Epistolae Et Decreta

The holy Pope Anastasius I: Letters and Decrees. A Note on the Following Letter. I. This letter is mentioned by Jerome and inserted into Book II Against Rufinus. Frequent mention of this letter is made in Jerome’s writings. He refers to it in Letter 8, to Demetrias, where he writes: “While you were a little girl, and the bishop Anastasius of holy and blessed memory ruled the Roman Church, a savage storm of heretics from the regions of the East attempted to defile and undermine the simplicity of faith, which is praised by the voice of the Apostle. But a man of the richest poverty and apostolic vigilance immediately struck the deadly head and silenced the hissing mouths of the hydra.” In Letter 78, to Pammachius and Marcella, praising Theophilus of Alexandria for declaring Origen a heretic, he speaks thus of this letter: “Although it is spread by common talk that the blessed Pope Anastasius also, with the same zeal, because he is of the same spirit, persecuted heretics lurking in their dens; and his letters teach that what was condemned in the East was condemned in the West. We pray many years for him, so that the revived plantings of heresy, withered for a long time through his efforts, may die.” In Book III of his Apology he speaks of it several times, nor is he silent about it in Book II.

Indeed, he testifies that a copy of this book was appended by him, and addressing Rufinus, he explains why it was appended in these words: “If you interpret (Origen’s books) in order to accuse him of heresy, change nothing from the Greek, and declare this very thing in your preface, as the most prudent Pope Anastasius, in the letter he writes against you to Bishop John, has comprehended in his own words; freeing me, who did this, and accusing you, who refused to do it. And lest perhaps you also deny this, I have appended a copy of it: so that if you are unwilling to hear a brother admonishing, you may hear a bishop condemning.” II. From what collection of Jerome’s letters it was inserted.—From this, it is also possible to conjecture on what occasion it happened that this letter of Anastasius was placed among Jerome’s epistles, even in their ancient collections. Undoubtedly, those who compiled these collections, whatever they found among Jerome’s works that had the form of a letter, they separated it from his other writings, so as to refer it to a single body of epistles. Therefore, when they found this letter of Anastasius, as well as the earlier one of Rufinus, appended to Book II of Jerome’s Apology, they deemed both to be transferred to the class of epistles. Now, however, both have been relegated to the volume that contains Jerome’s other works. Whether it would be better to present writings of this kind in the place that Jerome had assigned to them is not for me to decide.

III. It is found prefixed to the written exemplars of Marius Mercator’s works.—This letter of Anastasius was first described in the Roman edition of pontifical letters among the published works of Jerome, then in Baronius, and afterwards in editions of the councils. In the Vatican and Beauvais manuscript exemplars, it is prefixed to the works of Marius Mercator together with another little book, whose title is “The Faith of the Same Rufinus.” And although John Garnier acknowledges that neither work pertains in any way to Marius Mercator, he nevertheless thought that both should be published, not at the front of this writer’s works, but at the end, and illustrated with notes. His edition presents one on page 109, the other on page 114. Moreover, he rightly observed that the exposition of the faith which he found bestowed with the name of Rufinus is not that of the presbyter of Aquileia. IV. Rufinus suspects this to have been fabricated by Jerome.—Rufinus signified that he suspected this letter of Anastasius to have been fabricated by Jerome, with a mark of a wavering and uncertain mind. Wherefore Jerome addresses him thus: “In the letter of the holy Pope Anastasius you were slippery; and troubled, you find no place to fix your step. For at one time you say it was composed by me; now, that it ought to have been transmitted by him (i.e., John) to the one to whom it was sent. Again, you accuse the writer of injustice.

And after a few things, being certain of the truth of the letter, he mocks Rufinus, who said he was awaiting a copy of it from the East, in this manner: "Go rather to Rome, and in person demand of him (Anastasius) why he inflicted an insult upon you, absent and innocent: first, by not receiving the exposition of your faith (contained in the earlier letter).. then, by sending letters against you to the East." Yet Peter Halloix, in his *Life of Origen*, page 333, still regards the same letter as suspect of being a forgery. But Jerome confirms its truth by other letters sent to the East by the same pope in the following year, concerning which he adds shortly after: "Grant that I forged the letter of last year: who sent the recent writings to the East, in which Pope Anastasius adorns you with such flowers that, when you read them, you begin more to wish to defend yourself than to accuse us?" And near the end of his apology: "But if it is his (i.e., Anastasius's), as the letters of this year also against you prove, you strive in vain and falsely to argue that it is false.

V. In what year it was written.—With these two passages, the opinion of those who think the letter in question was written in the year 402 cannot stand. For there is no one who prolongs the life of Anastasius beyond the day of the month of April of that year. Yet Jerome testifies that this letter was written not in the year in which this pope died, but in the one which preceded it. From this it follows that it must either be referred to the year 401, if Anastasius actually died in the month of April; or, if his death is recorded on a day in December, it pertains to the year 402, and Jerome composed the last part of his apology against Rufinus not in the year 402, but in 403. VI. Origen condemned by Anastasius.—That Origen was condemned by this letter is clear both from several passages of Jerome and from the words of the letter itself. Jerome, as I have already observed, in Letter 16 gives praise to Marcella for having been the beginning of this condemnation. Jerome himself was then seeking this, and Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, even unknowingly, was of no small assistance to him in his request. For when that holy Doctor had sent letters against Origen to the West, and Anastasius, wishing nothing precipitate, was not yet yielding to the solicitations of Jerome and others, "I think," says Jerome himself in Letter 71, writing to Theophilus, "it happened by the dispensation of God that at that time you also wrote to Pope Anastasius, and, while unaware of our opinion, you strengthened it.

The same Theophilus, in a sermon to certain monks, testifies that Origen was condemned by Anastasius as well as by himself, in these words: "Anathema to Origen and the other heretics, following the example of ourselves and of Anastasius, bishop of the holy Roman Church, who, renowned from ancient contests, was created leader of a most noble people, and whom the whole synod of the bishops of the West follows; which synod received and approved the sentence of the Church of Alexandria pronounced against the impious one." The Emperor Justinian, moreover, in the letter which he wrote to Menas against the errors of Origen, cites these words of Theophilus (Concil. Lab. tom. V, pag. 658). VII. Anastasius did not condemn Rufinus by a formal sentence.—But whether Rufinus was condemned together with Origen by a formal sentence of Anastasius, it will be useful to consider. Many indeed assume this as certain; and Jerome seems to favor them, when he sometimes proclaims that Rufinus was not only accused and summoned to Rome, but also condemned. For that saying of this Doctor (Epist. 16) applies especially to him: "The heretics, summoned by frequent letters to defend themselves, did not dare to come: and so great was the force of their conscience that they preferred to be condemned in absence rather than to be refuted in presence." But Theophilus, in the passage cited, mentions only one sentence pronounced against the impious one (that is, against one Origen).

And it is easily understood that Jerome considered heretics condemned only insofar as, with Origen condemned, those who are entangled in the same errors are also considered condemned. Nor does Jerome's statement in Book II of his *Apology* against Rufinus, addressing Rufinus himself, mean that Rufinus was condemned by Anastasius: "Why, when you are about to translate heretical works, do you preface them with the book of a martyr as a defense, and thrust upon Roman ears what, when translated, horrified the whole world? Or if, indeed, you translate so that you may argue against the heretic, why do you change nothing from the Greek? And this very point, which the most prudent Pope Anastasius in his letter, which he writes against you to Bishop John, has embraced in his own words—do you free me, who did it, while accusing you, who refused to do it?" Here it should be noted that he says "accusing you," not "condemning you"; and he accuses in such a way that it was still within his power to do what he had so far omitted, and thereby escape condemnation. Therefore, no sentence had yet been pronounced against him; the matter was still in suspense. Hence, where Jerome immediately adds after the quoted words, "And lest perhaps you also deny this, I have appended a copy of it" (namely, of Anastasius's letter), "so that if you are unwilling to hear a brother admonishing you, you may hear a bishop condemning you," this does not denote an absolute condemnation or a sentence already pronounced upon a convicted heretic, but a hypothetical one, which he has not yet undergone, but which he will undoubtedly undergo if he scorns to do what Jerome urges him to do.

Indeed, speaking of his later writings sent to the East the following year, he says to Rufinus, “in which Pope Anastasius adorns you with such great flowers that when you read them, you begin to wish to defend you rather than accuse you,” indicating that the presbyter was not yet condemned by a definitive sentence. For where a definitive sentence has been handed down by the supreme judge, no room for defense remains; but only one thing is left for the accused: either to undergo the penalty of the judgment, or to correct that for which he was judged. But why should I dwell on others’ arguments, when Anastasius in the attached letter consistently asserts that he refrains from passing judgment on Rufinus? Indeed, he had not yet sufficiently ascertained with what intention Rufinus had translated Origen’s books into Latin. If he had pronounced a sentence against him, this should have been denounced either to him, or to the bishop of the Church in whose territory he lived, or publicly. Moreover, Anastasius clearly indicates this one thing: that by his own judgment, Rufinus is considered worthy of condemnation if he approved the doctrine of Origen’s books, which he rendered into Latin. On the same matter, some things will necessarily have to be discussed in the notes.

LETTER I. Anastasius, bishop of the city of Rome, to John, bishop of Jerusalem, concerning the name of Rufinus. Having been consulted by John as to whether Rufinus ought to be condemned on account of his translations of Origen's books from Greek into Latin, Anastasius replies that, setting aside all suspicion, it must be carefully considered with what intention he undertook this, and that he is indeed to be condemned if he translated with his own mind, praising and approving the author, but not if he translated while accusing the author himself; and that he himself is not troubled by empty fear, but will take care that the churches throughout the world are not corrupted from this source. Anastasius praises the one who praises him, and asks that he cease praising.—It is indeed a mark of proven affection that a priest speaks laudably of a priest. For so great a commendation, which you have most lavishly bestowed upon my merits, I thank your love, and the splendor of your sanctity, and those virtues which you possess in the Lord, which the favorable speech of our smallness somehow follows. For you, most excellent of men, shine with the luster of your own praises, so that speech cannot equal your merits. Moreover, I am so carried away by the incitement of your titles that I do not cease to dare even what I cannot obtain. This very thing is part of your praises, that you have praised me only for the serenity of that heavenly mind. For the illustrious order of your episcopate, radiating throughout the whole world, has brought the brightness of its splendor even to us.

In me indeed you place the whole of friendship, leaving nothing for examination. Or if you rightly praise me, are you not likewise to be praised in return? I beg you, therefore, for both reasons, that you cease praising me to myself; for a twofold cause binds me, lest false praise bring grief to the mind of your fellow bishop, or true praise kindle shame. The case of Rufinus is left to the judgment of God.—But to return to the matter: Rufinus, concerning whom you have deigned to consult me, has the divine majesty as the arbiter of his conscience, before which he himself will see, with the full duty of devotion, how he ought to prove himself. What is to be thought concerning Origen.—Origen, however, from whose works he derived compositions translated into our language, both what he was before and into what words he proceeded, our purpose does not know; but what my mind's intention is, I will briefly confer with your holiness on this matter. This, therefore, I have conceived in my mind, that the reading of Origen's translated works, which has been opened to the peoples of our city, has cast, as it were, a cloud of blindness over pure minds, and has sought to dissolve the faith of the Apostles and the tradition of the elders, confirmed by the faith of the Apostles and the tradition of the elders, as if by devious winding paths.

It is asked with what intention Rufinus interpreted Origen.—I wish to learn at this point what that translation is doing to the Latin language. I approve, if it accuses the author and exposes the execrable deed to the peoples, so that he whom rumor had long since constrained may at last be held in just hatred. But if the interpreter lends his consent to such great evils and brings them forth to be read among the peoples, he has built nothing else by his labor than to overturn, as if by the judgment of his own mind, those things which alone, which first, which among catholic Christians have been held as true faith from the Apostles up to this time, under the title of a novel assertion. Anastasius’ vigilance against depraved teaching. Reading of Origen prohibited by imperial edicts.—Far be this from the catholic discipline of the Roman Church. Never indeed will it happen that I admit any such thing, by any reason, which we justly and deservedly condemn. Therefore, that providence of Christ our God, spread throughout the whole world, will deign to approve that we can by no means accept things which stain the Church, overturn approved morals, wound the ears of bystanders, and arrange quarrels, angers, and dissensions. Moved by this matter, what kind of letter our littleness sent to our brother and fellow bishop Venerius, written with more careful diligence, you will be able to ascertain from what is subjoined. Whence, therefore, he who translated has this with himself, and keeps this conscience for himself, I am not troubled by superfluous fear, nor am I agitated by empty dread.

For my part, I will not lack the care to guard the faith of the Gospel among my peoples, and to unite the members of my body, scattered across diverse regions of the earth, as far as I can, by letters, lest any origin of profane interpretation creep in, which might attempt to shake devoted minds by casting its darkness upon them. Nor could I pass over in silence that which I rejoice has happened: that the responses of our most blessed princes have been issued, by which each person serving God is recalled from reading Origen; and that one whom reading has revealed as guilty of profanity is condemned by the sentence of the princes. Thus far has the form of my judgment proceeded. As for the fact that the people’s complaint about Rufinus troubles you, so that you pursue certain persons with vague suspicions: I will restrain this opinion of yours by the example of divine reading, as it is written: “Man is not like God; for God sees in the heart, man sees in the face” (1 Sam. 16:7). Therefore, dearest brother, setting aside all suspicion, consider Rufinus by his own mind: whether he translated Origen’s sayings into Latin and approved them; for he is no less guilty than the guilty one who gives assent to the vices of others. Yet I wish you to hold this: that he is considered so alien to our party that we desire not to know what he does or where he is. Finally, let him himself see where he can be absolved.

LETTER II. TO SIMPLICIANUS. He praises the zeal and vigilance of Theophilus, by whose letter he announces a council to Simplicianus, bishop of Milan; he also states that he himself has inflicted anathema upon the Origenist heresy. To his Lord Brother Simplicianus, Anastasius. I. A great solicitude and watchfulness over his flock is approved in a pastor. Likewise, those who from a high tower observe the city cautiously by day and night are careful watchmen. A prudent master of a ship, at the hour of storm and peril, suffers a great tossing of the mind, lest the ship be dashed against the rocks by gales and the roughest waves. With a like spirit, the holy and honorable man Theophilus, our brother and fellow bishop, does not cease to keep watch over the interests of salvation, lest the people of God, by reading Origen throughout the various churches, fall into great blasphemies. II. Summoned by the letter of the aforementioned man, I call upon your holiness, so that, just as we, placed in the city of Rome, which the Prince of the Apostles, the glorious Peter, established and confirmed with his faith, no one, contrary to the precept, may read those things which we have mentioned, condemned, and with great prayers have demanded that the institutions of the Gospels, which the censure of God and of Christ taught from His own mouth, should by no means be departed from in this matter, but that it be brought to memory what the venerable Apostle Paul foretold and warned: If anyone evangelizes to you beyond what has been evangelized to you, let him be anathema (Gal. 1:8).

Therefore, holding to this precept, we have judged that whatever was once written by Origen contrary to our faith is alien to us and has been condemned. III. We have written these things to your holiness through the presbyter Eusebius, who, bearing the zeal of faith and having love for the Lord, presented certain chapters of blasphemy which we not only abhorred and judged, but also—if there are any other things set forth by Origen—know that they have been condemned by us together with their author. May the Lord keep you safe, lord brother, worthy of honor.