ON ST. SISINNIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE, PATRIARCH,
IN THE YEAR 427.
SYLLOGE.
Sisinnius, patriarch of Constantinople. (S.)
BY C. B.
The sacred Fasti of the Greeks, already reported above under St. Nectarius at numbers 10 and 11, St. Sisinnius, whom the sacred Fasti of the Greeks mentioned here alone which, as we saw there, celebrate that patriarch of Constantinople today, likewise commemorate today Sisinnius, also patriarch of Constantinople, of whom we are now about to treat here; and although all of these — or, to name each one individually here as well, the Sirmondian Synaxarion, the manuscript Menaea of the Greeks of the Ambrosian Library, likewise the great printed Menaea of the Greeks, and finally the Menologion which Maximus Margunius, bishop of Cythera, composed in the vernacular tongue of the modern Greeks — do so without employing any elogium at all, yet the great printed Menaea, as they adorn Nectarius with the verses already transcribed above, so also adorn Sisinnius with these two following little verses, in which, as appears, the poet, coldly after his manner, alludes to the name of Sisinnius as though derived from the verb σινιάζω, in Latin "I sift" or "I shake":
Ἀσινὲς ἦραν πνεῦμα τὸ Σισινίου Ὁυ σινιασθὲν μηχαναῖς τῶν δαιμόνων.
They bore off unharmed the spirit of Sisinnius, Not shaken by the arts of the demons.
Nor do the said Menaea of the Greeks do this only, but they also subjoin to the verses already recited a short prayer, by which the divine mercy is implored through the prayers of SS. Nectarius and Sisinnius, brought also by Margunius into the praised Menologion which he composed.
[2] The praised Menaea were indeed printed only in the year 1595; celebrate, and whom nevertheless, by the reasons adduced here but these very same existed in manuscript a very long time before, and these were accustomed to be used by the Greeks then, as now the printed ones, for reciting the ecclesiastical office; so that surely it is not to be doubted that Sisinnius enjoys immemorial cult among them; and since it is so, there is no reason why he should not be reckoned here among the Saints. He stands inscribed indeed only in the sacred Fasti of the Greeks already mentioned above, and in no sacred Fasti of the Latins; but this likewise holds as regards St. Nectarius, and yet what I discussed above at numbers 10 and 11, where I treated of that holy patriarch of Constantinople, shows that he is not for that reason to be excluded from the number of the Saints. There would indeed be reason why Sisinnius — since the Greeks sometimes reckon among the Saints even the unworthy, and on this very day Arsacius, who, as I have already noted above among the Passed Over, is certainly to be erased from the number of the Saints — should not be reckoned among them, even though inscribed in the praised sacred Fasti of the Greeks, if it could be solidly proved that he is unworthy to be honoured with this distinction; but I find nothing at all by which this can be given as proved even in any way (for the sloth imputed to the Saint by some cannot contribute anything to this either, as will become plain from what is to be said below), and on the contrary there occurs what shows that Sisinnius is wholly worthy to be numbered among the Saints. I place this here before the reader's eyes.
[3] [and moved by the illustrious testimony of Pope Celestine to his faith and virtue after his death] Pope Celestine, in a letter written in the year 431 to Nestorius, who had succeeded in the see of Constantinople to Sisinnius, the successor of Atticus, in Labbe, volume 3 of the Councils, column 353, writes thus: For some days of our Life, after the abominable and often condemned dogma of Pelagius and Caelestius, the catholic faith had quiet, when East and West struck them, with the followers of their opinion, with the darts of a united sentence. Finally Atticus, of holy memory, teacher of the catholic faith and truly a successor of blessed John in these matters too, so pursued them on behalf of the common king that not even the opportunity of standing there was afforded them. There remained to us after his departure the very greatest solicitude, as we inquired whether his successor would succeed also in his faith; because it is difficult for good things to be continued; for adverse things often succeed to them by turns. We had, however, after him, by whom we were forthwith to be deserted, the holy Sisinius, a colleague celebrated for simplicity, preaching that faith which he had found. Holy simplicity and simple sanctity had surely read: "It is rather to be feared than to be highly wise." And elsewhere: "Higher things are not to be pursued." And again: "If anyone shall have preached other than what we have preached, let him be anathema." Besides, the same Celestine, in the volume of the Councils just cited, column 365, in the letter by which he fortifies the clergy and people of Constantinople against the heresy of Nestorius, speaks of our Saint in the following manner: We had, on his (St. Atticus's) departure, as a colleague Sisinnius of blessed memory, knowing what glory could remain if he preserved entire and inviolate the ornaments of the catholic faith which had come down to him. We understood that neither the simplicity of the dove nor the prudence of the serpent was lacking to him. We wept, dearest brethren, as though foreknowing the future, that we were quickly deprived of his protection.
[4] we bring him into our Work; he was made bishop of Constantinople in the year 426 So the praised supreme Pontiff; and since in these two texts transcribed here he renders so very illustrious a testimony to the faith and virtue of Sisinnius after his death, it can surely be concluded hence, not without reason, that Sisinnius is wholly worthy to be reckoned among the Saints; and since, as I have already said, the contrary cannot be proved on any head, I have judged that he, though inscribed only in the sacred Fasti of the Greeks, is to be numbered among the Saints and inserted in our Work endowed with the title of Saint; having been content to note this here, I now proceed to his election as bishop of Constantinople. This happened in the year 426, as Count Marcellinus relates in his chronicle, as it was edited by Panvinio, page 63, writing thus: In the 9th Indiction, Theodosius for the 12th time and Valentinian for the 2nd time being consuls, Sisinnius, a Man of holy simplicity and simple sanctity, was made bishop of Constantinople. That Sisinnius was made bishop of Constantinople then, that is, in the year 426, Socrates likewise relates in the Ecclesiastical History, book 7, chapter 26; and since he moreover informs us both of the manner in which this came about and of the day on which this our Saint was ordained bishop, it pleases me to transcribe his words also here. They are these following: After the death of Atticus a great contention arose concerning the ordination of a bishop, some demanding one man and some another: for some desired the presbyter Philip, some Proclus, who was also a presbyter. But the whole people by common consent wished for Sisinnius, who was himself also a presbyter, yet not appointed in any church within the city, but had obtained the rank of the presbyterate in a suburb of Constantinople whose name is Elaea… And all the laity burned with desire for this Man, both because he was most celebrated everywhere for the name of piety, and especially because he devoted himself to cherishing the poor even beyond his means.
[5] The zeal of the laity therefore prevailed, and Sisinnius was ordained on the day before the Kalends of March, lawfully elected on the last day of February, in the consulship immediately following, which was the twelfth of Theodosius and the second of the younger Valentinian Augustus. St. Sisinnius was therefore, as is plainly understood from the distinct chronological notes which Socrates supplies here, ordained bishop of Constantinople in the year 426, and indeed on the last day of February; but as for the manner in which this was done, nothing indeed occurs in the words of Socrates already given which renders the ordination of Sisinnius, I will not say unlawful, but even suspect; but although it be so, he who, aspiring to the chair of Constantinople, had been set behind Sisinnius, as that author reveals in these words — Philip the presbyter, a native, as the same Socrates relates in book 7, chapter 27, of the city of Side in Pamphylia — dared to carp at and gnaw at it. Hear how he speaks here immediately after the words just transcribed. After these things, he says, Philip the presbyter, because another had been set before him, reprehended that ordination at length in the Christian History which he wrote; where, censuring at once the one ordained and the ordainers, and especially the laity, he says things which I indeed would not wish to commit to writing: for I can in no way approve the rashness of one who dared to publish such things in his writings. So he; and since the things which he writes that Philip committed to writing against Sisinnius flowed solely from envy, as he sufficiently hints, there is surely no reason why, on account of these things, most strongly disapproved even by Socrates, it should be called into doubt whether the ordination of St. Sisinnius was lawful or not.
[6] The Saint, further, immediately after this — nay, while the synod of Constantinople by which he had been consecrated bishop was still lasting — he at once shows his zeal against the Messalian heretics; showed a fervent zeal against the Messalian heretics, imitating the example of St. Atticus, his immediate predecessor. This is gathered from what occurs in Photius in the Bibliotheca, edited in Greek and Latin by Andreas Schott, codex 52, columns 39 and 40. For there, having mentioned some bishops who wrote either about the heretics just mentioned or even against them, condemned in the synod of Side and in another assembled by Flavian, bishop of Antioch, these following things are handed down to memory: Atticus of Constantinople also wrote to the bishops living in Pamphylia that they should drive out the Messalians from everywhere as accursed and detestable. Nay, he likewise wrote similarly to Amphilochius, presiding at Side. Sisinnius of Constantinople likewise, and Theodotus of Antioch, wrote a common letter to Berinianus and Amphilochius and the other bishops in Pamphylia, of which letter this is the inscription: "To the most dear to God, colleagues in the sacred things, Berinianus and Amphilochius, and indeed to all the bishops in Pamphylia, Sisinnius and Theodotus and the whole holy
synod which by the grace of God has been assembled in the great city of Constantinople for the sake of consecrating the most God-beloved bishop Sisinnius, by the command and authority of our most pious and Christ-beloved emperor Theodosius, greeting in the Lord;" and from these words it is evident that what I have said is gathered. Nor is it to be doubted that, as at the beginning, so also thereafter, Sisinnius showed himself vigorous and diligent in all matters pertaining to his church, and by name in keeping heretics away from it.
[7] but although he was both accused of sloth by some, Socrates indeed, when he sets out the excellent character of Sisinnius in book 7, chapter 28, speaks of him there in the following manner: A man most celebrated indeed for temperance and holiness of life and for kindness toward the poor; but in manners simple and affable, and therefore averse to affairs; for which cause he was irksome to busy men, among whom he came into the reputation of sloth; and thus he reveals not obscurely that our Saint was judged slothful or sluggish by busy men, or men accustomed willingly to entangle themselves in various affairs. But, says Cuper in the Chronological History of the Patriarchs of Constantinople prefixed to volume 1 of August of our Work, number 190, since according to the Apostle the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, that imprudent judgment of restless men will detract nothing from the honour of so excellent a Prelate; for those who were endowed with a purer knowledge of spiritual things judged otherwise of the tranquil simplicity of Sisinnius. So he; who then, having adduced the two texts of Pope Celestine which I recited above, transcribes moreover another, taken from the letter of the same Celestine written after the condemnation of Nestorius to the synod of Ephesus, which is extant in Labbe, volume 3 of the Councils, column 1070, and conceived in these following words concerning St. Maximian, the successor of Sisinnius after Nestorius: The blessed simplicity of Sisinnius of holy memory was seeking such a successor, that none but one like himself should obtain his place; for indeed we do better if, abstaining now from the name of that sacrilegious man (namely the heretic Nestorius, who had immediately succeeded Sisinnius), we say that the see was vacant; and presently he adds: From what has been said thus far it can be gathered that Sisinnius was wrongly accused of sloth by busy men, since all these things rather commend in him a tranquil alacrity and a simple and at the same time prudent manner of acting.
[8] Further, the same Cuper, rightly judging that the reputation of our holy Prelate cannot be violated by the senseless calumny of certain persons by whom he was accused of sloth, and may perhaps deservedly have been held suspect from the deed here narrated at length also insinuates not obscurely that he suspects it drew its origin from the rivalry or envy of the presbyter Philip, who, as we have already seen, aspiring to the chair of Constantinople, had been set behind Sisinnius. But Socrates writes thus in book 7, chapter 28: The bishop of Cyzicus having died, Sisinnius ordained Proclus bishop of that city. But while he was preparing to set out there, the people of Cyzicus, forestalling him, appointed for themselves as bishop a certain Dalmatius, a man of the monastic profession; and this was done by them in contempt of the law by which it had been ordained that no ordination of a priest should be made without the judgment of the bishop of Constantinople. Moreover, they so neglected this law because this prerogative seemed to have been granted to the person of Atticus alone. Proclus therefore remained, despoiled indeed of the administration of his own church, but by preaching in the churches of Constantinople he obtained the greatest glory; so the praised historiographer; while Valesius observes thus on these words of his, and especially on the law which they mention: What that law was, and by whom it was enacted, is uncertain. I think it was an imperial law by which it had been provided that the people of Cyzicus should not ordain a bishop without the consent of Atticus, bishop of Constantinople.
[9] For, had this been decreed in a council of bishops, may perhaps deservedly have been held, Socrates would rather have used the word canon than law. This law, Atticus having died, the people of Cyzicus disregarded. For they said that this privilege had been granted specially to Atticus and did not pertain to his successors. But they were mistaken. For long before Atticus the bishops of Constantinople had given prelates to the people of Cyzicus. For in the times of Constantius, Eudoxius, bishop of Constantinople, had ordained Eunomius bishop of Cyzicus. The right therefore, as appears from these words of Socrates and Valesius now recited, of substituting another in the place of the deceased bishop of Cyzicus belonged to St. Sisinnius as bishop of Constantinople, or at least it was not lawful for the people of Cyzicus to appoint a new bishop for themselves without his consent. The people of Cyzicus indeed thought, or at least pretended, that it had been granted to Atticus alone, and not to his successors, that a bishop of Cyzicus could not be created without his consent; but wrongly, says Valesius; and since, as follows from this if this author is to be assented to, the people of Cyzicus could not reject the bishop already ordained by Sisinnius and appoint another for themselves without the greatest injury to Sisinnius, and yet, as it appears, he did nothing at that time by which he either opposed himself to the people of Cyzicus or vindicated the injured right of his see, he was perhaps hence judged by some not only rather averse to affairs but also slothful. And indeed from such a manner of acting, unless perhaps he followed it for some lawful cause, he could seem, as it appears, not altogether undeservedly at least suspect of sloth.
[10] But what if the right of appointing a bishop of Cyzicus, which Sisinnius had at first thought belonged to him, [yet on account of the things which are adduced here, he seems to be freed from that suspicion,] was not sufficiently certain and founded, and he himself discovered not long afterwards that the matter stood thus? Valesius indeed affirms, in the words transcribed above, that long before Atticus prelates had been given to the people of Cyzicus by the bishops of Constantinople; but he does not rightly give this as proved by the example of Eunomius, who in the times of Constantius was ordained bishop of Cyzicus by Eudoxius, bishop of Constantinople; for no one will easily believe that Eunomius was lawfully ordained by Eudoxius who has weighed what Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, book 4, chapter 7, and Theodoret, book 2, chapter 35, write of his ordination. Wherefore, if in fact, perhaps, as it seems can be concluded from what has been said, Sisinnius did not have the right of giving a bishop to the people of Cyzicus, then indeed, by not opposing himself to them, or by not bringing suit because, Proclus whom he had ordained being despised, they had adopted Dalmatius as their bishop, he seems to have deserved not to be charged with sloth or held suspect of it, but rather to be praised, because he thus showed that he wished nothing which could seem contrary to equity. Besides, even if Sisinnius be believed to have had the right of ordaining the bishop of Cyzicus certain on every side, it may yet be that he did not vindicate it, not out of sloth, but out of zeal for preserving peace or avoiding quarrels. But whether it arose from the manner of dealing with the people of Cyzicus which Sisinnius held, or from the envy of the presbyter Philip, or finally from any other cause whatever, that he came into the reputation of sloth with some, the things which Pope Celestine writes of him in the words transcribed above commend in Sisinnius not sloth, but rather, as Cuper says, a tranquil alacrity and a simple and prudent manner of acting.
[11] and he rightly governed his flock up to the year in which he died, 427. Nor do those very words allow it to be doubted that this our Saint governed the church of Constantinople entrusted to him, as long as he presided over it, as befitted a vigorous and watchful pastor. We wept, says Celestine in his letter cited above to the clergy and people of Constantinople, dearest brethren, as though foreknowing the future, that we were quickly deprived of his protection (namely that of Sisinnius, who died not very long after obtaining the bishopric of Constantinople); but who could bring himself to believe that Celestine would have wept at being deprived of the protection of Sisinnius, quickly snatched from the living, if he had been merely slothful and had not governed the church of Constantinople as was fitting? Far be it, therefore, that Sisinnius be believed either to have been deservedly charged with sloth or not to have administered the church of Constantinople rightly. But not for long, as anyone will understand even from what has been said, did the church of Constantinople enjoy so good a pastor, being bereft of him when he had not yet completed two years in the episcopate, as Socrates testifies in the Ecclesiastical History, book 7, chapter 28, in these words: But Sisinnius, when he had not yet completed two years in the episcopate, departed from this light, Hierius and Ardaburius being consuls, on the ninth day before the Kalends of January, that is, in the year of Christ 427, on the 24th day of December; so that, since from what has been said above our Saint ascended the see of Constantinople in the year 426 on the last day of February, he occupied it for one year, nine months and twenty-four days, and that therefore the authors who define his episcopate as two years must without doubt be understood of incomplete years.