation of Dioscorus, so that with the consent of all the citizens they might choose a Bishop to be ordained, sacred letters having been sent beforehand concerning this to Theodore, then the Augustal Prefect. who had subscribed to the letter of St. Leo The nobles of the city were therefore assembled, to choose one who would be worthy of the Pontificate in life and speech. For this was also commanded by Imperial decrees. And when much hesitation had arisen over this, after a commotion among the citizens since the citizens were entirely unwilling to ordain anyone, lest they should appear adulterous, since Dioscorus was still living; at last the judgment of all inclined toward Proterius: indeed the one to whom Dioscorus himself had committed the Church, and whom he had made Archpriest. he was ordained Proterius therefore, having been ordained in the presence of the above-mentioned Bishops, who had subscribed in the synod as stated, was enthroned.
[6] So says Liberatus, who in chapter 15 adds the following: When Proterius had been enthroned, a division and defection of the people arose, then exposed to great dangers because Dioscorus was still alive and in exile. Proterius therefore suffered many dangers, so that he needed the assistance of military guards for a great part of his pontificate, and until the death of the Emperor Marcian he was able to escape the hands of his enemies. Evagrius asserts that more was done in that popular commotion: When Proterius had been placed in that episcopal See, he says, the greatest and truly intolerable tumult was stirred up by the populace, seething with various opinions. For, as usually happens in such matters, some began to demand Dioscorus back, others to adhere firmly to the side of Proterius, so much so that great and certainly incurable disaster arose from this. For Priscus the rhetorician writes that the Prefect of the Thebaid had come to Alexandria at that time and had seen the people with one accord make an assault against the Magistrates, and hurl stones at the military forces when the soldiers given him for his guard were killed that were endeavoring to suppress the sedition, and that the people by force compelled the soldiers to flee to the temple which was formerly called the temple of Serapis: then the people rushed there, stormed the temple, and burned the soldiers alive with fire. When the Emperor had been informed of these things, he sent there two thousand soldiers recently chosen for this purpose: but when 2,000 soldiers were admitted and they used so favorable a wind and such a prosperous voyage that they arrived at Alexandria on the sixth day. Then, when the soldiers insolently assaulted the wives and daughters of the Alexandrians, the latter disaster nearly eclipsed the former by its bitterness. Afterward, the people, assembled in the circus, besought Florus, who both held the command of the garrison soldiers and held the civil administration of the city, and various privileges taken from the city to see to it that the grain allowance, which he had taken from them, as well as the baths, spectacles, and other things which had been taken from them on account of their tumultuous sedition, should be restored to them. But Florus, being present in person, restrained the assault of the people by his exhortation and at the same time quieted the sedition for the time being. So says Evagrius, whom Nicephorus follows, asserting that Florus gradually dissolved the sedition by interposing promises.
[7] That the Alexandrians were also compelled to implore the patronage of Proterius himself, Theophanes indicates at the year 3 of Marcian in these words: When Dioscorus had been driven into exile and Proterius substituted in his place, those who sided with Dioscorus and Eutyches stirred up a great tumult: threatening to cut off the grain supply as well. and when the citizens were afflicted by famine When Marcian learned of this, he ordered that Egyptian grain should be conveyed not to Alexandria but to Pelusium, and from there transported by ships to his royal city. Thereupon the Alexandrians themselves, afflicted by famine, asked Proterius to intercede with the Emperor on their behalf: and thus they ceased to cause disturbances. St. Proterius intercedes with Marcian on their behalf The Menaia add that St. Proterius the Archbishop was sent by the Alexandrians as legate to the Emperor: moved by whose prayers, the Emperor ordered grain to be conveyed to Alexandria. So the text reads. Moreover, the Emperor Marcian, in order to suppress the sedition completely, sent to the monks of Alexandria a certain John the Decurion, a most pious and eloquent man, with a letter, in which he tried to call them back to gentleness and to make them desirous of embracing the truth and zealous for concord: suggesting above all that nothing new had been decreed in the Council of Chalcedon, but that all things had been decreed according to the rule of the Nicene faith and the judgment of the Bishops of Alexandria, [by whom John the Decurion was sent with a letter for the reconciliation of the Alexandrians] Athanasius, Theophilus, and Cyril. The text of this letter exists in Greek and Latin in volume 9 of the Councils of the cited Paris edition, from page 222, and the last part of the letter is repeated from another ancient translation, in which the following is found on page 228: Recognizing this therefore now also, if any of you have perhaps been deceived by falsehood, hasten to return to the truth, abstaining from wicked collections contrary to the Canons, lest on top of losing your souls, you also be subjected to legal punishment... For this reason indeed, having chosen John the Decurion, we have sent him, who is most certainly able to explain the matters pertaining to the faith: for he was present at the universal Catholic Council of the holy Bishops, and clearly knows all that was done: so that, having received full satisfaction, those who (which we do not believe) still doubt may at long last hasten to return to the true and immaculate faith.
Section II. The profession of faith sent by St. Proterius to Rome: a synod held at Alexandria: the day of Easter in the year 455 prescribed.
[8] When St. Proterius had been established in the most ample priesthood of the city of Alexandria and indeed in the patriarchate of all Egypt, St. Proterius sends a profession of faith to Pope St. Leo he sent his profession of faith to St. Leo, the Roman Pontiff: so that he might deserve to receive Catholic communion from him. St. Leo mentions this letter of St. Proterius in writing to Julian, Bishop of Cos, his legate at the court of the Emperor: this is his epistle 68, published in volume 7 of the Councils, page 145, and written on the fifth of the Ides of January, in the consulship of Aetius and Studius, in the year of Christ 454, in which the following is read: I am pleased that our brother Proterius, Bishop of the city of Alexandria, has directed to us letters full of satisfaction concerning his faith, and has clearly indicated what he holds: to whom I must show worthy grace for the sincerity of his faith, so that he may lose the honor of his Church in no respect, but may possess the privileges of his See according to the example of paternal antiquity and the inviolate rights of the Canons. So says Pope St. Leo. Moreover, both the letters then written by St. Proterius and the reply of St. Leo to him have been lost: as have also those which he seems to have sent, as was customary, to the other Patriarchs of the East concerning the same profession of faith, and to the Emperor Marcian.
[9] No small controversy arose in those same times about the celebration of Easter in the year 455: which Pope St. Leo, foreseeing and fearing some kind of schism, concerning the celebration of Easter in the year 455 thought should be addressed promptly, and in the year 453, in the consulship of Opilio, on the 16th of the Kalends of July, he wrote two letters, to the Emperor Marcian and to the Empress Eudocia, and earnestly asked them to warn the Alexandrians not to transfer Easter to the 8th of the Kalends of May. St. Leo urging These letters survive in volume 7 of the Councils, from page 140. Indeed, in the aforesaid letter of the same Leo to Bishop Julian, he mentions this same Easter: And lest, he says, either among us or among the Orientals, a difference should arise on this matter, may your love deign to act more urgently in our name with the most Christian Prince: although the most merciful Prince himself has deigned to indicate in his letters that he delegated this care to the Egyptians with the most careful investigation. Pope St. Leo also sent a Memorandum on this matter to St. Proterius, who was admonished as is evident from the latter's response, in which he shows at length that Easter should be celebrated on the 8th of the Kalends of May. The letter of St. Proterius was published by Petavius in the Appendix to his work on the Doctrine of Times, page 871, and by Bucherius in chapter 2 of his Commentary on the Paschal Canon of Victorius, to which he also appended the letters of St. Leo written on this subject. The opening of St. Proterius's letter is as follows: he replies to him To my most beloved lord, brother, and fellow priest Leo, Proterius sends greetings in the Lord. Our most pious and faithful Emperor Marcian recently addressed us with venerable letters: in which he asserted that some consider the day of the Paschal feast, which is to be celebrated, the Lord willing, during the eighth Indiction, not to have been carefully recorded. Nevertheless, he indicated this not as if stirred by himself, but because he had received the writings of your Holiness. And he ordered that we should diligently investigate the matter, with a most minute scrutiny applied, one that would contain much solicitude and study. Therefore it was not to be neglected, that I should immediately examine the matter: since from that very time when I received the Memorandum of your Veneration, I have had the greatest care for this matter, now inspecting the legal books, now consulting the teachings of the ancient Doctors, from which it is possible to investigate such a computation more carefully. Taking also the Centennial course of Easter written by our most blessed Father and Bishop Theophilus, and running through the whole of it, and shows it should be celebrated on the 8th of the Kalends of May I have found it so carefully and perfectly composed that, whoever he may be, he cannot in any way criticize or fault the authority of this writing. For it was inconsistent that so vigilant a man, most dear to God, enriched also with the knowledge of the divine Scriptures, could have erred in so great and necessary a matter by neglecting diligent labor. But perhaps, as your Holiness writes, it is the error of a faulty codex or of a copying scribe: and therefore it was necessary for us to transfer the day of that holy feast, which has passed. It is rather celebrated thus, as the centennial course of years of our same most blessed Father and Bishop Theophilus contains, which entirely agrees with the pages of the years, that is, the 29th of the month Pharmuthi according to the Egyptians, which is the 8th of the Kalends of May. For both we and the entire Egyptian region and all the East will thus celebrate it, the Lord willing. He then brings very lengthy proofs for the appointed day, which I omit, and add the conclusion, which is as follows: Let those therefore who are uncertain in those regions learn through your Holiness that we legitimately celebrate Easter during the eighth Indiction. For this reason indeed I have written, following in this also the Ecclesiastical practices of the Fathers and drawing from them the grounds for this matter. For thus also our predecessors, whenever a doubt arose, hastened to declare in advance, so that the sacred feast might be celebrated in harmony everywhere. Which also now, according to ancient custom, we believe in the Lord to be proclaimed in the Churches: that one faith, one baptism, one most sacred Paschal solemnity be celebrated by all Christians everywhere in Christ Jesus our Lord, because in him we live and move and have our being... Greet the brotherhood that is with you: those who are with us greet you in the Lord. And in another hand: I pray that you be well and remember us, Lord, most beloved and most desired. So St. Proterius wrote to Pope St. Leo.
[10] Nor is there any doubt that he wrote the same or similar things to the Emperor Marcian, Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople, and other Bishops of the East, whom he persuaded that Easter should be celebrated on the 8th of the Kalends of May according to the computation of Theophilus: and they indicated this very thing to Pope St. Leo by letters written on this matter. Hence St. Leo, out of zeal for peace, having embraced the opinion of the Orientals and the Emperor, on what day St. Leo orders it to be celebrated in the West decreed Easter throughout the West on the 8th of the Kalends of May: concerning which matter there exists letter 94, page 233, written to the Bishops of Gaul and Spain on the 5th of the Kalends of August, in the post-consulate of Opilio, in the year 454. He also sent a rescript to St. Proterius, whose opening survives in Bede's book on the Reckoning of Times, chapter 42, near the end, in these words: and writes back to St. Proterius Your love's letters gladdened me, which our brother and fellow bishop Nectarius brought with pious service. For it was fitting that such writings should be sent to the Apostolic See from the Bishop of the Church of Alexandria, which would show that the Egyptians had learned from the beginning, through the teaching of the most blessed Apostle Peter via Blessed Mark his disciple, what the Romans are known to have believed. So St. Leo with his characteristic modesty. But Prosper in his greater Chronicle, as found in Bucherius page 89, criticizes the opinion of the Orientals and St. Proterius in these words: In that same year the Lord's Easter was celebrated by the obstinate insistence of the Alexandrian Bishop: with whom all the Orientals thought they should agree.
[11] That a synod was assembled by St. Proterius at Alexandria is attested by the Egyptian Bishops and the Alexandrian Clergy in a letter sent after his death to the Emperor Leo, and recorded after the acts of the Council of Chalcedon, number 22, in volume 9 of the Councils, from page 268, he defends the faith in a synod held at Alexandria in which the following is found: The holy and ecumenical Council assembled at Chalcedon under the pious Prince Marcian of holy memory preserved the right faith inviolate and uncontaminated... Wherefore also in our Egyptian Council, necessarily with our Archbishop of holy memory, Proterius, unhesitatingly assenting to it and understanding those things, and unanimously with all the Priests of Christ of the whole world, and above all the supreme holy Bishops, that is, Leo of Rome, Anatolius of the royal city of Constantinople, and Basil of Antioch, and Juvenal of Jerusalem, and all the orthodox Bishops, as we labored according to the holy Apostle for the firmness of the Evangelical faith, and being wise in Christ with our Churches and cities, and with the unaltered peace of the orthodox people among us and at Alexandria remaining, except for Timothy, who tore himself away from the faith of the Catholic Church and cut himself off; Timothy Aelurus condemned with his associates soon after the holy Council of Chalcedon, while he then held the rank of Priest, with only four or five Bishops and a few monks, languishing in the heretical sect of Apollinaris and his like, on account of which they were then regularly condemned and driven into exile by Proterius of holy memory and the entire Egyptian Council, and also by Imperial command, they deserved to experience exile. Phil. 1:27 Concerning Timothy and Peter Mongus, or Moggus, then a Deacon and afterward Bishop of Alexandria, who were condemned, Liberatus confirms the following in chapter 15: A certain Timothy, surnamed Aelurus, and Peter Moggus the Deacon, who were of the ordination of Dioscorus, separated themselves from the Church of Alexandria, refusing to communicate with Proterius. When Bishop Proterius could not recall them to their proper ministry, he condemned both. That Alexandrian Synod was held in the year 456, when Basil had been substituted for Maximus, the deceased Bishop of Antioch, who according to the tables of Nicephorus and Theophanes sat for only two years, and was still alive the following year, when the Emperor Leo was sending encyclical letters everywhere about the death of St. Proterius.
[12] In the Greek Menaia and in Maximus Cytheraeus, St. Grigentinus is venerated on December 19, who perhaps for others, along with the Greek Menologion published by Canisius, is Gregory of Agrigentum: Elesbaan, King of the Ethiopians, did not request a Bishop from St. Proterius in whose encomium it is said that Elesbaan, King of the Ethiopians, wrote letters to Proterius, Patriarch of Alexandria, in which he requested a Bishop, and indeed a holy and perfect man. At which request the Patriarch was troubled and indignant, because he did not know where such a man could be found. In those same days, therefore, St. Mark appeared to the Pontiff and showed him the man who was sought: who shortly before, by divine prompting, had come to Alexandria and had been received as a guest by a certain person. Whom he received with great charity and joy, and made Bishop, and who had then become famous for miracles. He therefore sends him to the King with letters of recommendation, and added the other things pertaining to the episcopal office. So the text reads, in which the name of Proterius, the successor of Dioscorus I, has been erroneously substituted for Timothy, the successor of Dioscorus II, who was made Bishop in the year 3 of the Emperor Justin, but rather by Timothy in the time of the Emperor Justin if that account of the Menaia deserves credence. Certainly in the year 5 of Justin, the year 522 of Christ, the following is read in Theophanes: In this year also the wicked crime was committed against St. Arethas and the other inhabitants of the city of Negra, and a war was undertaken by Elesbaan, King of the Ethiopians, against the Homerites, and victory was at last carried off by them. These things are narrated more fully in the Acts of the martyrdom of St. Arethas and companions on October 24.
Section III. The treachery of Timothy Aelurus. The Alexandrian See occupied. The dreadful murder of St. Proterius.
[13] Meanwhile the Emperor Marcian, having reigned for seven years, died on January 23 in the year 457, and was succeeded by Leo the Great, crowned on the 7th of the Ides of February, Indiction 10. Timothy Aelurus incites monks against St. Proterius by nocturnal tricks Already then Timothy Aelurus, using tricks and frauds, went around as a nocturnal walker to the cells of the monks, calling each one by name: and when someone answered, he would say: I am an Angel, and I have been sent to announce that all should abstain from communion with Proterius and from the things that were done at Chalcedon, and should forthwith establish Timothy Aelurus as Bishop of Alexandria. So says Theophanes, who however distributes over three years what happened in one year. The same is read in the History of Anastasius, the Compendium of Cedrenus, and in the Greek Menaia and in Cytheraeus, and it is said that Timothy watched for a moonless and dark night. Theodore the Lector, book 1 of his Collectanea, narrates the same crime thus: Timothy Aelurus, before Proterius was killed, clad in black garments, went around at night in the cells of the monks and called each monk by name. When they listened, he said he was one of the ministering spirits, sent for this purpose, to declare to all that they should not communicate with Proterius, but should designate Timothy Aelurus as Bishop, insinuating himself to all in this manner. So says Theodore, to which we add from Evagrius other things that then happened, who in book 2, chapter 8, asserts the following: The Alexandrians, learning of the death of Marcian, renewed their anger against Proterius with greater fury and passion... Therefore, having carefully watched for the time when Dionysius, the Prefect of the garrisons, was staying in Upper Egypt, he is chosen Bishop they chose Timothy, surnamed Aelurus, who had long cultivated the monastic way of life but had afterward been enrolled among the Priests of Alexandria, by their votes for assuming the rank of episcopate, and as soon as they had led him to the great church which is called by the name of Caesar, they declared him their Bishop, while Proterius was still alive and performing the duties of a Priest. Eusebius, Bishop of Pelusium, and Peter, a native of Iberia, Bishop of the city of Maiuma, were present at the election of Timothy: which things the historian who committed the Life of Peter to writing also commemorates. So says Evagrius, and Nicephorus reports nearly the same in book 15, chapter 16.
[14] Theodore the Lector briefly touches on the impious ordination of Timothy: Aelurus, he says, while Proterius was still alive, was ordained by deposed Bishops, and immediately they filled the church with crowds and disturbances. These events are narrated by Theophanes at the year 1 of the Emperor Leo thus: In this year a cameleopard, bull-stags, and other monstrous beasts were brought to Alexandria: and together with them Timothy, surnamed Aelurus, disturbed the city of Alexandria. For having hired a band of assassins, he tyrannically seized the Alexandrian See, he is ordained among assassins and though stripped of every Ecclesiastical rank, was ordained by two Bishops equally deprived of Ecclesiastical dignity. Hence all the scandals that afflicted Alexandria had their origin. For while all holy men throughout the whole world were admitting the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, that perverse man, driven by a kind of unbridled fury, did not fear to vomit insults against it: profane and devoid of Holy Orders, he performed consecrations of Bishops, and though not even a Priest, he initiated others by conferring Baptism. So says Theophanes, and from him Anastasius and Cedrenus. In the Menaia it is said that the monks, deceived in their innocence by the previously described fraud of Aelurus, stirred up sedition against Proterius. St. Proterius is admonished by St. Isaiah not to flee Wherefore Proterius fled, but saw the most holy Prophet Isaiah meeting him, who addressed him and said: Return to Alexandria; I am waiting to receive you. He perhaps said this to designate his violent death. Before we treat of this, from the above-mentioned letter 22 of the Egyptian Bishops and the Alexandrian Clergy to the Emperor Leo, we give some things done by the impious Timothy, and described exactly on page 272 of volume 9 of the Councils in these words:
[15] The malignant one found in this Timothy the most fitting weapons for his machinations, whom we know to be estranged from every good thing but a most opportune instrument of the diabolical mind alone. He, having long coveted the episcopate of the great city of Alexandria, as the outcome of events showed, desiring what he ought to have fled, Aelurus rises up against the Council of Chalcedon if only he had been wise, cleverly putting forward a pretense which he initially feigned deceitfully he wished to avoid, and having lain in wait for the passing of the Prince Marcian of holy memory, by which he departed to God, shamelessly rising up against him with blasphemous words, and brazenly anathematizing the holy and ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, and gathering a mob of seditious and base populace, and arming it against the holy rules, ecclesiastical discipline, and the common commonwealth and laws, he rushed into the holy church of God, which had a Pastor and most holy Teacher, our then Father and Archbishop Proterius, he invades the See of St. Proterius who was celebrating the customary services and pouring forth prayers to Christ the Savior of us all for the empire of your piety and your most Christian palace, while the most magnificent Judges, and the Court, and the faithful people, and the entire Clergy together with the monks were assembled in that same city. When this evil therefore proceeded, and the day had scarcely yet dawned, while Proterius, beloved of God, was residing in the episcopal palace according to custom, Timothy, taking with him two justly condemned Bishops and Clergy likewise, who, as we said, had been condemned to dwell in exile; as if about to receive the laying on of hands from the two, with absolutely no orthodox Bishop from the Egyptian diocese present, as is customary in such ordinations of Alexandrian Bishops to be present, as he believed he obtained the pontifical See, openly presuming adultery in a Church that had its own spouse, and was performing the divine mysteries in it, and duly adorning its own See. This excellent man, not allowing the action hateful to God and on all sides dangerous to be deferred, with a kind of irresistible frenzy suddenly enthroned himself, trusting that the law and ecclesiastical order were the irrational anger of the mixed populace, and perceiving in his mind neither the rules of the Fathers, nor Imperial law, or ecclesiastical decrees, nor order, nor Imperial authority, nor judicial severity, he ordains Bishops and Clergy he immediately performed ordinations of Bishops and Clergy alike, being himself a Bishop without the laying on of hands. But not even having the prior order of the priesthood, he performed baptisms and exercised all the functions which it was in no way fitting for him to perform.
[19] When this most cruel butchery had been completed, the wicked fury of Aelurus was not yet satisfied, but driven by new madness and audacity, he proceeded to rage against the remaining orthodox Egyptian Bishops and Alexandrian Clergy, while they were being driven from their Sees and Churches. The event is described in the said letter of these Bishops and Clergy to the Emperor Leo, and is reported on page 272 as follows: Aelurus devastates the property of the Church Aelurus also added to these evils worse ones without fear, while he works wickedly against the rules. He continues to perform the sacred mysteries, who by the holy Canons cannot even have the communion of laymen: and he governs by his own authority the holy Church of Alexandria, but its property, as he sees fit, he wickedly devastates, and the poor who have their sustenance from the Church, he deprives entirely of its comfort, spending these things on other most wicked persons. And openly indeed, four or five condemned Bishops, he persecutes orthodox Bishops opponents of the orthodox faith, as we said, some he keeps with him, others he sends through the cities, to persecute in them the orthodox Bishops: but he does not cease to ordain others as well. Those, however, who stand by the rules, as communicants of the holy and ecumenical Council and of Proterius of holy memory, he has anathematized: and Clergy and thus he has expelled all the most holy Clergy of the city of Alexandria, who likewise communicated with the General Council and with Archbishop Proterius of holy memory: but also the Clergy who have been ordained in our churches and by us, he has truly shown by anathematizing all of them as heretics. he anathematizes St. Proterius and others But the orthodox elders and Theophilus of holy memory, Bishop of the city of Alexandria, and Cyril of holy memory, and Proterius of blessed memory, all those ordained of old, as we said, he anathematized and prohibited from all priesthood. He added to these evils also this, that from the venerable diptychs he removed the name of Proterius of holy memory, he erases his name from the diptychs and placed his own name and that of Dioscorus who was condemned by the entire Council, whose ordinations he did not accept. Thus on all sides he is convicted of being drunk, as it were, with varied cunning, and throughout the individual cities and venerable monasteries he commands that no one receive communion he repudiates those ordained by him either from the Bishops or Clergy who are or were communicants of the holy and ecumenical Council of Chalcedon and of Proterius of venerable memory, nor should they consider as Clergy those who have been ordained by us, but in their place he orders others to be introduced, both those whom he himself ordains and those whom he orders others to make. These and other things the Egyptian Bishops and the Alexandrian Clergy wrote to the Emperor Leo, from whom they ask that these things be made known to the most holy Archbishop of the city of Rome, as well as to the Bishops of Antioch and Jerusalem, and to the Bishop of the city of Thessalonica and of Ephesus and others, so that they might reply to him about what should be done concerning such great crimes.
[23] These are printed in the third part of the Council of Chalcedon, or volume 9 of the Councils: from which we bring forth some testimonies concerning the innocent murder of St. Proterius. The first of these is from four Bishops of the province of Europa in Thrace, whose letter is number 27, and page 291 contains the following: Because by the action of Timothy, Proterius of holy memory, the orthodox and holy Father and Bishop of Alexandria, was killed in the place of the most sacred baptistery, and cut to pieces limb by limb, and dragged around through all places, and afterward given over to fire, and suffered other things which the tongue shudders to utter on account of the enormity of the crime; we place the most holy Proterius in the order and choir of the holy Martyrs, St. Proterius is held to be a Martyr and invoked and we entreat that God be made merciful and propitious to us through his intercessions; but Timothy, who perpetrated such things against Proterius of blessed memory, who was a Bishop, and by whose counsel and deliberation this crime was committed, which on account of the excess of its cruelty even stops up human ears, Timothy is held to be a tyrant we judge, as a tyrant and bloodthirsty man, who on account of his immense cruelty surpasses the ancient tyrants who armed themselves against the triumphant Martyrs, and who seized the Episcopate, to be alien and foreign to the priesthood and the dignity of the episcopate. Valentinus, Bishop of Philippopolis and Primate of the province of Thrace, in letter 29, among other things on page 295, judges the following: That Timothy, who exceeds the summit of all wickedness and transcends the summit of inhumanity, a murderer and parricide, who while the Bishop was still alive committed adultery against his Church and killed its spouse, and in a tyrannical manner and shamelessly placed himself on his See, ought not to be examined even among the living, is clear: he is never to be believed worthy of the dignity of the pontificate, unworthy of the Pontificate nor to stand at the holy altar and minister to the Divinity. Six Bishops of Second Moesia, in letter 32, page 299, pronounce the following: We decree that Timothy, who through hatred and crime most wickedly wrought against Proterius, a most reverend man, Bishop of the city of Alexandria, and who surreptitiously and unworthily assumed the name of the episcopate from condemned men, is not to be numbered in the order of Priests, but is to be considered under anathema and among the Simoniacs. a Simoniac Nine Bishops of First Syria, in letter 33, page 302, decree that Timothy, on account of the crimes and presumptions which he wickedly committed, ought to be subjected to the laws of the state and their Governors, according to reason and competent judgment. And seven Bishops of Second Syria, in letter 34, page 305, call him the author of murder and the worker of adultery, alien to all dignity of the priesthood. Likewise eight Bishops of the province of Osroene, in letter 35, lament that Timothy held the See divinely bestowed on Priests in the Alexandrian city, and filled his nurse with Pontifical blood. By twelve Bishops of Second Phoenicia, in letter 38, page 313, Timothy is called not a Priest, an adulterer of the Church but an adulterer of the Church, who wished to obtain with Pontifical blood that which the Savior had set free with his own blood, and he became not a Pastor of the sheep of Christ, but an insufferable wolf, not a Father, but a parricide; a parricide not a spouse, but a violator of the bridal chamber. For the same reason, seventeen Bishops of the province of Isauria, in letter 39, page 319, judge that no word of pardon is left to him by the Canons of the holy Fathers: and twenty-two Bishops of Lycia, in a synod held at Myra, in letter 44, page 338, conclude their address to the Emperor thus: Expel, to be expelled according to what is written, the pestilence from the council, and remove the man of blood from the midst, and protect, as pious men in your custom, the fellow Priests who have unjustly suffered persecution, restore to the Churches their proper spouses, and gather together the monasteries, and do not permit the labors of Athanasius and Theophilus and Cyril of holy memory, who were the leaders of the orthodox faith, to be in any way useless: and hear with clemency Proterius of holy memory, on account of the blood of St. Proterius crying out to heaven who was a mediator between God and men, crying out with a great voice. For the earth does not allow his blood to be hidden, just as that of Zechariah, lest, hiding it again, it be cursed a second time.
[24] We omit what was decreed by other Bishops, lest the same things be repeated in different words or even in the same formula. We indicate only what was done by the Supreme Pontiff, St. Leo. Having received the letters of Anatolius about the murder of St. Proterius and the occupation of the Alexandrian See by Timothy Aelurus, he promptly wrote a letter to the Emperor Leo, which is found among his letters at number 73, volume 7 of the Councils, page 154, with this opening: and as Pope St. Leo testifies Having fulfilled the duties pertaining to congratulations on your Empire, I have also added this page of necessary supplication: by which I ask the protection of your favor, divinely prepared for the Catholic faith. For I have learned from the report of my brother and fellow bishop Anatolius that such things have been perpetrated in the Church of Alexandria that all Christian religion feels itself assailed and violated, the whole Church has been violated unless your devotion provides for the universal faith, and Christian liberty is restored to the aforesaid Church, which was formerly famous for Catholic Doctors, so that with the attacks of heretics ceasing, the Evangelical doctrine, which flourished there before Dioscorus, may be restored in union with the peace of the whole Church. And at length he concludes with these words: Take counsel first for the restoration of peace to the holy Church of Alexandria, and order that through Catholic Priests such a Pontiff be provided, in whom nothing reprehensible may be found either in the uprightness of his deeds or in the perfection of his faith, so that with all things duly settled, the same preaching of the truth may be maintained everywhere. Given on the 5th of the Ides of June, in the consulship of Constantine and Rufus, it is judged that another Bishop should be elected that is, the year 457. Having received further letters from Anatolius, he wrote another letter to the Emperor Leo on the Kalends of September, in which he congratulates him for professing that he is the guardian of the Synod of Chalcedon for the peace of the whole world, heresy must be restrained and exhorts him to restrain by Imperial power heretical wickedness and obstinate insidious contention. Meanwhile the Emperor Leo sent his own letter to Pope St. Leo with the letters of the Egyptian Bishops, some of orthodox and some of heretics, to which Pope St. Leo responded with a very learned letter, exhorting the Emperor to suppress the fury of the heretics and to reform the Church of Alexandria. It survives in the third part of the Council of Chalcedon, number 25, page 284 of volume 9 of the Councils, given on the Kalends of December of the same year 457, with this opening: I have received with reverence the letters of your Clemency, full of the virtue of faith and the light of truth. Then he sharply reproves the impious parricides, and afterward says: Is it not clear whom your piety ought to succor and whom to oppose, lest the Church of Alexandria, which was always a house of prayer, now be a den of thieves? For it is manifest that through the most cruel and most savage madness, all the light of heavenly sacraments has been extinguished there. The offering of sacrifice has been cut off, the sanctification of the chrism has ceased, and all mysteries have withdrawn themselves from the parricidal hands of the impious. Nor can it in any way be doubted and the murder of St. Proterius, a most proven Priest, is deplored what should be decreed concerning those who, after wicked sacrileges, after the blood of a most proven Priest has been shed and the ashes of his cremated body dispersed in insult to the air and sky, dare to claim for themselves the right of the dignity they have seized, and to challenge the inviolable faith of Apostolic doctrine to Councils. It would therefore be a great thing for you, that to your diadem from the hand of the Lord the crown of faith also be added, and that you triumph over the enemies of the Church.
[25] When Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, died in the year 458, Gennadius succeeded, who, as Theophanes testifies, applied every effort with the Emperor to ensure that the things wickedly done should be subjected to fitting vengeance: by order of the Emperor Leo, Aelurus is expelled although Aspar the Arian favored the opposing party. Moreover, the most pious Emperor banished Aelurus to Gangra, where his master Dioscorus had been deported. But he began to hold conventicles and stir up disturbances there again: and when the Emperor was informed of this, he banished the man to Cherson. But another Timothy, surnamed Leucus, who is also called Salophaciolus, a man of right belief concerning matters of faith, Timothy Leucus is chosen Bishop and dear to all for his moral integrity, was ordained Bishop of Alexandria in the former's place. So says Theophanes, and Anastasius and Cedrenus report the same. The Greeks in the Menaia and in Cytheraeus agree. Evagrius, book 2, chapter 11, and Liberatus, chapter 16, report nearly the same, and the latter adds: This Timothy, the Catholic Bishop, lived indeed quietly without sedition in the Church of Alexandria throughout the entire time of Leo and Zeno, until Basiliscus seized the tyranny... Then, when Basiliscus restored the episcopate to Timothy Aelurus and restored heretics to their Sees, Aelurus is restored the Catholic Timothy fled to the fortress of Canopus and hid in a monastery... After the Emperor Zeno returned to the Empire, Timothy Aelurus... was released from human life by drinking poison. he perishes by drinking poison After his death the heretics ordained as their Bishop Peter, surnamed Moggus... And the Emperor Zeno, learning of the cunning of the heretics, wrote to Anthemius the Augustal Prefect, Peter Mongus succeeds; Timothy Leucus returns to deprive Peter of the priesthood and to restore Timothy to the Episcopate... who died in the twenty-third year and sixth month of his episcopate without trouble. There was then ordained by the Bishops, Clergy, and monks who communicated with him, and who knew his faith and governance, John, formerly the steward, then John Tabennesiotes surnamed Talaia, who is called by others Tabennesiotes: when he was expelled, or voluntarily left the city lest violence be done to him, Peter Moggus, or Mongus, was intruded again, as we said on February 25 in the Life of Pope St. Felix III, pages 504 and following. This Mongus, however, as Evagrius writes in book 3, chapter 13, having accepted the Henoticon of Zeno, received those who stood on the side of Proterius, Mongus again deceitfully admits followers of St. Proterius's faith and having preached to the people in the church, read the letter of Zeno about concord. Namely, as the same Evagrius reports in chapter 17, the man was fraudulent, crafty, and time-serving, and by no means persisted in one opinion, but now condemned the Council of Chalcedon with anathema, now sang a recantation and approved that same Council with every vote.
[26] But we said in his Life that when his deceit was perceived, the orthodox fled to St. Felix, peace restored in the year 519 and that communion was at last granted to the Orientals by Pope St. Hormisdas under the Emperor Justin in the year 519, when the names of Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, Peter Mongus, and others were erased from the diptychs. But the zeal of the Alexandrians for the most wicked and villainous heretics, Dioscorus and Timothy Aelurus, flared up again, whom their posterity (as can be seen in the Egyptian or Coptic Calendars in Selden) venerated with the religious cult of Saints, the former on the third day of the month of Thoth, that is, August 31, Aelurus on the 7th of Mesore, or July 31, on which day he is said to have died in the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, published by Abraham Ecchellensis with the Oriental Chronicle in the royal press, again disturbed if indeed that History deserves the light of day, having been stitched together even by an impious heretic, with the orthodox Bishops who did not adhere to Dioscorus struck from the list of Patriarchs: such as St. Proterius, Timothy Leucus, John Talaia or Tabennesiotes, Gaianus, Paul, Zoilus, Apollinaris, John, Eulogius, Theodore, St. John the Almsgiver, George, Cyrus, Peter, all of whom are enumerated by St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, Theophanes, and other orthodox writers.
[27] The Greeks in the Menaia and in Maximus Cytheraeus celebrate the feast of St. Proterius on February 28, in these words: St. Proterius is venerated by the Greeks on February 28 On the same day, the memory of the holy and sacred Martyr Proterius, Archbishop of Alexandria. His encomium, already recited in parts, is appended. These verses are added in the Menaia:
Proterius is slaughtered with reeds, Becoming a sharp-writing reed against deceit. On the twenty-eighth they slew Proterius with reeds.
Or rather, though killed around Easter, as was proved above, the Greeks venerate him on February 28, on which day perhaps his name was restored to the diptychs. For in the diptych the names of Bishops of pious memory who have passed to heaven are contained, which are read over during the time of the sacred mysteries according to the holy rules: as the Egyptian Bishops and the Alexandrian Clergy attest to this custom of theirs in the above-mentioned letter to Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople.
[28] Baronius, having related the murder of St. Proterius at the year 457, adds the following at number 28: But although audacity may burst forth, and rashness may rage, and unbridled license run wild, and shameless impudence with unblushing forehead may moreover run riot, kill, drag, tear to pieces, burn, and scatter the thin ashes to the wind, and erase his name from the diptychs so that it may no longer be remembered; yet far more secure than any bronze tablets, the book of life has the name of Proterius inscribed in heaven, and on earth not one alone but all the Churches of the entire world have solemnly received it, commended with indelible marks to perpetual memory, indeed, as Baronius testifies, in all the Churches to be repeated each year with great proclamation: whom they know, adorned with the priestly crown, resplendent with the purple of martyrdom, to have received a share in heaven with the holy Apostles. So says Baronius, and we marvel that the name of this most holy Martyr was not entered by him in the tables of the Roman Martyrology, and indeed that it did not even come into the reckoning of other Latin calendars.