Part 39

I cannot help observing here, that _Jerom_, whom nothing now will satisfy but the Condemnation of _Origen_, used a few Years before to inveigh with the same Gall and Bitterness against the Enemies of that Writer as he does now against his Friends, condemning with as much Acrimony those who accused him, as he now condemns those who excuse him. _Origen_ had been condemned in his Life-time by _Demetrius_ Bishop of _Alexandria_, and by several other Bishops: and _Jerom_, after telling us, in speaking of the Judgment that was given against him, that he had written more Books than others had time to read; and that in the Number of his Volumes he had surpassed _Varro_, and the other most eloquent Writers both _Greek_ and _Latin_; adds, _But what Reward did he receive for so much Toil and Labour? He was condemned by the Bishop_ Demetrius; _and, if we except the Bishops of_ Palæstine, Arabia, Phœnicia, _and_ Achaia, _he was condemned by all the rest. Even_ Rome _assembled her Senate against him, not because he taught any new Doctrines, or held any heretical Opinions, which those who snarl at him, like so many mad Dogs, would fain make us believe; but because they could not bear the bright Rays of his Eloquence and Knowlege, and were forced to be dumb when he spoke_. This Passage is quoted by _Ruffinus_, and _Jerom_ himself owns it to have been copied from his Letter to _Paula_[N42.2].

By the Senate that _Rome_ assembled against _Origen_, _Jerom_ meant, no doubt, the Bishop and Clergy of that City: and that he made no Account of their Judgment, sufficiently appears from the contemptuous and ironical Manner he speaks of it. However, that Father is brought in by _Baronius_ as an Evidence for _Infallibility_, on account of the Regard which he afterwards paid to the Judgment of _Anastasius_, styling it _a decisive Sentence_. But _Jerom_ had then changed his Opinion; and _Anastasius_ only condemned what he had condemned before; so that from the great Regard which _Jerom_ shewed on that Occasion for the Judgment of _Anastasius_, _Baronius_ can at most conclude, that he thought the Popes infallible when they agreed with him; for that he thought them fallible when they disagreed with him, is manifest from his not acquiescing in the Judgment of another Pope condemning _Origen_, when he himself had not yet condemned him.

Footnote N42.1:

Ruff. ad Anast. p. 202.

Footnote N42.2:

Hier. vir. illustr. c. 54. Ruff. l. 2. p. 225.

[Sidenote: Anastasius _separates himself from his Communion_.]

But this Confession, however orthodox, did not satisfy _Anastasius_, or rather _Jerom_ and his Friends in _Rome_. They continued, says _Ruffinus_, the Persecution which they had so successfully begun, and with their malicious Suggestions prevailed in the End on _Anastasius_ to comply with their unjust Demands[1363]; that is, I suppose, to separate himself from his Communion: for _Anastasius_, in his Answer to a Letter which _John_ Bishop of _Jerusalem_ had writ in favour of _Ruffinus_, acquaints that Prelate, that he had cut him off from his Communion, and left him to be judged by God and his own Conscience. _As to_ Origen, says he in the same Letter, _I knew not before who he was, nor what he had writ_. Ruffinus _has translated him into our Language; and, in so doing, what else could he have in view but to infect this Church with his pernicious Doctrines? He has expressed his own Sentiments in translating those of his Author; and is therefore no less guilty than Origen himself, whom we have all condemned_[1364][N43].

Footnote N43:

The same Charge lies against _Jerom_; nay, he was the more guilty of the Two. For he had not only translated many of _Origen_’s Works, containing Errors no less repugnant to the Catholic Truths than any in the _Periarchon_, but had besides filled his Comments on the Scripture, especially on the Epistle to the _Ephesians_, with the worst of Origen’s Errors, _viz._ with those relating to the Resurrection of the Body, to the Pre-existence of the Souls, and to the Duration of Hell-Torments, as is manifest from the many Passages quoted by _Ruffinus_ out of the Comments of that Father. _Jerom_ found great Fault with _Ruffinus_, for not confuting the Errors which he translated; concluding from thence, that he held the same Doctrines: and yet he was himself so far from confuting in his Comments any of _Origen_’s erroneous Opinions, that on the contrary he often delivered them in such manner as made many, and St. _Austin_ among the rest, believe them to be his own[N43.1]. Nay, in one Place he seems to own, that he held some of _Origin_’s Errors[N43.2]: but ends what he there writes of him thus; _If you believe me, I never was an_ Origenist; _but if you absolutely insist upon my having been one, I now tell you, that I am so no more; and it is to convince you of this, that I am become the Accuser of_ Origen.

Footnote N43.1:

Hier. ep. 89.

Footnote N43.2:

Hier. ep. 65.

In the same Letter _Anastasius_ mentions with great Joy a Decree of the Emperors, that is, of _Arcadius_ and _Honorius_, forbidding the Works of _Origen_, and imposing severe Penalties on such as should for the future read or peruse them[N44].

Footnote N44:

_Ruffinus_ pretended this Letter to be supposititious, and to have been forged by St. _Jerom_, alleging, that he could not believe the Bishop of _Rome_ capable of such a crying Piece of Injustice as to condemn an innocent Man, and condemn him in his Absence. He added, that if _Anastasius_ had ever written such a Letter to _John_ of _Jerusalem_, _John_, with whom he lived in great Intimacy, would have acquainted him with it, which he had not done. In Answer to this Charge, _Jerom_ refers him to the Archives of the _Roman_ Church[N44.1]; and to _Jerom_ I refer the Jesuit _Halloix_, supposing the Letter to have been feigned, tho’ not by St. _Jerom_, on account of the following Words, that seem to wound the pretended Supremacy. _I have intirely separated myself from him_, meaning _Ruffinus_: _I will not even know where he is, or what he is doing: let him try, if he pleases, to be absolved elsewhere_. So that _Anastasius_ thought he might be absolved elsewhere, though condemned at _Rome_. This _Halloix_, more jealous of the Papal Supremacy than the Pope himself, will not allow, and therefore pretends the Letter to be supposititious. But, since the Time of _Ruffinus_, none besides him ever questioned its Authenticity.

Footnote N44.1:

Hier. in Ruff. l. 3. c. 5, & 6.

[Sidenote: _The Condemnation of_ Origen _owing chiefly to the Bishop of_ Alexandria.]

Such is the Account the contemporary Writers, and _Jerom_ himself, give us of the Condemnation of _Origen_, and his Interpreter _Ruffinus_, very different from that which we read in _Baronius_, introducing his _High Pontiff Anastasius_ as acting the First Part on that Occasion; though _Jerom_ tells us, in express Terms, that _Anastasius_ followed the Example of _Theophilus_; that he condemned in the West, what had before been condemned in the East[1365]; and that _Rome_ and all _Italy_ owed their Deliverance to the Letters of _Theophilus_[1366]; meaning the circular Letter, which _Theophilus_ writ to all the Catholic Bishops, acquainting them that he had condemned _Origen_, and prohibited his Books, and exhorting them to follow his Example[1367]. It was by this Letter that _Anastasius_ was induced to condemn _Origen_: For what else could _Jerom_ mean by saying, that _Rome_ and _Italy_ were, by the Letters of _Theophilus_, delivered from the Errors of _Origen_? _Baronius_ could not but know, that the Letter of _Theophilus_ was addressed to all the Catholic Bishops, since it is styled by _Theophilus_ himself, in a Letter he writ to _Epiphanius_[1368], and by _Epiphanius_, in one of his Letters to _Jerom_[1369], _A general Letter to all Catholics_; and yet the Annalist speaks of it as directed to _Anastasius_ alone, in order to impose by that means on his Readers, and persuade them, _that the Bishop of_ Alexandria _submitted the Sentence he had pronounced to the Judgment of_ Anastasius, _being well apprised_, that it _could be of no Weight unless confirmed by the first See_. Had he been well apprised of this, I cannot think he would have pronounced such a Sentence, as it is very certain he did, without the Authority, the Advice, or even the Knowlege, of the _first See_.

[Sidenote: _The Bishop of_ Aquileia _communicates with_ Ruffinus, _though excommunicated by_ Anastasius.]

As to _Ruffinus_, _Anastasius_, it is true, separated himself from his Communion; but did not excommunicate him, that is, as the Word is now understood, did not cut him off from the Communion of the Catholic Church, as _Baronius_ insinuates. The Power of excommunicating him in this Sense was by the Canons vested in his own Bishop; and it is manifest from _Jerom_, that _Chromatius_, then Bishop of _Aquileia_, continued to communicate with him after _Anastasius_ had renounced his Communion; nay, after _Chromatius_ himself had condemned _Origen_, and the _Origenists_[1370], that is, those who held the Errors of _Origen_. A plain Proof, that the Bishop of _Aquileia_ did not acquiesce in the Judgment of _Anastasius_ in ranking _Ruffinus_ among them. And truly the only Charge brought against him by _Anastasius_, in his Letter to _John_ of _Jerusalem_, was his having translated _Origen_ into the _Latin_ Tongue, without pointing out his Errors, or offering any Arguments to confute them. Thence he was by _Jerom_ induced to conclude, that _Ruffinus_ held the same Errors. [Sidenote: Ruffinus _unjustly condemned_.] _What could_ Ruffinus _propose_, says he in his Letter, _by translating_ Origen _into the_ Roman _Language? Had he exposed the execrable Errors his Work contains, and raised in his Readers that Indignation which the Author deserves, I should rather have praised than blamed him. But he has in his Mind consented to those Errors, and in translating the Sentiments of_ Origen _expressed his own_[1371]. This _Ruffinus_ denied; declaring, with the Words of _Origen_, in his Preface to the _Periarchon_[1372], that he embraced nothing as Truth, that any-ways differed from the received Doctrines of the Catholic Church: nay, he was so far from defending any of _Origen_’s Errors, which seemed to him repugnant to the Catholic Truths, that in the Apology he composed in Defence of that Writer, as well as in the Preface which he prefixed to his Translation, he undertook to prove, that those Errors were not his, but had been maliciously inserted into his Works, either by his Enemies to eclipse his Reputation, or by Heretics, who had fathered upon him their own Doctrines, with a View of recommending them to the World by the Authority of so great and so venerable a Name[1373]. He followed therein the Example of the most eminent Writers, and the greatest Lights of the Church, namely, of the Martyr _Pamphylus_[1374], of _Athanasius_[1375], _Basil_[1376], his Brother _Gregory_ of _Nyssa_[1377], _Gregory Nazianzen_[1378], and many others, who, out of the great Regard they had for a Man of _Origen_’s Piety and Learning, either ascribed to others the Errors they found in his Works, or excused them, by putting on his Words the most charitable Construction they could bear. [Sidenote: Origen _excused by some of the Fathers, and once by_ Jerom _himself_.] _Jerom_ himself had been formerly one of _Origen_’s greatest Admirers, had translated above Seventy of his Books, and thought he could not employ his Time better than in enriching the _Latin_ Tongue with the Works of _the best Writer and first Doctor of the Church after the Apostles_[1379], as he then styled him. As _Ruffinus_, in his Translation of the _Periarchon_, endeavoured to excuse the Errors of _Origen_, so had _Jerom_ done before him in translating his other Works, chusing rather to _veil and excuse_, than expose the Faults of one whom in other respects he so much admired[1380]. But this Admiration being afterwards changed into an open and avowed Enmity, _the first Doctor of the Church after the Apostles_ became at once not only an _heterodox_, but an _impious Writer_; all who stood up in his Defence were arraigned of the same _pestilential Doctrines_; and what was found amiss in his Works was no longer _veiled_ or _excused_, but set out in the worst Light[N45].

Footnote N45:

Some of the Fathers would not allow even his Doctrine concerning the Trinity to be heterodox. For some Passages being quoted out of his Works by the _Arians_ to confirm their Opinions, _Basil_ and _Nazianzen_ undertook to prove, from other Passages, that his Sentiments with respect to the Trinity were quite orthodox; and that the _Arians_ had either out of Malice misinterpreted, or out of Ignorance misunderstood his Meaning, not being capable of fathoming the Depth of his Thoughts[N45.1]. It must be owned, that _Origen_, in several Places, speaks of the Trinity agreeably to the Sentiments of the Church, acknowleging _the Son to have been from the Beginning in the Father; to be the Image of the Father; to have been begotten by him from all Eternity; to be the Wisdom of God; to be God, though not the Source and Origin of the Divinity, as the Father, whom on that Account he styles_ Autotheos; _to be above all Creatures; to have the same Power as the Father, and to deserve the same Honour and Worship_. But elsewhere he uses Expressions that can no-way bear an orthodox Sense, _viz._ that _the_ Word _is an Hypostasis different from the Father_; meaning by the Word _Hypostasis_, Nature and Substance; _that the Father and Son are One by Concord and Union; that the Son is not properly God, but called God, because he is the Image of the Divinity; that the Word and the Holy Ghost were made by the Father; that the Father is greater than the Son; that the Son is inferior to the Father, though far above all Creatures, as the Ray of the Sun is inferior to the Sun_; and lastly, _that the Son is the Minister of the Father_. In these Passages is contained a very different Doctrine from that which is laid down in those I have quoted above: and hence some of the Friends of _Origen_, and among the rest _Ruffinus_, concluded the latter Passages to have been foisted in by the _Arians_, denying the Divinity of the Word; while others, allowing them to be _Origen_’s, undertook to explain them in a Catholic Sense, in Opposition to the _Arians_ confirming their Doctrine with the Authority of so eminent a Writer. But his Enemies, attending only to the Passages where he seemed to establish an Inequality in the Trinity, not only condemned him as an Heretic, but all who stood up in his Defence, or attempted to interpret his Words in a Catholic Sense.

Footnote N45.1:

Socr. l. 4. c. 26.

But what seems most of all surprising, and quite unaccountable, in the Conduct of that Father, is, that though he had with so much Noise procured _Origen_ to be condemned as an Heretic, and his Books to be prohibited, particularly his _Periarchon_, or, as some will have it, the _Periarchon_ alone, as containing most of his heretical Tenets; yet, in a private Letter to _Paulinus_, he refers him to that very Piece for the Decision of some Questions of the greatest Importance[1381]. But to return to _Anastasius_:

[Sidenote: _The Bishops of_ Africa _apply to_ Anastasius _and_ Venerius _of_ Milan.]

The same Year 401. in which _Origen_ was condemned, the Churches of _Africa_ being greatly distressed for want of Ecclesiastics, the Bishops of the Province of _Carthage_, assembling under _Aurelius_ Bishop of that City, resolved to dispatch one of their Body into _Italy_ to acquaint _Anastasius_, and _Venerius_ Bishop of _Milan_, with the Condition of the _African_ Churches, and implore their Assistance[1382]. Which of the Bishops was charged with this Legation, or what Success attended it, we are no-where told. But as _Paulinus_, who afterwards writ the Life of St. _Ambrose_, and belonged to the Church of _Milan_, was at this Time sent into _Africa_, and continued there, some have not improbably conjectured, that _Venerius_ at least assisted his Collegues in _Africa_ with a Supply of as many Ecclesiastics as he could spare. _Baronius_ supposes _Anastasius_ to have relieved those Churches with the like Supply; but this Supposition he builds upon the paternal Care which _Anastasius_ had, as _universal Pastor_, of all the Catholic Churches[1383], which is building on a false Foundation.

[Sidenote: Anastasius _advises the Bishops of_ Africa _not to dissemble the Cruelties of the_ Donatists.]

The same Year another Council was held at _Carthage_, consisting of all the Bishops of _Africa_; and _Aurelius_, who presided in this, as he had done in the former, opened it with reading a Letter from _Anastasius_, exhorting the Bishops of _Africa_ no longer to dissemble the Cruelties of the _Donatists_, who continued to use with great Barbarity the Catholic Bishops and Clergy[1384]. The Fathers of the Council returned _Anastasius_ Thanks for his Advice; but, not thinking it quite agreeable to the true Spirit of Christianity, they declined complying with it. [Sidenote: _Who refuse to comply with his Advice._] They knew that their Persecutors, had they complained of their Cruelties to the Civil Magistrate, would have been punished with Death, pursuant to a Law enacted against them, Three Years before, by the Emperors _Arcadius_ and _Honorius_[1385]. They therefore chose, notwithstanding the Advice of _Anastasius_, rather to suffer with Patience a most cruel Persecution, than redeem themselves from it at so dear a Rate[1386]. In the same Council it was decreed among other things, that such of the _Donatist_ Clergy, as should return to the Church, might be admitted, if the Bishop, who received them, thought it expedient, to the same Rank, which they had enjoyed before their Conversion. As a Decree had been lately enacted by _Anastasius_, and the other _Italian_ Bishops, excluding converted Heretics from the Catholic Clergy[1387]; it was to acquaint them with the Motives which had prompted the Fathers assembled at _Carthage_, to admit the _Donatists_, that _Aurelius_ and his Collegues writ to _Anastasius_; and not to beg of him a Dispensation in favour of the converted _Donatists_, as is ridiculously supposed by _Baronius_[1388].

[Sidenote: Anastasius _dies_.]

This is all I find recorded of _Anastasius_, by the antient Writers. He died on the 27th of _April_ 402. after having held the See of _Rome_ Four Years, One Month, and Thirteen Days. [Sidenote: _Is greatly commended by_ Jerom.] _Jerom_, with whom he sided against _Ruffinus_, and the other Friends of _Origen_, distinguishes him with the Title of an _eminent Man_; and adds, _that_ Rome _did not deserve to enjoy him long, lest the Head of the World should be cut off under such a Bishop; nay, he was snatched away_, says he, _lest he should strive to ward off, with his Prayers, the Execution of the Sentence that was already pronounced; the Lord saying to_ Jeremiah, _Pray not for this People for their Good: when they fast, I will not hear their Cry_, &c[1389]. _Jerom_ speaks there of the Calamities that befel _Rome_ Seven Years after, when it was taken by the _Goths_, under _Alaric_. _Theophilus_ Bishop of _Alexandria_, not only an avowed Enemy to _Origen_, but a cruel Persecutor of all who stood up in his Defence, extols _Anastasius_ for his pastoral Care, and indefatigable Pains, in preserving and maintaining the Purity of the Catholic Faith[1390]; alluding, no doubt, to his acting in Concert with him, against _Origen_, and the pretended _Origenists_. [Sidenote: _Is honoured as a Saint._] Be that as it will, _Anastasius_ is now honoured as a Saint by the Church of _Rome_; and the Honours paid him are chiefly owing to the Commendations of _Jerom_ and _Theophilus_, whose Party he so warmly espoused. As to the Writings of _Anastasius_, Mention is made, by _Jerom_, of several Letters written by him on different Occasions; but that alone has reached our Times, which he writ to _John_ Bishop of _Jerusalem_, and some Fragments of another to one _Ursinus_, on the _Incarnation_[N46].

Footnote N46:

The Two Decretals that have been transmitted to us under his Name, are evidently supposititious, the one being dated Fourteen Years before his Election, and the other Fourteen years after his Death. One of these pretended Decretals is addressed to the _German_ and _Burgundian_ Bishops, tho’ nothing is more certain, than that the _Burgundians_ were not converted to the Christian Religion till many Years after his Death, till the Year 436. if _Socrates_ is to be credited[N46.1]. They are both made up of several Passages taken from the Letters of _Innocent_, _Leo_, _Gregory_, and others; and were, in all Likelihood, forged, as many others have been, by _Isidorus Mercator_.

Footnote N46.1:

Socr. l. 7. c. 30.

[Sidenote: _An ill-timed Observation of_ Baronius.]

_Baronius_ observes, at the Death of _Syricius_[1391], that such Popes as did not, through Sloth and Indolence, exert the due Zeal in extirpating the heterodox Opinions that sprung up in the Church, that is, such Popes as did not exterminate all, who differed in Opinion from them, have been quickly cut off, to make room for other more zealous Asserters of the Purity of the Faith. An ill-timed Observation! which I might retort here, were I inclined to indulge such a Humour, since the _indolent Syricius_ enjoyed his Dignity Thirteen Years (and not very many have enjoyed it longer), and the _very zealous Anastasius_ only Four.

Footnote 1350:

Theod. l. 5. c. 24. Soz. l. 7. c. 34. Aug. de civ. Dei.

Footnote 1351:

Paul. ep. 16.

Footnote 1352:

Page 273.

Footnote 1353:

Hier. Apol. l. 2. ep. 75. & dial. advers. Pelag.

Footnote 1354:

Id. ap. 1. advers. Ruff.

Footnote 1355:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1356:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1357:

Id. & Ctesiphont. advers. Pelag. Tim. 2. c. iii. v. 6, 7.

Footnote 1358:

Id. apol. 1. advers. Ruff.

Footnote 1359:

Soz. l. 8. c. 15.

Footnote 1360:

Hier. in Ruff. l. 2. c. 6. l. 3. c. 7. & Ruff. ad Orig.

Footnote 1362:

Hier. in Ruff. c. 6, 7. ep. 16. 78.

Footnote 1363:

Idem ibid.

Footnote 1364:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1194.

Footnote 1365:

Hier. ep. 78.

Footnote 1366:

Id. ep. 71.

Footnote 1367:

Id. ep. 6. 69, 70.

Footnote 1368:

Id. ep. 6.

Footnote 1369:

Id. ep. 73.

Footnote 1370:

Apol. l. 3. c. 1.

Footnote 1371:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1194.

Footnote 1372:

Præf. ad Periarch. p. 665.

Footnote 1373:

Apol. pro Orig. apud Hier. t. 4. p. 194, 195. & præf. ad Periarch.

Footnote 1374:

Phot. c. 118.

Footnote 1375:

Athan. de Nicæn. decret. p. 277. Concil. t. 5. p. 652. Phot. c. 232.

Footnote 1376:

Concil. t. 5. p. 653.

Footnote 1377:

Phot. c. 232. & Nyss. in Cant. t. 1. p. 473.

Footnote 1378:

Naz. or. 31.

Footnote 1379:

Hier. de nom. Heb. p. 299.

Footnote 1380:

Hier. ep. 65.

Footnote 1381:

Hier. ep. 153.

Footnote 1382:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1642.

Footnote 1383:

Bar. ad ann. 401. n. 7.

Footnote 1384:

Concil. t. 1. inter Concil. Afr. c. 33.

Footnote 1385:

Cod. Theod. l. 3. de episc. & cler. & Greg. l. 1. ep. 52.

Footnote 1386:

Aug. ep. 127.

Footnote 1387:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1642.

Footnote 1388:

Bar. ad ann. 401. n. 14.

Footnote 1389:

Hier. ep. 16. Jerem. c. xiv. ver. 11, 12.

Footnote 1390:

Justin. in ep. ad Menan.

Footnote 1391:

Ad ann. 397. num. 21.

ARCADIUS, INNOCENT, THEODOSIUS HONORIUS, _Thirty-ninth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome. _the younger_.