Sixtus and Sinicius

ON SS. SIXTUS AND SINICIUS, BISHOPS AND CONFESSORS, AT REIMS IN CHAMPAGNE OF GAUL,

AT REIMS IN CHAMPAGNE OF GAUL

About the year 300.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Sixtus, bishop and confessor, at Reims in Champagne of Gaul. (S.)

Sinicius, bishop and confessor, at Reims in Champagne of Gaul. (S.)

Written by J. S.

§ I. The cult of both Saints and the translation of their relics: their Offices and elogia.

[ ] The church of Reims long venerated on the same

day, 1 September, three

holy Prelates, St. Sixtus inscribed in the sacred Calendars, namely Sixtus,

Sinicius and Nivard.

Of the first two, since they have

Acts in common, we shall treat here

together, of Nivard below. The Roman Martyrology,

with Usuard, announces Sixtus, whom

some name Xystus, without Sinicius,

but with a very different elogium, and not without errors,

as will appear from what is to be discussed. Take the words:

At Reims in Gaul, of holy Xystus, disciple of the blessed apostle Peter,

who, consecrated by him as first bishop of that city,

received under Nero the crown of martyrdom. On these words Baronius noted the following:

Usuard and Ado of the same on this day. That he

was the first bishop of the see of Reims, the records

of that church, which Demochares transcribed,

plainly signify; Usuard and others testify the same.

Of the church of Soissons also Xystus is set down as first

bishop, in the time of Nero, in the records

of that church in Demochares. That

Baronius calls him a disciple of St. Peter, and a martyr under Nero,

he intimates that he received from Demochares.

For this reason it is also pleasing to subjoin

how Demochares has it, and whence he received it.

He hands down a catalogue of the prelates of Reims

in volume 2 on the sacrifice of the Mass, chapter 14, and

begins it thus: St. Sixtus, St. Sinicius, St. Amansius,

disciples of the blessed apostle Peter, martyrs under Nero.

He had prefixed his witness in these words: Whose

(the bishops') names the distinguished doctor of theology

of the Sorbonne society, Jacques Bridou, canon

and penitentiary of the church of Reims, transcribed from

the archives, and sent to us. But below it

will appear that these things do not agree with the monuments of Reims.

[2] The genuine Martyrology of Ado does not have

St. Sixtus of Reims, as also Sinicius, sometimes with Sixtus, sometimes separately: but I should readily believe

that he was found by Baronius in some interpolated

copy of it. Usuard, however, rightly announces the same

Saint thus: At Reims, the deposition

of holy Sixtus, first bishop of that city. Various

codices of Usuard afterwards record Sinicius, added together

with Sixtus, or separately. The Hérinnes codex,

written in the eleventh century, has it thus: At Reims, the deposition

of holy Sixtus, first bishop of that city,

and of blessed Sinicius, his successor. The Centula codex

adds Nivard in this manner: At Reims, metropolis of the Franks,

of the holy confessors and pontiffs

Sixtus, Sinicius and Nivard. The Reims codex

of SS. Timothy and Apollinaris: At Reims, the deposition

of the blessed confessors, and likewise pontiffs of that city,

Sixtus, Sinicius and Nivard. Grevenus and

Molanus in their editions announce each separately,

as confessors, as may be seen

in the Usuard of Sollerius. Wandelbert in his metrical

Martyrology joined the three holy Prelates

in this manner:

At Reims the pontiffs shine with a distinguished name,

Sixtus, Sinicius, and Nivard in merits and in life.

The manuscript Florarium of the Saints celebrates the two former, Nivard

being recorded separately, with this elogium: At Reims,

the deposition of the holy bishops and confessors

Sixtus and Sinicius. This Sixtus was the first bishop

of Reims, and Sinicius, his successor, the second;

men of great learning and of wonderful sanctity

they were, who converted a great company of people of both sexes

to the true faith of Christ,

and instructed them by doctrine and example.

I pass over the more recent martyrologists, and come to the church

of the Saints and to the translations of their relics: for from these

the studious reader will easily perceive

that these two Saints were venerated from the sixth century at least.

[3] their church at Reims sacred to Sixtus already before the seventh century. The Life to be published, Flodoard in his History of Reims,

book 1, chapter 3, and Guillaume Marlot in his History

of the metropolis of Reims, book 1, chapter 14, relate that St.

Sinicius was buried in the same church and the same

tomb in which St. Sixtus had been laid, who died one

year earlier. Marlot adds that that church

was afterwards dedicated to St. Sixtus, which

now, he says, is adorned with his name and his Successor's.

Of this church Flodoard, book 1, chapter 3,

writes the following: Where (Sinicius), labouring faithfully

for the salvation of souls, and fighting the good fight,

deserved to have fellowship with his predecessor (Sixtus) on earth

as in heaven, obtaining with

blessed Sixtus a burial in one and the same church and tomb.

By whose merits afterwards the house of their basilica, made illustrious by famous

miracles, was endowed and enriched with several gifts: enriched

also with fields and houses and vineyards,

it likewise shone forth adorned with the ministries of clerics.

Of whom sometimes twelve, sometimes

ten, as in the time of the lord prelate Sonnatius, are found

to have been a congregation there, until in

modern times, with iniquity abounding and charity

growing cold, the choir of those serving God there began

to fail, and the church itself began to be the benefice [*]

of a single presbyter. Wherefore their bones also were lately

translated from thence, and are kept laid up in the church of blessed

Remigius behind the altar of St. Peter, their teacher

(in Flodoard's opinion).

These things sufficiently intimate that that church was sacred to St. Sixtus

for many centuries before Flodoard.

Sonnatius, who presided over the church of Reims at the beginning of the seventh

century, in his testament in Flodoard, book 2,

chapter 5, bequeaths to the basilica of holy Sixtus likewise

three solidi in gold. Hence I gather that already before Sonnatius,

that is, before the seventh century, the aforesaid church

was distinguished by the name of St. Sixtus.

[4] Marlot, book 1, chapter 19, is of opinion that the church

which today also is seen at Reims under the name of SS. Sixtus and Sinicius

which Marlot holds to be the same as that of today. is the same as the aforesaid, and that this

has endured from the first centuries (from the fourth perhaps or fifth) to

our own age. He had already noted that it first stood many years in the suburb

of Reims, but is now enclosed

within the city's boundary. Yet

at the end of the chapter he raises a certain objection

against himself, and endeavours to solve it in these words: Here

someone might inquire whether the old church of St. Xystus,

long since ennobled by the relics of the three confessors (namely Sixtus, Sinicius

and Amantius, the third bishop of Reims),

is altogether that which still stands

near St. Timothy's; for except for the squared

hewn stones with which the outer walls are built up,

it shows almost nothing of antiquity.

But since blessed Remigius expressly designates it

in his testament, there is no reason for us to raise a scruple

here. So he. But the longer testament of St.

Remigius, in which mention is made of that church, is everywhere

rejected by the learned as spurious. St. Amantius,

just now praised, he says was buried in the same church

in chapter 27, but from that same longer testament

of St. Remigius, which Flodoard hands down in book 1, chapter

18. For the rest, from the things we have said about the church of St. Sixtus,

it manifestly follows that this Saint was venerated

from the sixth century at least, and probably even

earlier.

[5] That the bodies of both Saints were translated from their own church

to the church of St. Remigius, Their relics translated, and divided among various places, Flodoard

asserts above; and since he says lately, he intimates

that this happened in the same tenth century in which he wrote,

or at least in the preceding one. Baillet at 1 September,

in Sixtus and Sinicius, writes that this translation was made

by the prelate Hervé in the year 904, but I do not know

where he learned that date. Marlot records more concerning the same

relics in chapter 19 in these words:

Whence it comes about that the bones of holy Xystus and Sinicius were translated

from thence, and first placed in the church of holy

Remigius behind the altar of St. Peter, their teacher;

but afterwards, those bones being distributed,

a more considerable part of them was given to the mother

church, and certain others were likewise granted to Anschar of Bremen

by Ebbo, from Albert Krantz in

his Metropolis; but the head of blessed Xystus to the basilica

of St. Nicasius, where to this day it is religiously preserved

with the arm of Sinicius. Of the head of St. Sixtus, and of St. Sinicius's

arm, he treats also on page 640, describing

the treasury of the church of St. Nicasius, where he has this:

They preserve also in a chest covered with silver the head

of the most holy confessor Xystus, apostle of the Belgians

and first archbishop of Reims, who, sent by

blessed Peter, drew to the light of evangelical preaching those wrapped

in the mists of idolatry… The

arm-bone of holy Sinicius the confessor, most worthy successor of blessed Xystus

in the see of Reims, adorned with a silver

arm. These things about the head of St. Sixtus

preserved in the church of St. Nicasius do not seem to cohere

with those which our Henschen alleged in

St. Anschar, volume 1 of February, page 403, in this

manner: A certain anonymous presbyter of Bremen,

in the manuscript continuation of the History of Helmold, in Adolf

Cyprius, book 1 of the History of Schleswig,

chapter 3, hands down that St. Anschar, near Itzehoe,

a town of Holstein, at Welna consecrated a small oratory

in honour of St. Sixtus, whose head he always carried

with him. But, as it is not likely

that St. Anschar always had with him

the whole head of St. Sixtus, so it may easily be that

he had a part of it with him, and that another part is kept

at Reims in the church mentioned.

[6] which were carried to Hamburg, then to Ramsola in the diocese of Bremen; In almost the same way we shall have to reason concerning the bodies

which various writers say were handed over to St. Anschar, archbishop of Hamburg,

by Ebbo of Reims;

for that a more considerable part of these was given to the mother church,

or metropolitan church of Reims of the most blessed Virgin,

Marlot, just cited, affirms.

Adam of Bremen, in book 1 of his Ecclesiastical History,

chapter 19, elsewhere 15, has it thus: At the same time

blessed Ansgar is reported to have carried across the Elbe the bodies

of the Saints which he had received by the gift

of archbishop Ebbo, and the body of St. Maternianus indeed

he laid at Heiliganstad [*], but those of Xystus and

Sinnicius, with the patronages of other martyrs, he placed

in the city of Hammaburg [*], etc. Exactly the same things

Albert of Stade has in his Chronicle at the year

833; and Krantz, with changed words, in

his Metropolis, book 1, chapter 30. But afterwards, Hamburg

having been plundered and burnt by the Danes, which Henschen holds

to have happened in the year 845, St. Anschar, fleeing thence,

carried the said relics of the Saints with him

to Ramsola. Hear Adam, chapter 23

(elsewhere 19): Whence it came about that he received an estate

which is called Ramsola, from a certain venerable matron

by name Ikia. Which place, situated in the bishopric

of Verden, is separated from Hammaburg by only [*] three

leagues [*]. There the Saint of God, founding a monastery,

placed the relics of the holy confessors Xystus and Sinnicius,

and the other patronages which he carried

as he fled from Hammaburg, etc. Albert of Stade agrees

at the year 841. But Krantz, in the place assigned,

narrates the matter in this manner: Great was the intimacy

between Ansgar and Ebbo from of old,

so that by Ebbo's gift he received from the church of Reims the venerable

relics of the holy bishops Sixtus and Sinnitius,

which he brought to Hamburg;

and afterwards, driven thence by the Danes (as we shall relate),

he carried them with him to Ramsola beyond

the Elbe, a place indeed of the parish of Verden, but

which also, on account of the memory of the divine Ansgar, who long

sojourned there, is reckoned to the diocese of Bremen;

and there they are preserved to this day. I have already noted that

the whole bodies do not seem to have been translated by St. Anschar.

But whether Ebbo gave those relics to Anschar

before they were translated from their own church

to that of St. Remigius, or after this translation, is uncertain

to me. Perhaps at the same time a part was given

to Anschar, and a part carried to the church of St. Remigius.

[7] others to Fulda. In the same ninth century the abbey of Fulda also had certain relics

of SS. Sixtus and Sinicius and of other Saints of Reims,

received perhaps from the same

Ebbo. The Life of Blessed Rabanus Maurus, who from

abbot of Fulda was made archbishop of Mainz,

given in volume 1 of February, page 521, has this

concerning them: But on the following day (Rabanus), by

the hand of the aforesaid chorepiscopus (Reginbald), placed

the relics of the holy bishops Cornelius,

Calixtus, Sixtus, Sinitius, Nicasius and Felix…

in the church of blessed Boniface the martyr, in the place where

previously his holy body had rested. For he built

there a stone tower behind the altar, in the middle of whose

summit he laid the bones of the aforesaid Saints,

carefully enclosed in a stone chest,

over which, raising a roof supported by four columns,

he adorned it with gold and silver. Within which

he placed an oblong chest made in a quadrangular shape,

which also, adorning it with gold and silver and with stones,

he decorated with the images of each of the Saints

fittingly represented, and wrote round about verses uttered as it were

in the person of that same chest.

These verses may be read in the same place.

[8] The Breviary of Reims of the year 1543 contains, concerning

SS. Sixtus, [The lessons of the Breviary of 1543 conformable to the Acts: others are given from the Breviary of 1630,] Sinicius and Nivard, an Office of nine

lessons, all of which are drawn from the Life of SS. Sixtus and Sinicius,

and in all things agree

with the Acts to be published, although they are otherwise much shorter,

because all the later matters and many others are

passed over in the Office which are read in the Acts; but

nothing occurs in the lessons which is not copied or

abridged from the Acts. Another Office is had by

the Breviary of the year 1630: for of its nine

lessons only the three middle ones have a summary of the Life,

and that expressed in very different words.

It is pleasing to exhibit those lessons here, that it may appear

what was then the opinion of the people of Reims about their first

Bishops. Take the words: The embassies of the Apostles

for Christ having once been accomplished for the preaching of the Gospel,

when with happy success the

Christian religion was daily receiving great increase,

apostolic men announcing the evangelical faith

throughout the whole world, after no long

interval of time there went forth from the city of Rome

unconquered champions of the Christian faith,

and most constant professors of it, who through all

the provinces of the earth should preach intrepidly to men the word

of eternal salvation. Among whom were found

men of most holy life, Sixtus and Sinicius,

whom the Roman Pontiff, as chosen soldiers of Christ,

instructed in the divine law, by heavenly providence

destined for Gaul together with Memmius.

[9] These, desiring with fervent zeal to undertake this labour

for the name of Christ, which are also repugnant to the opinion of certain more recent writers, proclaiming the faith of Christ

through the byways of a long journey, at length

by divine help Sixtus and Sinicius landed at Reims.

In the gate of the city which is called the gate of Mars,

seeing the history of their own nation carved in stones, as though

invited by a certain familiarity, they stayed some time

in that city. Where, when they saw that they were making little progress

by evangelical preaching, on account of

the obstinate worship of idols, they set out for Soissons.

In which, very many being converted by their care to the true

worship of God, straightway the number of Christians

began to be increased in a wonderful manner.

And when the fame of their sanctity flourished among the neighbouring

peoples on every side, Sixtus by divine prompting

sought again the Metropolis of Reims. In which

he first obtained the archiepiscopal chair; but he set Sinicius

over the church of Soissons. Each

ruled the flock committed to him with such diligence

that he rendered back with much interest the talent

entrusted to him by God. Sixtus at length, the course of his pilgrimage

happily consummated, on the Kalends

of September closed his last day (which he had

foreseen beforehand). Whose body, in a certain church

built by himself, which still stands today,

was buried by blessed Sinicius. But Sinicius took up the government

of the church of Reims together with that of Soissons;

and, a year's course being happily completed, on the same

day he met his death; and beside the tomb of blessed Sixtus

he was buried.

[10] To this elogium, which is almost consonant with the Acts,

I join the elogium of Saussay in the Gallican Martyrology

at 1 September, whose opinion Saussay expresses, since it expresses the opinion of certain

more recent writers about our Saints,

presently to be examined: On the same day, he says, at Reims,

the birthday of the holy martyrs and likewise Pontiffs

Sixtus and Sinicius, apostles of Belgic Gaul

the Second. Who, Romans by fatherland, sent with blessed

Memmius from Rome by St. Peter into these parts,

and coming to this metropolis under Christ's auspices,

there set up the first trophies

of the Redeemer himself. Thence departing to Soissons, they initiated

that people also in the sacraments of the faith.

Over which city Sinicius was set as first bishop by Sixtus,

the chief of the apostolic office.

Then Sixtus himself, returning to Reims, the city

set to work to purge it utterly of heathen filthiness,

destroyed the shrines, consecrated a small chapel for the divine offices,

established a clergy, and won very many of the people

for Christ. And when the Apostle had spent ten years

upon the work, desirous of undergoing the last struggle

for the Lord, and warned from heaven of his impending

departure, after the glorious contest

in which he fell as a martyr, he passed happily to the appointed

reward. Whose funeral Sinicius religiously

cared for; who also, when the year came round, on the same day on which

Sixtus had died, having entered upon the supreme struggle for the assertion of the faith,

at Reims, where he had settled by the command of his predecessor,

that he might care for and guard the bereaved church, crowned

likewise with the laurel of martyrdom, departed to eternal glory.

And being laid in the same tomb with Sixtus,

he gave the beginning and the naming to the basilica which was afterwards built

in honour of both;

and there both rested so long, until, for

a fuller honouring, the precious spoils of both, brought within the city

by archbishop Hervé, were laid up with fitting

worship in the church of holy Remigius behind the altar of Peter

their teacher, and until now in the treasury of that shrine, most rich

in sacred jewels, they are kept with that reverence

which is fitting.

* otherwise: presbyterii (of the presbytery)

* otherwise: Heligenstad on the Stör in Holstein

* Hamburg

* that is, by no more than

* that is, German miles

§ II. What the Acts to be published below are, and of what quality: the time at which the Saints were sent into Gaul is inquired into.

[ ] The Acts found in various Mss. please some, We have the Acts of SS. Sixtus and Sinicius in three

Mss., of which two agree with one another so exactly

that no diversity appears, not even in little words

of lesser moment, save most rarely. The first

is our codex, marked P. Ms. 154, not

very ancient; the second is a copy from

in the diocese of Reims. With these also agree well enough

the codices which Marlot saw, whose

words I shall presently give. Nevertheless, in the fragment

which Marlot recited from his own codices, certain words

of lesser moment are omitted, or otherwise

expressed than they are read in our said Mss.

Our third is copied from the Utrecht codex

of St. Saviour. In this several things are omitted

which did not conduce to the narration of the Saints' deeds,

such as the whole preface, and other things afterwards which pertain more

to morals than to history. But

the historical facts are here for the most part narrated in the same words

in which they are reported in the other Mss., so that

I suspect some things were scraped away from this Ms. out of a zeal

for brevity, because they seemed superfluous. Of his own codex

Marlot, who elsewhere departs from its authority,

speaks thus in chapter 13: That the style of the aforesaid codex

is plain and simple, and not much abhorrent

from the manner of speech of the ancient deacons, whose

care it was to write down the deeds of the infant church and the contests

of the martyrs; that the script also

and the binding of the codex show an antiquity

of five hundred or six hundred years; and that it is extant

both at Reims in the library of the mother church

and at St. Nicasius's, and at Soissons. These things he

objects to himself from the judgment of others, whom he confesses

to be eminently learned and lovers of truth.

[12] Nevertheless Marlot himself does not seem to make

much of these Acts, they displease Marlot, to whose opinion they are contrary: since he applies to them the words of Hincmar,

spoken on another occasion: Namely that we have

it for reading, but not for adducing as authority.

But these are the words of a man forestalled by party

zeal, because the Acts of SS. Sixtus and

Sinicius were repugnant to the tradition of the people of Reims, which

he had undertaken to defend, concerning their being sent by

St. Peter the apostle. For he assigns no

fault in the Acts, and objects nothing directly against the Acts

except the following: Then, since Flodoard makes no mention of the aforesaid

codex, it is quite probable

that it was composed after his death by

an author who gave his labour to weaving together the deeds of the Saints or Legendaries;

of which deeds, since among us by reason of antiquity no

memory remained, he attributed to those same Saints Apostolic virtues,

that they might appear more famous, and that their aforesaid deeds might

be read by those greedy for histories. This Life was probably

unknown to Flodoard, if we believe Marlot,

because he does not name it. But to me the same does not

appear, since all that Flodoard writes about our Saints

he seems to have taken from this Life;

and nowhere does he depart from it, except in assigning the time

of their mission. Then, even if it were established

that it was unknown to Flodoard, not even so would it become

likely that it was written after his History.

For who would believe that the writer of this Life would have wished,

having read Flodoard's History, to depart from him by two hundred years,

and to make so much younger the Saints

whom he was celebrating? As for what he then says, that in the same

codex there is the Life of SS. Memmius the confessor

and Maurus the martyr, of the same style, that makes nothing

against the Life of our Saints, although I really

doubt whether they are of the same style. Certainly since, as

he adds, the one is there said to have been sent by blessed Peter,

but the other by St. Clement, these latter

Lives are not of the same author, who would not have referred St. Memmius of Châlons

to the times of the Apostles,

but Sixtus and Sinicius to the rule of Diocletian;

whereas everywhere the coming of those three into Gaul is fixed

at about the same time, some referring it

to the age of the Apostles, others

to the third century well advanced.

[13] Tillemont, in volume 4 of the Monuments, in St.

Denis of Paris, article 21, suspects that the Acts of SS.

Sixtus and Sinicius are older than Hincmar, [they seem to be of an ancient writer, yet not a contemporary one: nor are they fabulous, but meagre.] who

ruled the church of Reims about the middle of the ninth

century, and Baillet affirms the same in his Critical Table at

1 September. Yet neither attributes much authority

to this Life, neither vehemently accuses

it, or alleges any reason for his opinion.

Each also preferred to follow this Life

rather than Hincmar or Flodoard in fixing

the epoch of their coming into Gaul. The learned

Benedictines who are composing the Literary History

of France, volume 3, page 646, likewise believe

this Life to be earlier than Hincmar, and add

that it does not seem to have been written before the end of the seventh century, but

with no reason added. Further, I find no reasons

why the Life of SS. Sixtus and Sinicius may not have been

written much earlier. Certainly nothing occurs in these

Acts from which it could be shown that their writer

must necessarily be removed from the fifth or sixth century,

since the style is simple enough, and nowhere does he show

himself far later than the Saints themselves. Nevertheless

that he was contemporary or nearly so I should by no means believe,

because the Acts are more meagre than those of writers

are wont to be who learned the facts by themselves or through

contemporary witnesses. But this very thing,

that he recorded few things about the Saints, shows

that he did not wish to adorn his Heroes with invented fables.

[14] The opinion of Flodoard, that Sixtus and Sinicius were sent by St. Peter, Concerning the time at which our Saints were sent

into Gaul, three opinions are found, each of which

has its own patrons. The first is that of Flodoard,

who in book 1, chapter 3, writes thus: Nor was the people of Reims

held in such esteem at that time only among

the Heathen; rather, it is agreed that among the first propagators of the Church of God,

and fathers in Christ through the Gospel,

the pontiffs of the first see of this our province

were always adorned with honour; so much

so that the most blessed prince of the Church of Christ himself,

Peter the apostle, judged that blessed Sixtus, ordained archbishop

by himself, should be sent to our city

with the aid of suffragans, destining for him fit

and necessary companions in the same province,

namely St. Sinicius, first of the see of Soissons,

afterwards our own prelate, and blessed

Memmius, ruler of the city of Châlons. Marlot,

book 1, chapter 13, where he has endeavoured to establish this opinion,

which he wrongly names the tradition of the church of Reims,

commends the testimony of Flodoard

in these words: It is not likely that he,

neglecting older codices, published a feigned and newly

devised opinion, since among all he is held to be a diligent

and sincere writer. Nor, if any monument of antiquity existed in

the province, is it to be believed that it lay hidden from him;

but to him, as a canon of the chief church, and one investigating

with set purpose the beginnings of our faith,

as many libraries as there were lay easily open. So

he of Flodoard.

[15] which Marlot defends: And his opinion he presently strives to confirm

in this manner: And lest anyone should think that this

honour (of having received a bishop from St. Peter) was purposely

sought for the church of Reims, that it might come off more illustrious

and more powerful by reason of antiquity, Flodoard's opinion

is to be confirmed by the testimonies of the ancients, especially of the emperor

Lothair, a fragment of whose letter

to Pope Leo the same Flodoard

cites in book 3, chapter 10, in which blessed Sixtus is proclaimed

first bishop of the see of Reims and a disciple of the Apostles;

which Fulk, the successor of Hincmar, more clearly

explains in another letter to Stephen V in these words:

“But let him know that the see of Reims was by his predecessors

always honoured above all the Gallican churches, inasmuch as the first

of the Apostles, blessed Peter, first destined

for this city blessed Sixtus as bishop, and gave him the primacy

of the whole Gallican region.” These things

Flodoard also has in book 4, chapter 1. Further, to these arguments,

which are not altogether to be despised,

Marlot adds others of lesser moment, namely

the Chronicle of Sens of St. Pierre-le-Vif, the Chronicle

of Verdun, the Chronicle of Auxerre, the Roman

Martyrology, a manuscript codex cited by

Vincent of Beauvais, the Life of St. Memmius of Châlons

published by Bosquet, and finally, with a few

moderns, Demochares and Baronius at the year

46; and having reviewed these he concludes thus: Let it stand,

then, as certain, that in the forty-sixth year

from the birth of Christ, under the rule of Tiberius, Reims

and the surrounding peoples of the Belgians looked up to and received

the rising sun of the Christian faith in Xystus, Sinicius and Memmius.

You have, reader, the weights of this opinion,

which might move to assent, were they not

crushed by weightier ones. And from the conclusion you may easily

recognize a man in love with his own church, who

wishes not only the century of the mission, but even a certain year,

to be held as fixed on the authority of Baronius alone,

although in truth Baronius does not assert that in that year

Sixtus and Sinicius were sent, but only refers to that

year the sending by St. Peter of many, though at

different times.

[16] The second opinion is that of Hincmar, archbishop

of Reims, [the authority of Hincmar, who wrote that they were sent by Pope Sixtus, weakens his reasons:] who in his Little Work of 55 chapters,

chapter 16, speaks thus of the sending of St. Sixtus: And after

blessed Sixtus was sent by Sixtus, Pontiff of the Roman See,

as first bishop to the metropolis of Reims,

in Christendom, through the times of fifteen

archbishops … the church of Laon remained in the

parish (or diocese) of Reims,

which first received a bishop from St. Remigius,

as he sets out at greater length. Hincmar does not explain

whether he means that St. Sixtus was sent by Sixtus

I, who administered the pontificate before the middle of the second century,

or rather by Sixtus II, who ended his short

pontificate by a glorious martyrdom in the year

258, and who is written of by us in volume 2 of August as having sent

certain other apostolic men into the Gauls

on pages 128 and 129. Of Sixtus II this could certainly

be said more probably than of Sixtus I, as will appear from

the order of the bishops of Reims, which was not hidden from Hincmar,

and therefore I judge that he spoke of Sixtus II.

Further, this opinion of Hincmar vehemently

weakens the reasons set out for the first opinion.

For Hincmar was a learned man and very tenacious

of the prerogatives of his own church; nor have the favourers

of the first opinion any witness older than Hincmar,

to whom the emperor Lothair is contemporary,

Fulk nearly so, and Flodoard far

later. Marlot saw this inconvenience and

answers thus: For since Fulk is nearly contemporary with him,

he has equal authority with him; and when to this is added

the authority of Flodoard, who was nearly contemporary with Fulk,

two will outweigh one, especially since Flodoard

(as I have said) wrote of set purpose the History of the church of Reims,

and diligently, before it was made

public, having accurately investigated the monuments of the aforesaid

church older than Hincmar, corrected it, as he himself testifies in his preface.

This answer shows that we need not

necessarily adhere to the writers of Reims of the ninth and

tenth centuries, since they themselves went off into different opinions.

I proceed therefore to the third opinion, which seems to rest

upon firmer foundations.

[17] The Acts have it that the Saints were sent from Rome under the rule

of Diocletian and Maximian, The Acts have it that the Saints were sent into Gaul in the time of Diocletian, after SS.

Crispin and Crispinian had been crowned with martyrdom

about the year 287 or 288, as Tillemont holds,

volume 5, in the Persecution of Diocletian, article 2, proving that time

from the death of Rictius Varus, under whom

they are said to have suffered. Thus, according to the Acts, Sixtus and

Sinicius seem to have been sent about the year 288. With the Acts

agrees the Breviary of Reims of the year 1543, whose

words I subjoin, omitting what is not necessary: The holy

Sixtus and Sinicius, sprung from Rome, there brought up

from the cradle holily and religiously in the divine Law by the successors

of the blessed Apostles,

by living justly and without complaint, showed there

the sanctity of their excellent disposition…

How the light of their sanctity shone forth into these parts

we shall take care to intimate in a few words. Therefore at that

time in which the emperors Diocletian and Maximian

had stirred up by tyrannical domination a persecution

against the Christians, … the holy men of God, Crispin

and Crispinian, … were staying in the city of Soissons, announcing

the word of life to the peoples. But

because some in the same city had been converted to the faith of Christ

by their preaching, and

because on account of the aforesaid persecution the ministers of Christ left

in the parts of Gaul were very few…, at last

they showed themselves in a vision to the Pontiff

of the Roman See of that time, asserting

both that they themselves had been taken up through the glory of martyrdom to the heavenly

kingdoms, and that the sheep for whom, after the example of their Lord,

they had shed their blood, remained desolate on earth by the absence

of a shepherd… After this vision, therefore,

and admonition of the blessed martyrs,

the same Pontiff, being made more certain that he had been divinely

admonished by the Saints of God, having convoked the clergy,

ordained holy Sixtus bishop; and for his comfort

blessed Sinicius was provided for him, then also

consecrated presbyter by the same Pontiff,

who himself also was held, by the testimony of all,

to be approved a man of great virtues. These things, related in the same

way in the Acts, show what was the tradition of the people of Reims

down to the middle of the sixteenth century about

their first Bishops, and prove that Flodoard's

opinion did not prevail, but rather was neglected

among the people of Reims. The Breviary of the year 1630,

from which I gave the elogium at number 8, likewise contradicts

Marlot's opinion, since the Saints are said to have been sent,

not by St. Peter, but by the Roman Pontiff, when the embassies

of the Apostles for Christ had once been accomplished.

[18] which opinion agrees with the order of the first bishops; Our opinion, that Sixtus and Sinicius were sent about the year 288,

agrees excellently with the catalogue

of the bishops of Reims, as also of Soissons,

and the same catalogue renders Marlot's opinion utterly

improbable. Fifteen bishops are numbered

down to St. Remigius in the church of Reims,

nor did Hincmar number more, whose words

I gave at number 16, when he says that Laon, which

received its first bishop from St. Remigius, through

the times of fifteen archbishops belonged to

the diocese of Reims. And among the bishops of Reims

Betausius, or Imbetausius, is placed fourth by all, and he in the year 314

was present at the council of Arles, to which he is read as subscribed in

Labbe, volume 1, col. [ ], in this manner: Imbetausius,

bishop, Primigenius, deacon, of the city

of Reims. Hence in our opinion some chronological arrangement

of the first four prelates of the church of Reims may easily

be woven. For the space which

is found between the year 288 and 314 is sufficient

for it to be believed that three bishops sat in that time,

of whom the second held the episcopate only a year,

even if we wish to suppose that Betausius

had already sat some years before the council. Demochares

has him consecrated by Pope Miltiades

in the year 312, but without a certain author, says Marlot,

chapter 25. Let us therefore believe that St. Sixtus, after

he had come into Gaul, laboured about ten years

for the conversion of the people of Reims and of Soissons,

and died about the year 300, and Sinicius

a year later, as is said in the Acts;

Amantius could thus also sit ten years

before Betausius. But as in this chronological arrangement there is nothing

discordant, so there is nothing certain: for St. Sixtus might also

have survived longer, and the episcopate of Amantius

will become the shorter, the longer Sixtus survived.

Further, the order of the first bishops

of Reims can also be sufficiently reconciled with the opinion

of Hincmar, if he means that St. Sixtus was sent by

Sixtus II; but then the episcopate of Sixtus and

of Amantius will become much longer.

[19] How ill the set-out order of the bishops of Reims coheres

with his own opinion, but the same order overthrows the first opinion; Marlot well

saw, but he strains every nerve to remove

the inconvenience. He turns this stone over through the whole

chapter 18, and endeavours to make likely things which

lack every likelihood whatever. He acknowledges

that the first three presided over the see of Reims in a continued series,

and holds that they died in the first century.

That after these there were no bishops at Reims down to

the times of Constantine the Great, under whom the fourth,

Betausius, occurs, Flodoard had written in book 1,

chapter 5. Whether this was said by him advisedly and truly,

says Marlot, or whether by the devouring power of time the names of these

rather fell wholly out of the ecclesiastical records,

one might with reason doubt. But

that it was truly said by Flodoard is sufficiently

certain from the testimony of Hincmar given above, and from

the consent of all. Hear what Alberic the monk wrote about the first four

in his Chronicle

at the year 336: Before we proceed further,

the history of Reims must here be briefly touched on. It is read

that after the death of Crispin and Crispinian

there were sent from Rome those holy men Sixtus and Sinicius,

the first archbishops of Reims, with their nephew Divitianus,

who was the second after Sinicius as bishop of Soissons.

The third archbishop of Reims was

Amausius, the fourth Bethausius, in that

time of Constantine the Great; and he was present at the first council

of Arles, which was reported through Mauritius [*], bishop of the same

city, to blessed Silvester,

in the consulship of Volusianus and Anianus. Those

first four bishops of Reims were buried

in the church of blessed Sixtus. This doubt

of Marlot's therefore lacks foundation, as he himself sufficiently notices,

since he does not press it further.

[20] Hence he reviews all the persecutions of the heathen,

to show that the see of Reims could have lacked a bishop

through the whole second and third century, [since it is utterly incredible that the churches of Reims and Soissons were vacant for two centuries,] and that this

is not improbable. Hear his chief reason,

which he expresses in these words: For since

election, the true mother of pastors, presupposes liberty in

those electing, if this be crushed by the tyranny of prefects,

by the frequent passage of the Cæsars through Reims,

by intestine wars or by tumults of the peoples,

what wonder if pontifical sees languish so long

in bereavement? After this he enumerates the persecutions;

but he does not show that these were sharper at Reims

than in other parts of the world. Why then should these

persecutions have hindered election more at Reims

than in other cities, over which we most certainly know that bishops presided

in the second and third centuries?

In Italy certainly the persecutions were more continuous

than in Gaul, and yet not for that reason did the chief churches,

of whose antiquity it is certainly established,

lack bishops for so long a time;

as neither in the East nor in Africa, where the cruelty

of tyrants raged no less. Certainly there was never any

persecution so long-lasting in one and the same place

that it hindered the election of a bishop for many years,

much less for two centuries. Then, if a bishop could not

be elected at Reims, was it not for the Roman Church

to send a bishop to a church shaken by so many storms,

and to promote through others what had been begun through three bishops?

Were there not, from the time of Decius

down to Diocletian, various bands of Apostolic men sent into Gaul,

who founded there not a few

churches? Why then should those of Reims and of Soissons

have been neglected, if they had been founded already in

the first century? These things would indeed seem to me most astonishing

if they were said by a writer

whose authority it were not lawful to gainsay;

but they are utterly incredible, since they rest only

on the authority of writers of the ninth and tenth centuries,

whom love of their own church's antiquity could easily impel,

leaving better sources, to follow fabulous

notices.

[21] and it is gathered from elsewhere that the church of Reims was not long vacant; For other things also persuade us that the church

of Reims was not long vacant after the death of St. Amantius.

First, Amantius seems to have ended his life without martyrdom,

equally with Sixtus and Sinicius, all buried in

the same church, which Marlot holds to survive

even now. Three bishops therefore had died

in peace, so that a fourth could easily succeed. Secondly,

since Betausius is said to have been buried in the same church

with them, it can scarcely be doubted that he

succeeded them immediately. Thirdly, many churches of the Gauls

had bishops under Diocletian, whose

persecution raged there less, especially at that time

in which it was more vehement in other parts of the Roman empire:

for Constantius then presided over the Gauls,

and either protected the Christians, or at least

did not harass them; why then should neither the church of Reims nor that of Soissons

have had their own prelates? There stood

at Reims a church built by St. Sixtus, three prelates had sat in it,

all dying without martyrdom;

no persecution can be shown that afflicted the people of Reims

more sharply, save perhaps that alone under the governor Rictius

Varus; therefore Marlot treats of things foreign to the purpose

when he enumerates, not without exaggeration, the persecutions

of the heathen emperors, which raged more now in one,

now in another part of the Roman world.

For who would endure reasonings of this kind?

The Christians suffered persecution in Africa,

therefore a bishop of Reims could not be elected… Italy

was shaken by almost perpetual storms of persecution

from Nero down to Constantine; therefore no

prelate could be had in the city of Reims

for two hundred years and more. Who, I say, would lend an ear

to one reasoning thus? Yet Marlot's reasoning

is no other, if it be rightly weighed.

[22] [We must therefore adhere to the Acts, which of themselves also deserve greater credit in this matter.] To these might be added other reasons, and

the authority of Sulpicius Severus and of St. Gregory of Tours;

but I pass them over, because I do not wish here to dispute

about the faith first promulgated in the Gauls.

For even if other reasons were lacking, by one consideration alone

we shall easily see that the authority of the Acts

outweighs the authority of Flodoard. Most rarely

do we find the beginning of any church, or the age

of any Saint, referred by a writer

to later centuries. On the contrary, we find by experience that the love

of antiquity brought it about with many writers of the middle age

that they referred the beginnings of cities, churches, Orders,

and other things, to times far

earlier. Therefore we cannot suspect that the author

of the Acts fixed the coming of SS. Sixtus

and Sinicius under the rule of Diocletian and Maximian

for any other cause than the love of truth, which he could learn

from the monuments of the church of Reims. But concerning

Flodoard a suspicion may not undeservedly arise, that by too great

a love of antiquity he was carried away to a false opinion.

Nor is it therefore necessary to say

that he published a feigned and newly devised opinion,

or that he did not see the ancient monuments

of the church of Reims: for I am wholly persuaded

of the contrary. He had seen, as I think, the Acts to be published,

since he agrees with them, except in the time of the mission;

he had certainly seen Hincmar, whose words

he adduces; he had also seen the words of the emperor Lothair

and of bishop Fulk, given from him at number 15.

Flodoard therefore had seen three different opinions

about the mission of SS. Sixtus and Sinicius, and out of them chose

that which more commended the antiquity of his own church,

and set it forth as true without any

proof. The same did Marlot, employing a long

disputation, which seems to teach nothing more

than the sway of the will over the intellect, whereby

it comes about that we easily believe those things true which we

too much wish to be true.

* Marinus

§ III. Whether the Saints are to be called martyrs or confessors: that there was no bishop at Reims before them.

[ ] On what occasion they began to be called martyrs, is set out, The praised Marlot, chapter 15, inquires whether

our Saints are to be held martyrs or confessors.

The Roman Martyrology of Baronius called them martyrs,

but the Acts clearly deny martyrdom.

André du Saussay, bishop of Toul, endeavoured to prove their martyrdom

in a dissertation published to that

end, which Marlot refutes.

Further, the occasion of the martyrdom being first asserted by Demochares

Marlot explains in these words: When

for the adornment of his Work on the sacrifice of the Mass Demochares was seeking out

with the utmost diligence the first bishops of each city,

he sent, for those of Reims, a letter to Jacques Bridou,

penitentiary of the church of Reims, most friendly to him.

He, perhaps not knowing or in doubt what to write back about Xystus and Sinicius,

since Flodoard speaks obscurely enough about

the kind of death which the aforesaid Archbishops died,

made them martyrs by his own bent, in a note transmitted to

Demochares, which the latter, with no examination

but on the faith of the author, as often happens, wove into

his own works. Baronius followed him in the Martyrology,

as one most skilled in Gallican matters,

whom all who afterwards spent their labour

in compiling Martyrologies subscribed to,

on account of the recondite erudition of the aforesaid Cardinal,

and the honour shown by all (as is fitting)

to the Roman Martyrology, which testifies that it was composed from the uncorrupted

monuments of the Church. Thus far

about the occasion on which the opinion of the martyrdom was born.

[24] He then reports the arguments by which Saussay

endeavours to prove his opinion: and it is shown by what arguments Saussay defended the martyrdom; The chief

reason, he says, is drawn from the circumstance of the time:

… for they think that as many as flourished under Nero and

Domitian were empurpled with their blood.

But neither did our Saints live at that time,

nor is it true that all who then flourished were martyrs.

Then the most illustrious Saussay,

bishop of Toul, in the Gallican Martyrology,

and in his Apologetic booklet against the archbishop

of Lyons, contends that an error crept

into the reformed Breviary of Reims, and

into the Litanies, where St. Xystus with Sinicius is reckoned among

the confessors; and he thinks that the people of Reims have abjured their own

tradition, in that Galesinius, Ferrari

in his Topography, Demochares, Colvener,

Chanarius and Robert conspire with Baronius;

and he much exaggerates the authority of the Roman Martyrology,

published under Gregory XIII in the year 1584,

as though this were to be held with undoubted faith.

These things I have recited from Marlot, because the Little Work

of Saussay is not at hand to me. But

to those authorities of moderns let it suffice to have said

that all were led into that opinion by Demochares,

whom Baronius followed in the Roman

Martyrology, but that their authority does not suffice,

since older monuments, and the very tradition of Reims,

are repugnant to it.

[25] [but the Acts, Flodoard, and the very tradition of Reims prove that they were not martyrs.] Saussay wished to adapt Flodoard also

to his own opinion, although he is clearly contrary to it. The deeds

of both in the episcopate and their death he briefly

narrates in book 1, chapter 3, in these words: But holy

Sixtus, first bishop of Reims, is reported also to have founded

the church of Soissons, and to have set blessed Sinicius

there as his fellow-labourer and fellow-worker;

and he, after the death of the same St. Sixtus,

his own nephew, as they say, holy Divitianus,

having been ordained by him as pontiff at Soissons — since

the newly instituted church of Reims was perhaps still cherishing

on milk her tender offspring, not yet strong

to bear the pontifical burden — took up at Reims the archiepiscopal

chair (that necessity compelling him).

Where, labouring faithfully for the salvation of souls,

and fighting the good fight, he deserved to have fellowship

with his Predecessor on earth as in heaven,

obtaining with blessed Sixtus a burial in one and the same church

and tomb. Not a word here about the martyrdom of our

Saints, nor elsewhere in Flodoard. And the Acts

most clearly have it that both Saints died in

peace. Take the tradition of the church of Reims

from the praised Marlot: But if account is to be taken of the divine Office,

of the Missal, of the Litanies, and of older inscriptions

on the reliquaries and images,

so great a force of these is at our disposal that scarcely half of them could here be

brought forward without wearying the reader. The manuscript

codices, the Antiphonals, the Graduals, also openly

testify the same. Whence I cannot sufficiently wonder

how the wise and illustrious bishop of Toul can say

that the people of Reims have abandoned the tradition of the fathers,

when of this tradition no trace exists,

neither in the Missals nor in the Martyrologies, which,

since they breathe antiquity, as is plain from the script

to those inspecting them, are of greater or at least equal authority

with those very things which are confidently

set against us by him. Nor, as he noted before, is it likely

that the church of Reims should have shown herself so ungrateful

toward her Patrons as knowingly to take from them the laurel

of martyrdom, if it had been conferred by the

ancients. Rightly indeed does Marlot say these things. But

he ought to have reasoned in the same way against the excessive

antiquity of SS. Sixtus and Sinicius, which is equally

contrary to the tradition of the people of Reims, set out in their Breviaries

and other monuments.

[26] Another bishop of Reims feigned by some in the time of the Apostles: Dirk Pauwels of Gorcum in the fifteenth century

compiled a universal Chronicle, in manuscript among us.

In it, from folio 248, he gives a catalogue of the prelates of Reims,

which everywhere agrees well enough with the other published catalogues,

and recites in summary the deeds of SS. Sixtus and Sinicius.

But that writer sets down another

bishop of Reims before St. Sixtus, and names him

Peter and affirms that he was sent by St. Peter.

Receive the brief elogium which he wove for his Peter:

Holy Peter, disciple of holy Peter the apostle,

sent to Reims by the same apostle, converted

many by preaching, and there first spread abroad

the faith of Christ. When he died, no one is found

to have succeeded him in the church of Reims

until the year of the Lord 295. I do not think that this man

should be held by the people of Reims for a bishop; but they will doubtless

believe this Peter fictitious. Yet

I should by no means believe that he was first feigned by the praised

writer, who seems sincere enough, but too

credulous. Hence therefore we gather that antiquity

was sought for the church of Reims in various ways,

and that it is not to be wondered at if some, out of love of so great

an antiquity, referred SS. Sixtus and Sinicius to the times

of the Apostles, since there were even found men

who thrust in a fictitious bishop.

[27] More rightly did the praised Dirk write of Sixtus and Sinicius,

Another elogium of the Saints, whose elogium I subjoin: Holy Sixtus

succeeded in this order. For the holy martyrs

Crispin and Crispinian, under the emperors Diocletian and Maximian,

martyred in the year of the Lord 291

by Rictiovarus in the city of Soissons, showed

themselves in a vision to St. Caius the Pope, asserting

both that they had been taken up through the palm of martyrdom to the heavenly

kingdoms, and that the sheep, for whom after the example of their

Lord they had shed their blood, remained desolate on earth

by the absence of a shepherd. On which account, they say,

we commend them to you. Then holy Pope Caius,

by the counsel of the clergy, chose to send holy Sixtus,

who confessed himself unworthy of such a dignity,

yet ready for every obedience. He is therefore ordained

bishop by the same holy Pope, and

Sinicius, consecrated presbyter, is joined to him. They came

therefore to the city of Reims, … preached

the Gospel of Christ, and converted many.

(This conversion of many is contrary to the Acts.)

At length they came to Soissons, as the holy

martyrs aforesaid, Crispin and Crispinian,

had asked; where, kindly received by the Catholics, they preached

constantly, and by the grace of God daily

the faithful were increased. And when the church there was spreading,

and the fame of their sanctity, holy Sixtus

visited the people of Reims, desiring to know whether perchance by

the grace of Christ they might be converted. And behold, those who before

had spurned him as superstitious, hearing the fame

of his sanctity and of his miracles, received him as a father,

where by preaching he gained much people.

[28] And holy Sinicius he consecrated bishop of the church

of Soissons; conformable to the Acts and to what we have said. but he himself resided first in the church

of Reims, because it seemed more populous and

more given over to idolatry; and thus these two

luminaries shone forth in both places by miracles

and by teachings. The shrines are destroyed, churches are built;

ministers are consecrated, the faithful are increased.

Meanwhile holy Sixtus foretold many things, and,

foreknowing long before the day of his death, announced it

to his fellow bishop, blessed Sinicius. Holy Sinicius therefore wept,

praying to God that he too might be taken

out of this life together with holy Sixtus. The disciples also wept,

lest they should be left desolate; so that

holy Sixtus, in compassion, wept also, and consoled

them, foretelling to holy Sinicius that

after one year, on the same day on which he himself departed,

he should follow him, commending to him the care of both

churches. And he exhorted them all to fight the good

fight, to consummate their course in charity unfeigned,

and to keep the faith. After this, seized with a fever,

and having received the Body of Christ, on the Kalends

of September he departed to the Lord. Whom

holy Sinicius buried in the church which he himself

had built in the suburb of that city. Whose

feast is kept on the Kalends of September. To these things about

St. Sinicius he adds the following: Holy Sinicius, sent

by the aforesaid Pope St. Caius with St. Sixtus, when

after the death of holy Sixtus he had ruled both

churches for one year, came about the aforesaid day

to the city of Reims, and had a tomb made for himself

beside the sarcophagus of blessed Sixtus, and dying

on the same day which holy Sixtus had foretold,

he was buried beside him, so that, as in their life

they had loved one another, so in death they should not be separated.

Where they shine with countless miracles to the praise and

glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

LIFE

by an anonymous author.

From our own Ms. codex, and that of the monastery of Bonnefontaine, collated with the Utrecht Ms.

Sixtus, bishop and confessor, at Reims in Champagne of Gaul. (S.)

Sinicius, bishop and confessor, at Reims in Champagne of Gaul. (S.)

BHL Number: 7815

By an Anonymous author.

It is useful to narrate the deeds of the Saints. And these Saints, born at Rome, To narrate the praises and acts of the Saints is believed

to be of great profit, namely because both greater honour

is thereby paid to them, and by this an example of holy conversation

is set before those who read

or hear. For many are less capable of understanding

the things that are divine, and yet

what they do not understand from precepts they are not slothful in desiring

to learn from the examples of the Saints.

For this reason therefore we have thought it necessary to describe the life

of the most holy fathers Sixtus and Sinicius,

inasmuch as, since through them the beginning of evangelical preaching

and of the Christian religion came into our

parts, the age to come may receive the profits of sacred instruction

by their examples as well as

by their patronage. For they can rightly confess of us:

Though we are not apostles to others, to you we are.

The aforesaid Saints, therefore, sprung from Rome, and there

holily and religiously brought up nobly from the cradle in the divine law

by the successors of the blessed

Apostles, by living justly and without

complaint, showed there the sanctity of their excellent disposition.

[2] after SS. Crispin and Crispinian had been crowned with martyrdom But because, according to the testimony of truth, a city

set on a hill cannot be hidden, nor ought a kindled lamp

to lie hid under a bushel, how the light of their sanctity

shone forth into these parts we shall take care to intimate

in a few words. Therefore at that ^a time in which

the emperors Diocletian and Maximian had by tyrannical

domination stirred up a persecution against the Christians,

and had slain many of the Saints, afflicted with various

sufferings [*], as martyrs worthy of God,

the holy men of God, Crispin and Crispinian ^b, who

formerly with many others had gone from the city of Rome to the Gauls

for the love of God and for the instruction

of evangelical preaching, were staying in the city of Soissons ^c, announcing

the word of life to the peoples; where,

when they had long remained in the zeal of evangelizing,

Rictiovarus, the most cruel executioner of the aforesaid

Augusti, coming thither, laboured with various torments

to turn them from the faith of Christ, but,

the Lord protecting and helping his own, he could not;

and so, consummated by a glorious martyrdom, the holy men happily sought

the heavenly kingdoms.

[3] they appeared to the Roman Pontiff, that he might send preachers into Gaul, But because some in the same city had been converted

to the faith of Christ by their preaching,

and because on account of the aforesaid persecution the ministers

of Christ left in the parts of Gaul were very

few, it was a care to the said Saints, although

taken up into blessed rest, that their labour should not remain

unfinished on earth, and that they should provide others as their substitutes

in the same work. At last they showed themselves

in a vision to the Pontiff of the Roman See of that time

^d, asserting both that they themselves had been taken up through the glory of martyrdom

to the heavenly kingdoms, and that the sheep, for whom

after the example of their Lord they had shed their blood,

remained desolate on earth by the absence of a shepherd. On which

account, they say, we commend them to you, and to your

for God: for you hold the Apostolic See,

and to you by right belongs the care of all the churches.

We too justly, in such a necessity, have recourse to this See,

from which we were sent. It will therefore be

yours henceforth to provide some men not sluggish nor

lukewarm, but vigorous and industrious,

ministers, namely, of Christ, who in our stead may with the office of a shepherd

undertake to rule and to increase the sheep which we have won

for God, so that

the craft of the malignant plotter may not overthrow from the right faith

those whom the King of heaven had lately gained to himself as Christians through us.

[4] After this vision, therefore, and admonition of the blessed martyrs,

the same Pontiff, being made certain [*]

that he had been divinely admonished by the Saints of God, they are consecrated by the Pontiff, Sixtus as bishop, Sinicius as presbyter,

having convoked the clergy, began to seek whom he might

destine for the Gauls for the sake of evangelizing.

At last the testimony of almost all who were present

was in agreement, that the aforesaid holy Sixtus was most fit for this

work; inasmuch ^f as he was a man of all

prudence and gentleness, according to the precept of the Saviour,

who says: Be prudent as

serpents, and simple as doves. And he also,

that their testimony might not be doubted [*] to be ratified and so foreordained,

crying out that he himself, though

unworthy, was nevertheless of his own accord ready with a most prompt will

for all things which should be enjoined upon him for the sake of obedience

by the apostolic See,

so declares. For he burned ^g with no small desire

to undergo labours for Christ, so that by this

occasion he might at some time attain even to the glory

of martyrdom. What more? He is ordained bishop,

and for his comfort blessed Sinicius is provided for him,

then also consecrated presbyter by the same Pontiff.

Who himself also was held, by the testimony of all,

to be approved a man of great virtues.

for the Gauls, [and being sent into Gaul they come to Reims, where they preach without great fruit;] as lambs among wolves, with him himself

accompanying them who promised his own,

saying: Behold, I am with you all

days even to the consummation of the world. Supported by

whose help, scattering through the byways of a long journey

the word of life to all who desired to hear,

they came at length, within the Gauls, to the city

of Reims. Entering whose gate, and considering

the condition of the place, they see the history of their own nation

carved on the doors of that city; since indeed

this city, built by the Romans, is reported to have been named Reims ⁱ

from the name of Remus, the brother, namely,

of Romulus. Beholding therefore the memorial of their own nation

carved there, as though invited by some

familiarity, they chose to dwell there for some time,

for the sake, namely, of trying whether Christ would deign

to gather some in that city to his faith.

Remaining therefore there some

time, they daily preached the word of God to the peoples;

but they could find very few who

would receive their wholesome admonitions with

eagerness of heart. For this city was still exceedingly

given over to idolatry and to the superstition of the gentiles.

[6] They also, not unmindful of those things

which had been more particularly enjoined upon them, they make for Soissons, where, received by the Christians, and which the said martyrs

had from heaven made known to them in a vision,

leaving this city, hasten to go to Soissons.

Having entered which, because they found there living some

of those whom the martyrs of Christ had imbued with the Catholic

faith, they were gladly and most generously

received by them. At last ^k they themselves also,

after the heavy and laborious struggles of a long journey,

as though snatched from perils of the sea, began to enjoy

in Christ the peace they had longed for, as in a most tranquil harbour.

With great constancy therefore they preached the word

of life to the citizens; and by the grace of the Lord

granting it, there were daily increased those who were being saved

in Christ. For their most chaste and sober

life was to them a cause of salvation.

[7] they increase the church by the conversion of many: The miracles also and healings which the Lord

deigned to work through them begot no small

belief in their hearts. For nothing is known

to have been lacking in them of those things which the Lord's

goodness had promised to his faithful, saying:

And these signs shall follow those who believe in me.

In my name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak

with new tongues, they shall take up serpents. And if

they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them. They shall lay

hands upon the sick, and they shall be well.

With these miracles therefore bearing witness, far and wide

the faith of Christ was magnified by very many, and

the glory of his name was spread abroad everywhere, so that

even those who a little before had been most bitter

persecutors of the Christians, now converted to better things,

either believed altogether, or at least, softened

by the favour of his kindness, showed themselves gentler toward the worshippers

of God. And having been granted their affection, they spent very much

time together in that same place, giving themselves most zealously

to teaching and to the practice of virtues.

[8] Sixtus, returning to Reims, converts many there also, But when the church of Christ had now begun to spread

in that city, and the fame of their sanctity to be famous

among all the neighbours, the aforesaid

most blessed pontiff Sixtus, by the prompting of divine love,

was eager to go again to the city of Reims for the sake

of a visitation, desiring to search out more anxiously whether at length

the divine goodness had kindled the hearts of those dwelling there

with any light of its charity, for the receiving of the tokens

of its faith. Whose labour the Lord,

taking pity on it, deigned to open to him a door of faith even among them,

so that those who before had abominated him as one

teaching vain and superstitious things,

hearing the fame of his sanctity and the signs of his miracles,

now strove with all their strength to receive him as a father

and instructor. The Man full of God began therefore

to press on with teaching there also,

and, the heavenly clemency helping, much people was converted

by his preaching to the Catholic faith.

[9] and, calling Sinicius to him, consecrates him bishop of Soissons: And having found that there also a place of preaching

had been prepared for him by the Lord, having called to himself

the aforesaid priest and fellow-soldier

Sinicius, he began to consider how through them

both cities might advance in the religion they had begun,

and ^l how both peoples together might alike enjoy the comfort

of daily instruction and of the divine ministry.

What more? He himself, divinely inspired, chose to reside in this same city,

because it seemed both more populous

and more given over to idolatry. But blessed

Sinicius, that he might preside over the church of Soissons, he consecrated

bishop; and from that time each of them

began more particularly to rule his own church; and so

it came about that blessed Sixtus obtained, first of the bishops,

the chair of the church of Reims.

[10] [the faithful being much increased in both places, Sixtus foretells his death to Sinicius.] These things being thus disposed, these two Prelates

of Christ began in both places, like two great

luminaries of heaven, to shine forth with teaching

and with the signs of miracles. At last the shrines are destroyed, churches

are built, the faithful people is increased; many also

are instructed by them in the divine law. The number of disciples

also increasing, ministers of the church are consecrated,

and they duly perform all things in the divine worship.

When therefore they had for a long time been intent upon such things and the like,

and seemed divided from one another

in place but not in mind, in countenance but not in affection,

in flesh but not in spirit, the most blessed Sixtus began, among

his other works of virtue, to be strong also in the spirit

of prophecy, and to foretell to his intimates

and fellow-citizens many things which were to come. Whence

it came about also that he foreknew his death long before,

and announced the day of his departure to the most blessed prelate

and fellow bishop Sinicius.

[11] Who, stirred by the affection of charity, began

to be much distressed with weariness, who grieves much at it, as do the faithful, to whom it had become known: if he should be compelled to survive

the blessed Man in this life. For he desired that,

as here they had been companions in the service of Christ,

so also in death they might remain undivided.

He wept therefore with bitter tears, and entreated with plaintive prayers

that he might be taken up together with the holy Man.

Of the disciples also and of those subject to him,

to whom it was permitted to know this, the lamentation was no

small one, complaining and saying that they, desolate

by the absence of their shepherd, lay open to the bites of wolves;

imploring also that they might not be forsaken, and, redoubling

their prayers and their mourning, they sent up their voices to heaven,

so much so that scarcely even the Man of God could refrain

from tears, desiring both not to fail them for the present

in their consolation, and yet knowing that it is much

better to be dissolved and to be with Christ.

[12] Having therefore consoled them with very many words and exhortations,

Sixtus foretells also to Sinicius that he will die after a year on the same day, he began more secretly to declare to blessed Sinicius by way of prophecy

that he too would follow him not long

after; but that, when the space of a year had been measured out,

on the same day on which he himself died, he too

would be taken up to the heavenly kingdoms; that this space

was to be left him on earth for this purpose, that the sheep

which they had won for Christ should not be

utterly forsaken by the absence of both, but

that by his guardianship and rule both churches might stand

firm, until the Lord should determine upon some chosen beforehand for himself,

who might rightly be able to take up the pastoral care

in their stead. At last, the people of the faithful being called together,

having addressed them with many exhortations,

he assigned the care of both churches to blessed

Sinicius, committing to his providence the flocks

which they had won for the Lord, either together or separately,

in the aforesaid places.

[13] Hearing which, the people standing by, as though unexpectedly

struck by a stroke of lightning from heaven, and having exhorted him and the faithful to constancy, drawing their breath from the depths,

began to lament with most bitter cries.

The mourning of the disciples too is renewed, and blessed

Sinicius the pontiff is made sorrowful with no small grief.

Whom blessed Sixtus gently consoling,

admonished with many discourses that they too should fight the good

fight, should consummate their course in charity unfeigned,

should keep inviolably the Catholic faith,

and so, after him, striving well, should hasten with eager heart

to the crown of justice. So

after these things, as the day drew near which the holy Man

had long foreknown, he is seized with a fever of sickness;

yet, though his body wasted away, in spirit

he panted after heavenly things, ever gazing toward heaven,

ever sighing after things on high, and ever desiring the hour

to come when, as a faithful and prudent steward, he should be taken up

into the joy of his Lord;

bearing this alone as a trouble in his heart, that he beheld

his Fellow-soldier, the aforesaid blessed Sinicius,

afflicted with sorrow at the separation from him.

To whom also very often, among words of consolation,

he repeated that very thing which he had said above, namely

that he would not remain a pilgrim on earth for a long space

after his own departure, but

that, a year's course being completed, he would without doubt follow him.

Together, said he, we began our pilgrimage;

together we sweated in labour; we have lived in one spirit;

and with one year interposed, on one and the same

day we shall be joined anew in heavenly glory; but it will be

your prudence that the dust of earth should hold our bodies also

undivided ^m.

[14] At last, his health growing daily worse, when

he had felt that the hour of his release was now at hand, he dies, and is honourably buried. Sinicius takes up the care of both churches, bidding farewell

both to the aforesaid blessed prelate Sinicius

and to the clergy and the rest of the faithful, having received the viaticum,

on the very Kalends of September, by a glorious passing,

the blessed Man happily consummated the course of his

pilgrimage. Whose obsequies being worthily celebrated,

holy Sinicius honourably laid his body, with praises and hymns,

in the church

which he himself had built in the suburb of that city.

Which being accomplished, blessed Sinicius took up with religious

affection the government of both ⁿ

churches, as had been enjoined upon him. Which he strove

vigorously and manfully to carry out through the whole space of a year,

namely by building churches, teaching the peoples,

and appointing also ministers of the church, as was opportune

and as the means of a plantation still new allowed.

[15] and after a year he dies on the same day, And he too, the course of his labour being well consummated,

when he now perceived that the day of his calling, which

the holy Man had foretold, was at hand, all things

being fitly disposed, returned to the city of Reims,

intending this in his mind, that the good

of obedience, which living he had continually practised,

he might faithfully consummate also at the term of his death,

and might rightly dispose the people of that city according to the command of blessed

Sixtus, and might there also himself end the labours

of the present life by a happy death. He therefore had a sepulchre

prepared for himself beside the sarcophagus

of the blessed Man, and on the impending day formerly

foretold to him he began to be distressed with the sickness of infirmity. And,

teaching the people with wholesome admonition, and

commending himself more anxiously to the Lord with suppliant prayer,

with great desire of heart he awaited the day

he had longed for. Which coming, that the prophecy of blessed Sixtus

might be proved true in all things,

on the aforesaid day, namely on the Kalends of September,

he too, rejoicing, presented ^o his blessed soul, loosed from the flesh,

to be carried by angelic ministry into the joys of the heavens,

and to be joined to the companion he had desired,

in the glory of Christ.

[16] and is buried beside St. Sixtus. Whose departure the people consecrated to Christ bearing

heavily, filled with mourning and tears, bewailed

the absence of their Father; whom nevertheless faith greatly

consoled, because they knew both that there was cause for rejoicing,

in that he had been taken up into glory,

and that they had nonetheless cause for grief, in that they were desolate

of both Shepherds. His body therefore, laid with honour

and due praise in the sepulchre which he had had prepared for himself,

they buried. And so

it came about that, as in their life they loved one another with mutual

charity, so also in the rest of their bodies,

as of their souls, they should be joined inseparably.

In which place the memory of their sanctity is proved by evident tokens

to be held famous, from miracles and virtues wrought thence to the praise

of the name of Christ.

Nor is it to be thought that the crown of martyrdom [p] was wanting to them,

since, although a persecutor was wanting,

they nevertheless, carrying about continually in their body the cross of Christ,

carried out not slothfully what they had purposed in mind,

and deserved happily to attain to the palm of victory,

Christ triumphing in them and through them.

To whom be honour and glory, praise

and magnificence, both then and now and through the infinite ages

of ages. Amen.

ANNOTATIONS.

and among them is called dean, and holds the first voice in deliberations, etc. Because, namely, the same men were the first bishops of Soissons and of Reims. If we had to press closely the words of Flodoard in chapter 3, saying that blessed Sixtus was ordained archbishop for the city of Reims by St. Peter, and sent with the aid of suffragans, it would necessarily have to be said that St. Sixtus was never bishop of Soissons, but that Sinicius was translated from the church of Soissons to that of Reims. But that archiepiscopal dignity and the support of suffragans seem to be asserted more ambitiously than truly; as also the primacy ascribed to St. Sixtus by Fulk, cited at number 15. Further, if we are willing to stand by these Acts alone, which are much simpler, it will have to be said that St. Sixtus at the beginning ruled both churches undividedly; then took to himself that of Reims, and assigned to Sinicius that of Soissons; and finally, after the death of Sixtus, that both churches were again joined, and that this was done under compulsion of necessity, because no one was yet found there fit to take up the episcopal burden.

p. Here it is clearly said that the Saints were not martyrs in the strict sense of the name, and I judge that we must stand altogether by the Acts, since we have no better monuments concerning these Saints.

* Utrecht Ms.: suppliciis (torments)

* otherwise: certior

* otherwise: dubitaret