A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

S. SIXTUS III.

SIXTUS, a Priest of the Church of Rome, was a long time one of the greatest Ornaments of the Roman Clergy. We understand by the two Letters which S. Austin wrote to him * 1.1 in 418. that he was a Protector of Pelagius and his Adherents, who therefore had given out a Report, That he was of their Opinion; but when they were condemned by Zosimus, he was one of the first that pronounced an Anathema against them: That he wrote a short Letter to Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, in which he assures him, That he was not of Pelagius's Senti∣ments; and that he afterward made a larger Book, in which he explained his Opinions more amply, which were consonant to those of the Bishops of Africa, and contrary to the Errors of the Pelagians. We have neither this Letter nor this Writing, but this Story, and the manner in which S. Austin writes to Sixtus, shew us sufficiently how he was already looked upon in the Church of Rome. So that it is no wonder, that after the Death of S. Coelestine, which hap∣pened in 432. he succeeded him in the See of Rome. The Eastern Churches were then divi∣ded about the Condemnation of Nestorius. S. Cyril and the Aegyptian Bishops maintained what was done against him. John Bishop of Antioch and the other Oriental Bishops would not re∣ceive him, they excommunicated and condemned one another, and the Church was in danger of falling into a lamentable Schism, if the Prudence of S. Sixtus had not contributed to the Peace, which was concluded in the time of his Popedom. S. Cyril sent two Bishops to Rome in the Name of the Council, to encline the Pope to approve what he had done, and to declar•• himself openly against the Orientals. These two Bishops, called Hermogenes and Lampelius, at their arrival found S. Coelestine dead, and Sixtus in his place. This Pope graciously received these Messengers, approved what was said in the Council of Antioch concerning the Faith, and the Condemnation of Nestorius. But asto John Bishop of Antioch and the Orientals, he order∣ed, That if they would acknowledge and approve the Faith of the Council, they ought to be received. This he wrote to S. Cyril and the other Bishops in two Letters, which M. Cotelie∣rius hath published in Greek and Latin, in his 1st. Tome of the Monuments of the Greek Church, p. 42, and 44. And Mr. Baluzius hath put them in his new Collection of th•• Councils, p. 658.

These Letters had very good success and prepared their Minds for Peace. As soon as it was concluded, S. Cyril sent S. Sixtus the News of it, who shewed a great deal of Joy at it, and immediately wrote to S. Cyril and John Bishop of Antioch, to assure them, That he did join with them in their Reunion. We have these two Letters at the end of the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, p. 1175, and 1178. He wrote to S. Cyril, that at that time when he was much troubled for the condition of the Eastern Churches, he was greatly pleased to hear by his Letters, That all the Members of the Church were again united in one Body, excepting him only who was the Cause of all the Mischief; That he had imparted this good News to the Bishops of his Synod which was assembled upon his Birth-day. He adds, That John Bi∣shop of Antioch had never followed the Errors and Blasphemies of Nestorius; That he had only suspended his Judgment, and that he ought to rejoyce that he had at last declared himself for the right side; That it was an excellent Work to bring over so great Bishops, and that he thought it well done by himself, that he had not acted rashly in that Affair, but had waited till

the Vine of Jes••s Christ brought forth useful and pleasant Fruit: That S. Cyril ought entirely to forget the Inju••ies which the Oriental Bishops had done him in pronouncing the Sentence of Condemnation agai••••t him; That he had suffered undeservedly to render the Truth victori∣ous. Lastly, he tells him, That he expected that the Clergy of John Bishop of Antioch's Party should write to him.

He shews the same Joy to John Bishop of Antioch, and discovers the same displeasure against Nestorius. He praises him, That he made an elegant Profession of the Faith of the Church, and rejected Novelty to apply himself to the ancient Doctrine.

Altho▪ these two Letters are both dated the same day, which is Sep••. 15. 433. yet the Letter to John ought to bear date some days after the Letter of S. Cyril.

The 3d. Letter to the Oriental Bishops ascribed to S. Sixtus is an evident Forgery made up of Passages taken out of the 8th. Council of Toledo, S. Gregory the Great, Foelix III. Adrian, the Theodosian and Justinian Codes, and it is in great part in the 3d. Epistle attributed to Fa∣bian, which is the Work of Isidorus Mercator, as well as this. This Let••er is written about an Accusation, which it pretends was brought against S. Sixtus by Bassus, who had been Con∣sul, from which he was cleared in a Synod, and Bassus was condemned. This Story is rela∣ted in the Pontifical, and we have the pretended Acts of that Council, but the very reading of them will fully satisfie us of their Falshood. They have the same date with the Letter, that is to say, they are dated in the year 440, some days after S. Sixtus's Death. Although the Author of the Pontifical places this Accusation in the 11th. year of S. Sixtus's Popedom, the Name of one of the Consuls is changed. The Acts themselves are nothing but an heap of Impertinencies and Fables. The Acts of the Condemnation of one Polychronius pretended to be Bishop of Jerusalem, given at Rome, is of the same stamp. There was no Bishop of that Name at that time. The date of these Acts agrees with the Pontificate of Leo, and yet they say he was condemned under Sixtus. They speak also of a Siege of Jerusalem, which is ima∣ginary. But if all these things did not, the reading of these Acts would discover the For∣gery.

We must not then give any Credit to the Acts of the Condemnation of Bassus. We are not sure that ever he accused S. Sixtus III. this Fact not being related by any credible Au∣thor; so that it is probable, that the whole Story is fabulous. Sixtus III. died in the Month of March, in the year 440.

Notes

• * 1.1

  S. Sixtus III.