Part 38
Such was the Conduct of _Jerom_ towards that illustrious Matron, in her Life-time, and after her Death. From this Conduct I leave the Reader to judge, whether the Authority of so prejudiced a Writer ought to have been of such Weight with _Baronius_ as to make him exclude her, as well as _Syricius_, from the _Roman_ Martyrology, or the Calendar of Saints. Should we grant _Ruffinus_ to have really held the Errors which _Jerom_ charged him with, it must still be owned, that _Melania_ acted, as became a Person of her Wisdom, Piety, and Experience, in suspending her Judgment, and not breaking with _Ruffinus_, till she was otherwise convinced, than by the Invectives of his Antagonist, equally levelled against herself, that he was no longer worthy of her Friendship and Regard. As for _Syricius_, _Jerom_ rather commends than blames him, even where he complains of his Kindness to _Ruffinus_. For he only says, that _Ruffinus_ abused the Simplicity of _Syricius_, who judged of the Spirit of others from his own[1347]; which was saying, in other Words, that he was a good Man, but mistaken in his Judgment, or not infallible: so that his only Crime, according to _Jerom_, was want of Infallibility. However, upon the Authority of that Father, _Baronius_ not only condemns the Conduct of _Syricius_, but, rashly prying into the inscrutable Secrets of Providence, pretends his Days to have been shortened for the Countenance he gave to _Ruffinus_, and the Remissness he shewed in suppressing the Errors, with which he was charged. It is certain, that _Ruffinus_ was well received, and entertained, in a very hospitable manner, by _Syricius_, during his Stay at _Rome_; and that, upon his leaving that City, he received from him Letters of Communion. Now, if _Syricius_ did not know, or did not believe, that _Ruffinus_ held those Errors, how unjust is it to blame him for the Kindness he shewed to a Man of _Ruffinus_’s Character! If he did know, and yet gave him Letters of Communion, how will _Baronius_ be able to clear _Syricius_ from the Imputation of holding the same Errors[N40]?
Footnote N40:
A modern Writer[N40.1], taking the Part of _Syricius_ against _Baronius_, has composed a whole Dissertation, and not a short one, to shew _how undeservedly_ Syricius _has been cashiered in this Review of the Church triumphant, while many others passed Muster for great Saints, whose Virtues_, he might have said, whose very Existence, _may be justly disputed_. I shall not enter into the tedious Detail of his Arguments and Reasons, but only observe, that the Name of _Syricius_ ought not to have been struck out of the Calendar, while the Names of the _Arian_ Pope _Liberius_, and the Antipope _Felix_, his Antagonist, were kept in; though, upon other Accounts, I think him myself very unworthy of the Name of a Saint.
Footnote N40.1:
Florentinus, in vetus Martyrol. Hieronymi, p. 1001-1010.
[Sidenote: _The Misunderstanding between_ Syricius _and_ Paulinus _no Charge against_ Syricius.]
As for the Treatment _Paulinus_ of _Nola_ met with from _Syricius_, there was, no doubt, a Misunderstanding between them; but, as I am quite in the Dark as to the Cause of it, I will not take upon me to condemn the one rather than the other. Perhaps they were both to blame; perhaps they both meant well, and neither was to blame. However that be, the Misunderstanding between them was soon removed; for, during the remaining Part of _Syricius_’s Life, _Paulinus_ went constantly to _Rome_ once a Year, as he himself declares, in one of his Letters[1348]. _Syricius_, it is true, did not take _Jerom_ into his Protection, as his Predecessor had done, nor shew him the same Kindness; which is the Third Charge brought by _Baronius_ against him, but of no more Weight than the other Two, that is, of none at all. _Jerom_, prompted by his Zeal, and censorious Temper, could not help inveighing, with great Bitterness, in all his Writings, against the Looseness and Debauchery, which universally prevailed, in his Time, among the _Roman_ Clergy, and the pious Frauds they made use of to extort Legacies and Presents from old Men, from Widows, and from Orphans. _Syricius_ might have been as much offended at the Vices of his Libertine Clergy, as _Jerom_ was, and even studied to reform them; but, at the same time, be glad, without deserving the least Reproach on that score, to get rid of so troublesome a Censor, who thus exposed their Irregularities to the Eyes, and them to the Contempt, of the World[N41].
Footnote N41:
The Festival of _Syricius_ was never kept, it seems, by public Authority; but is marked in some antient Martyrologies, on the 22d of _February_, and in others on the 26th of _November_. The last was more probably the Day of his Death, since he is said, both by _Prosper_ and _Isidore_, to have governed 14 Years, to complete which one Month only will be wanting, if we place his Death on that Day; and several, if with _Baronius_ we suppose him to have died on the 22d of _February_[N41.1]; for, as to the Year of his Death, there is no Disagreement among Authors. _Baronius_ mentions an antient Picture, Part whereof, says he, is still to be seen in the Title of Pope _Syricius_[N41.2]. But that Picture is no more to be seen, and he explains himself no farther.
Footnote N41.1:
Vid. Boll. 22 Feb. p. 282.
Footnote N41.2:
Bar. ad ann. 395. n. 6.
_Syricius_ was interred in the Cœmetery of _Priscilla_, but his Body was translated, about the Latter-end of the Eighth Century, to the Church of St. _Praxedes_[1349], where his Remains (for _Baronius_ will not allow us to call them Relics) still lie unregarded.
Footnote 1224:
Bar. ad ann. 385. n. 5. Anast. c. 29. Boll. Apr. t. 1. p. 32.
Footnote 1225:
Vide Bar. ad ann. 385. n. 5.
Footnote 1226:
Id. ib. n. 6.
Footnote 1227:
Concil. t. 1. p. 69. 689-691.
Footnote 1228:
Ib. p. 689.
Footnote 1229:
Isid. ser. c. 3.
Footnote 1230:
Con. ib.
Footnote 1231:
Ib. p. 690.
Footnote 1232:
Ibid.
Footnote 1233:
Ib. p. 689, 690.
Footnote 1234:
Inn. ep. 3. c. 1. t. 1. p. 755, 756.
Footnote 1235:
Ib. & p. 691.
Footnote 1236:
Inn. ep. 3. c. 1. t. 1. p. 755, 756.
Footnote 1237:
Cod. Rom. a Ques. cum Leone edit. c. 29.
Footnote 1238:
Conc. t. 1. p. 1210.
Footnote 1239:
Ib. p. 1329.
Footnote 1240:
Soz. l. 1. c. 23.
Footnote 1241:
Socr. l. 1. c. 11.
Footnote 1242:
Suid. in vit. Paph.
Footnote 1243:
Chricht. de contin. sacerd. c. 4.
Footnote 1244:
Melanch. in Apol. p. 13.
Footnote 1245:
Bellar. de cler. l. 1. c. 21.
Footnote 1246:
Hier. in Jovin. l. 1.
Footnote 1247:
Ign. ep. ad Philadelp.
Footnote 1248:
Bell. de cler. l. 1. c. 20.
Footnote 1249:
Theod. l. 1. c. 7. Concil. l. 2. p. 28, 29. Ambr. ep. 25.
Footnote 1250:
Epiph. hæres. 59.
Footnote 1251:
Hier. l. 2. in Jov.
Footnote 1252:
Vide Cæs. comm. de bell. Gall. l. 6. Cic. div. l. 1.
Footnote 1253:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1028.
Footnote 1254:
Bolland. prop. p. 213.
Footnote 1255:
Bar. ad ann. 387. n. 65, 66. ex t. 1. ep. Rom. Pont. p. 48.
Footnote 1256:
Hier. ep. 29.
Footnote 1257:
Aug. ad Con. c. 3.
Footnote 1258:
Concil. t. 1. p. 742. ed. Binian.
Footnote 1259:
Concil. t. 1. p. 742.
Footnote 1260:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1279.
Footnote 1261:
Aug. ad Conc. c. 3.
Footnote 1262:
Bar. ad ann. 405. n. 56.
Footnote 1263:
Pet. de Natal. l. 11. c. 89.
Footnote 1264:
Hier. vir. ill. c. 121.
Footnote 1265:
Ad Cte. t. 2. p. 152.
Footnote 1266:
Id. ep. 82. 29. in Isai. c. 60.
Footnote 1267:
Leo, t. p. 831.
Footnote 1268:
Aug. ad Con. contra mendac. per totum.
Footnote 1269:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1028-1030.
Footnote 1270:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1578.
Footnote 1271:
Vide Blond. censur. in decretal. epist. p. 550.
Footnote 1272:
Quesn. dissert. 5. sur S. Leon.
Footnote 1273:
Hier. in Jovin. l. 2. t. 2. p. 94.
Footnote 1274:
Id. ib. l. 1. c. 25. Aug. hæres. 82. Amb. ep. 7.
Footnote 1275:
Hier. ib. c. 1.
Footnote 1276:
Aug. op. imp. l. 4. c. 121. & hær. 82. Amb. ep. 7.
Footnote 1277:
Aug. in Jul. l. 1. c. 2. & ad. Bon. l. 2. c. 2.
Footnote 1278:
Hier. ib. c. 25. Amb. ep. 7.
Footnote 1279:
Amb. ibid.
Footnote 1280:
Aug. hæres. 82. Hier. in Jovin. l. 2. c. 23.
Footnote 1281:
Amb. ep. 6.
Footnote 1282:
Hier. ep. 26.
Footnote 1283:
Id. ep. 50.
Footnote 1284:
Amb. ep. 6.
Footnote 1285:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1286:
Id. ep. 7.
Footnote 1287:
Aug. in Jul. l. 1. c. 2.
Footnote 1288:
Cod. Theod. 16. t. 5. l. 53.
Footnote 1289:
Hier. in Vigil. c. 1.
Footnote 1290:
Hier. in Vigil. c. 1.
Footnote 1291:
Vide p. 220.
Footnote 1292:
Soz. l. 5. c. 15. & l. 7. c. 15. Hier. vir. ill. c. 125.
Footnote 1293:
Theodor. l. 5. c. 25.
Footnote 1294:
Theod. ib.
Footnote 1295:
Amb. ep. 9.
Footnote 1296:
Theod. ib.
Footnote 1297:
Id. ib. & Amb. 9.
Footnote 1298:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1072.
Footnote 1299:
Amb. ep. 9.
Footnote 1300:
Laun. ep. 7. p. 10.
Footnote 1301:
Bar. ad ann. 391.
Footnote 1302:
Blond. primaut. p. 237.
Footnote 1303:
Amb. ep. 9.
Footnote 1304:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1305:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1306:
Theod. l. 5. c. 23.
Footnote 1307:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1308:
Concil. t. 4. p. 830.
Footnote 1309:
Facund. Hermian. l. 8. c. 1.
Footnote 1310:
Ruff. l. 11. c. 22.
Footnote 1311:
Mercat. t. 2. p. 128.
Footnote 1312:
Aug. ep. 150.
Footnote 1313:
Amb. ep. 5. & Instit. Virg. p. 5.
Footnote 1314:
Merc. ib.
Footnote 1315:
Amb. ib.
Footnote 1316:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1317:
Amb. ibid.
Footnote 1318:
Concil. t. 2. p. 1274.
Footnote 1319:
Ib. p. 1275.
Footnote 1320:
Ib.
Footnote 1321:
Soz. l. 8. c. 3.
Footnote 1322:
Theod. l. 5. c. 23. Soz. l. 8. c. 3.
Footnote 1323:
Marc. t. 2. p. 86.
Footnote 1324:
Socr. l. 5. c. 15.
Footnote 1325:
Soz. l. 8. c. 3. Socr. l. 6. c. 9. Pallad. dial. c. 4.
Footnote 1326:
Theod. l. 5. c. 23.
Footnote 1327:
Soz. l. 5. c. 15. Theod. ib. Pallad. dial. p. 10.
Footnote 1328:
Theod. l. 5. c. 35.
Footnote 1329:
Theodor. Lect. l. 2.
Footnote 1330:
Vid. p. 221.
Footnote 1331:
Socr. l. 5. c. 5. Soz. l. 7. c. 3.
Footnote 1332:
Vid. Bolland. 22 Feb. p. 282.
Footnote 1333:
Bar. ad an. 398. in app.
Footnote 1334:
Id. ib.
Footnote 1335:
Amb. ep. 7.
Footnote 1336:
Isid. vir. ill. c. 3.
Footnote 1337:
Florent. p. 999. Bolland. Feb. 22. p. 282.
Footnote 1338:
Aguilera santi di Palermo.
Footnote 1339:
Paul. ep. 1.
Footnote 1340:
Hier. ep. 16. & in Ruf. l. 3. c. 6, & 7.
Footnote 1341:
Paul. ep. 9.
Footnote 1342:
Hier. ep. 101.
Footnote 1343:
Ex Ruf. l. 2.
Footnote 1344:
Vid. Hier. ep. 99.
Footnote 1345:
Pallad. hist. Lausiac. in Bibl. Patr. c. 118.
Footnote 1346:
Hier. ad Ctes. l. 2.
Footnote 1347:
Hier. in Ruf. l. 3. c. 6, 7.
Footnote 1348:
Paul. ep. 16.
Footnote 1349:
Vid. Boll. prop. p. 59.
ARCADIUS, ANASTASIUS, HONORIUS. _Thirty-eighth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 398. Anastasius _writes to_ Paulinus.]
_Syricius_ was succeeded by _Anastasius_[1350], after a Vacancy of Twenty Days, according to some; and, according to others, of near Two Months. He was no sooner chosen, than he writ a kind and obliging Letter to _Paulinus_, then at _Nola_ in _Campania_, and an other in his Commendation to the Bishops of that Province[1351]. This he is supposed to have done, in order to efface the bad Impression, which the Treatment _Paulinus_ had met with in the Time of _Syricius_, might have given him against that See, and the _Roman_ Clergy.
[Sidenote: _What occasioned the Quarrel between_ Jerom _and_ Ruffinus.]
It was in the Time of _Anastasius_, and soon after his Election, that the famous Dispute arose between _Jerom_ and _Ruffinus_, which was afterwards carried on with a Warmth on both Sides quite unbecoming Men of their Profession. Of this Quarrel, and the Part _Anastasius_ acted on that Occasion, the Writers of those Times give us the following Account. _Ruffinus_, a Presbyter of _Aquileia_, and a great Admirer of _Origen_, having accompanied _Melania_, whom he had attended Twenty-five Years at _Jerusalem_, on her Return to _Rome_ in the Time of _Syricius_, was received there with extraordinary Marks of Esteem by the _Roman_ Clergy, and _Syricius_ himself, as I have observed elsewhere[1352]. [Sidenote: Ruffinus _translates_ Origen_’s_Periarchon.] Encouraged by the Reception he met with, he continued a whole Year at _Rome_; and during that Time published, but without putting his Name to it, a _Latin_ Translation of _Origen_’s _Periarchon_, or _Treatise of Principles_, having first removed the Prejudice which some might entertain against that Writer, by the Translation of an Apology, which the Martyr _Pamphylus_ had composed in his Vindication, while he was in Prison. To this Apology he added a Piece of his own, shewing that most of the Errors ascribed to _Origen_ had been maliciously inserted into his Works by his Enemies after his Death[1353]. In the Preface to the _Periarchon_ itself he also declared, that, in Imitation of a learned Brother, meaning _Jerom_, who had translated above Seventy of _Origen_’s Books, he had either corrected or suppressed such Errors as had appeared to him repugnant to the Articles of the Catholic Faith[1354]. [Sidenote: _Many at_ Rome _embrace the Errors of_ Origen.] The Work, thus recommended, was received with uncommon Applause at _Rome_, and the Sentiments of _Origen_ greedily embraced, and warmly maintained, by great Numbers of the Clergy as well as the Laity, to whom _Origen_ had till then been, it seems, utterly unknown. This happened in the Time of _Syricius_, who, either not suspecting _Ruffinus_, as he had not put his Name to the Translation, or perhaps not judging him worthy of Censure for barely relating the Sentiments of another, or supposing that, agreeably to his Preface, he had suppressed whatever was wrong in the original Work, gave him Letters of Communion at his Departure from _Rome_: for he had no sooner published his Translation than he left that City and returned to _Aquileia_. _Syricius_ died soon after, and _Anastasius_ was no sooner chosen in his room, than the famous _Roman_ Matron _Marcella_, offended at the new Doctrines that began to prevail in _Rome_, applied to him, pressing him to put a Stop to the growing Evil, and at the same time accusing _Ruffinus_ as the Author of the Translation, to which alone it was owing[1355]. [Sidenote: _Errors left in the Work, notwithstanding the Corrections made by the Translator._] To make good this Charge, she produced some Copies corrected with _Ruffinus_’s own Hand; and several Persons appeared, who, having by her means been reclaimed from the Errors of _Origen_, owned they had been led into them by the Disciples of _Ruffinus_[1356]. This _Jerom_ cannot relate without launching into the Praises of his Heroine _Marcella_, crying up her Zeal, extolling her Courage and Resolution, in thus making head against so numerous a Band, meaning the _Origenists_ in _Rome_, while the Clergy declined that Trouble, or rather promoted the Doctrines they ought to have opposed. But elsewhere he will not allow Women, under any Pretence whatsoever, to concern themselves in religious Controversies. _To meddle in Disputes concerning Faith or Religion, is not at all the Province_ (says he, with the Words of St. _Paul_) _of silly Women, laden with Sins, led away with divers Lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the Knowlege of the Truth_[1357]. But he speaks here of _Melania_, who was no less attached to _Ruffinus_ than _Marcella_ was to him.
[Sidenote: Jerom_’s Charge against_ Ruffinus.]
In the _Periarchon_ were contained, without all doubt, many unfound and unwarrantable Notions, and _Ruffinus_ corrected those only that related to the Trinity. _He corrected_, says _Jerom_, _what_ Origen _had impiously written concerning the Trinity, being well apprised it would have given great Offence at_ Rome. _But as to his other Errors, those especially concerning the Fall of the Angels, and the first Man, the Resurrection, the World or Worlds of_ Epicurus, _the Restoration of all Things_, &c. _he either left them, as he found them in the Original, or confirmed them with Reasons borrowed from the Comment of_ Didymus, _an avowed Defender of_ Origen. _Thus he declared himself a Catholic with respect to the Trinity; that in other Points the Reader might not be aware of him as an Heretic_[1358].
[Sidenote: Ruffinus_’s Answers_.]
In Answer to this Charge, _Ruffinus_ declared, that it was never his Intention to correct all the Errors that were ascribed to _Origen_; that the Declaration he had made, in his Preface to the _Periarchon_, ought to be restrained to those Errors only that related to the Trinity; and that it was very uncharitable to judge of his Faith, from the Faith of the Author he translated, and not from his own Words. He then declares his Sentiments touching some particular Points, in which _Origen_ was thought to differ from the Church; adding, that where _Origen_ differed from the Catholic Church, he differed from _Origen_.
[Sidenote: Jerom _condemns_ Origen, _and inveighs against_ Ruffinus.]
_Anastasius_, notwithstanding the Solicitations of _Marcella_, declined either proceeding against _Ruffinus_, or censuring his Translation, till Two Years after, when _Jerom_, in a new Version which he published of the same Work, undertook to prove, that several Opinions of _Origen_ were truly heretical, and as such ought to be condemned by the Church. As to _Ruffinus_, he inveighed bitterly against him, as if he had translated that Work with no other View but to propagate the Errors it contained. Thus began the famous Quarrel between these Two Writers, which occasioned no small Disturbance in the Church, some siding with _Jerom_ against _Ruffinus_, and others with _Ruffinus_ against _Jerom_. Among the former, the most sanguine were _Theophilus_ Bishop of _Alexandria_, _Epiphanius_ Bishop of _Constantia_ in the Island of _Cyprus_, and _Anastasius_ Bishop of _Rome_. _Theophilus_ not only condemned in a Council, which he summoned for that Purpose, the Errors of _Origen_, but _Origen_ himself, declaring him an Heretic, and forbidding all under his Jurisdiction to read, or even keep his Works by them; which is the first Instance we have of such Prohibitions. [Sidenote: Origen _condemned by_ Anastasius _and several other Bishops_.] His Example was followed by _Epiphanius_, _Anastasius_, _Venerius_ Bishop of _Milan_, _Chromatius_ Bishop of _Aquileia_, and several others. But some, and among the rest _John_ Bishop of _Jerusalem_, and _Chrysostom_ then Bishop of _Constantinople_, disapproving the rash Conduct of their Collegues, could by no means be induced to confirm the Sentence they had pronounced; which _Epiphanius_ resented to such a Degree, that he immediately separated himself from their Communion. _Sozomen_ adds, that he even refused to pray for young _Theodosius_, while he was dangerously ill, because his Mother _Eudoxia_ would not banish from _Constantinople_ some Monks who had warmly espoused the Cause of _Origen_[1359]. _Ruffinus_ ranks _Epiphanius_ among those Plagiaries, who, borrowing from _Origen_ all they said or writ, cried down his Works, in order to deter others from reading them, and consequently from discovering, that what was admired in them was not their own[1360].
[Sidenote: Ruffinus _is summoned to_ Rome.]
_Origen_ being thus condemned as an Heretic, near 150 Years after his Death, _Anastasius_, at the Instigation of _Marcella_, _Pammachius_, _Oceanus_, and some other of _Jerom_’s Friends in _Rome_, writ to _Ruffinus_, complaining of his Translation, and summoning him to appear, and give an Account of his Faith. In Answer to this Letter, _Ruffinus_ sent him a Confession of Faith intirely agreeable to that of the Catholic Church, adding, that he held no other; that his Faith had been sufficiently tried in the Persecution of _Valens_; and that, as to the Translation of _Origen_’s Work, he had there neither approved nor disapproved, but barely related, the Sentiments of that Writer. He modestly declined complying with the Summons calling him to _Rome_; and concluded with declaring, that the Faith of the _Roman_ Church and his were one and the same[1362][N42].
Footnote N42:
The chief Errors of _Origen_ were concerning the Trinity, the Resurrection of the Body, the Eternity of Hell-Torments, and the Origin of Souls. If his Works were not interpolated by the Heretics, as _Ruffinus_ pretended they were, it is no easy Matter to determine what was his real Opinion with respect to the Trinity; for in some Passages he seems to acknowlege an Equality, and in others to establish an Inequality, between the Father and the Son. As to the Resurrection, he was accused of not believing, that the Body, at least the same Body, was to rise from the Dead. He denied the Eternity of Hell-Torments, and held, that even the Devils would repent in the End, and be saved. He maintained the Souls to have been created before the World; to have been confined to the Bodies, which they animated, as so many Prisons, to expiate there the Sins which they had committed; to be in perpetual Motion passing from one Body to another, and at last to become Angels. With the Three last Errors chiefly _Ruffinus_ was charged by St. _Jerom_; and it was to clear himself from such an Imputation, that, in his Answer to _Anastasius_ summoning him to _Rome_, he declared his Belief with respect to those Articles, styling his Answer on that Account an _Apology_. As to the Trinity, those whom they called _Origenists_, were allowed, even by their Enemies, to be quite orthodox in their Belief of that Mystery. Touching the Resurrection, _Ruffinus_ declared and explained his Faith in such clear Terms as ought to have left no room, even for St. _Jerom_, to arraign him on that Head. He expressed himself in a manner no less orthodox with respect to the Eternity of the Pains of Hell. But, as to the Origin of Souls, he owns himself to be quite at a Loss what to think, and what to determine, on that Subject, since no particular Opinion had been yet settled by the Church, and the Ecclesiastical Writers disagreed in that Point among themselves; some believing, with _Tertullian_ and _Lactantius_, the Souls to have been formed with the Bodies; and others maintaining, with _Origen_, that they were all created before the World: as to himself, he declared, that he held nothing for certain but what he was taught by the Church, _viz._ that the Souls as well as the Bodies proceeded from God[N42.1]. This _Jerom_ called a false, artful, and imposing Confession, as if _Ruffinus_ did not believe what he professed in the most solemn Manner to believe; and _Anastasius_, judging of his Faith not from his own Words, but from those of _Jerom_, separated himself from his Communion.