Scripta [Falso Attributa]

APPENDIX. LOST WRITINGS OF SAINT CHROMATIUS. Without doubt, Saint Chromatius, Bishop of Aquileia, wrote a Treatise or Commentaries on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, from the very beginning of that sacred text at least as far as chapter 6, verse 24, where the last surviving Treatise on the same Gospel ends. Since our holy bishop wrote such Treatises or Commentaries to be read privately for the pious exercise of the faithful, as we have conjectured in the Preface from the very words of the holy Prelate, which are found in Treatise 5, number 2, we therefore rightly infer that he began his Treatises or Commentaries from the beginning of that Gospel and continued them without any gap at least as far as the last Treatise we possess, which in this our edition is number 17; although we may not unwillingly conjecture that he also produced the work further, and perhaps to the very last verse of the entire Gospel history of Matthew, as is discussed more fully in the Preface.

Therefore, the following are rightly considered lost: first, what Saint Chromatius wrote from the beginning of the Gospel of Saint Matthew up to verse 3 of chapter 3, where the Treatise begins which is the first in this our edition, and which in Gallandius is numbered in completely reversed order. Second, what Saint Chromatius wrote from verse 3 of chapter 3 of the same Gospel up to the beginning of chapter 5, where the Treatise begins which is in our edition, and which is incorrectly inscribed in Gallandius, must be held as lost. And these at least are the portions which are justly missed from Saint Chromatius’s Work on the Gospel of Saint Matthew. Third, several letters are lost, which we know the holy Bishop gave to Saint Ambrose, to Saint Jerome, to Saint John Chrysostom, and also to the Augusti Honorius and Arcadius; as is evident from the Lucubrations, which we subjoin, of the most distinguished men Fontanini and de Rubeis.

Writings Falsely Attributed to Saint Chromatius. A NOTE ON THE FOLLOWING LETTERS, From the Sacred Library of Sixtus of Siena, book 2, page of volume I of the Neapolitan edition by Friar Pius Thomas Milante, 1742. The evangelist Matthew is feigned to be the author of two books, one of which is entitled *On the Birth or Lineage of Mary*, the other *On the Infancy of the Savior*; these are fictions of the Valentinians and Gnostics. To these books, certain inept persons, desiring to assert their authority, added prefaces forged under the names of the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus to Jerome, and of Jerome to them, which would attest that both works were translated by Jerome from the Hebrew volume of Matthew at the behest of those same bishops, and purged of heretical falsifications. But since in these books the same old wives’ tales now survive which Irenaeus in the first book *Against the Heresies of the Valentinians* and Epiphanius in the first book of the *Panarion*, section three, refute from the same volumes, the deception of the impostors is manifest. Gelasius, in his distinction among books condemned by the Church, rejects both.

Letter I. Under the names of Saints Chromatius and Heliodorus, to Saint Jerome, concerning two apocryphal books; namely, On the Birth of Mary, Queen Virgin, and On the Infancy of the Savior: to which is added a twin response of Pseudo-Jerome: (From the Apocryphal Codex of the New Testament of John Albert Fabricius, volume I, page and following of the second edition, Hamburg 1719; and from volume XI of the Works of Saint Jerome, Verona edition of Dominic Vallarsius, column and following). To the most beloved brother Jerome, presbyter, Chromatius and Heliodorus, bishops, send greetings in the Lord. We have found in apocryphal books the birth of Mary, queen virgin, and likewise the nativity and infancy of our Lord Jesus Christ. In these books, considering many things written contrary to our faith, we believe that all should be rejected, lest through the occasion of Christ we should give joy to Antichrist.

Therefore, as we consider these matters, there have arisen men of God, Armenius and Virinus, who say that your holiness has discovered a Hebrew volume written by the hand of the most blessed Evangelist Matthew, in which both the infancy of the Virgin Mother and of the Savior are recorded; and for this reason we entreat your charity, through our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, that you might render that work from Hebrew into Latin ears: not so much for the sake of perceiving the signs of Christ, but to exclude the cunning of heretics, who, in order to establish evil doctrine, have mixed the good nativity of Christ with their own falsehood, so that after the sweetness of life they might conceal the bitterness of death. It will therefore be an act of most pure piety either to hear the brothers who entreat you, or to accept the debt of charity demanded by the bishops, which you have deemed fitting. Farewell in the Lord, and pray for us. Letter II. Jerome, to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus.

To the holy and most blessed lords, Chromatius and Heliodorus, bishops, Jerome, a lowly servant of Christ, sends greetings in the Lord. He who digs earth that is conscious of gold does not immediately seize whatever the torn-up ditch has poured forth, but before the shining weight of the vibrating iron's cast suspends, he lingers meanwhile over the turning and suspending of the sods, and especially he who is not yet increased by gains. A difficult task is imposed, since this has been commanded to me by your beatitude, which not even the blessed Matthew himself, Apostle and Evangelist, wished to write openly. For if this secret were not such, he would certainly have added it to the Gospel which he published; but he made this little book sealed in Hebrew letters, which he published to such an extent that the book itself, written in Hebrew letters by his own hand, is held by most religious men, who have also received it from their predecessors through the succession of time. Moreover, they have never handed over this very book to anyone for translation; they have narrated its text in one way and another.

But it happened that this book, published by a disciple of Manichaeus named Seleucus, who also wrote the Acts of the Apostles in false speech, provided material not for edification but for destruction; and that such a book was condemned in a synod, to which the ears of the Church rightly would not be open. Let the bites of the barking ones now cease: we have not added this little book to the canonical Scriptures, but we have translated the writings of the Apostle and the Evangelist to expose the deceit of heresies; in which work we obey not so much the pious bishops who command as we oppose the impious heretics. Therefore it is the love of Christ to which we give satisfaction, believing that those who through our obedience have been able to reach the holy infancy of our Savior may help us with their prayers. LETTER III. OF THE SAME PSEUDO-JEROME TO THE SAME. In another letter, prefixed to the translation of the book on the Nativity of Mary. You ask me to write back to you what I think about a certain little book that is held by some concerning the nativity of Saint Mary. And therefore I want you to know that many false things are found in it. For a certain Seleucus, who wrote the passions of the apostles, composed this little book. But just as he spoke truly about their virtues and the miracles performed by them, yet lied about much of their teaching, so also here he fabricated many things that are not true from his own heart. Hence, as it is held in Hebrew, I will take care to translate word for word.

If indeed it is clear that the holy Evangelist Matthew composed that same little book and placed it, sealed with Hebrew letters, at the head of his Gospel—whether this is true, I commit to the author of the preface and to the faith of the writer. For just as I pronounce these things to be doubtful, so I do not affirm them to be clearly false. But I say this freely, which I think no believer will deny: whether these things are true or have been fabricated by someone, the sacred nativity of holy Mary was preceded by great miracles and followed by the greatest; and therefore, without harm to the faith, those who believe that God can do such things may, without peril to their soul, believe and read them. Finally, as far as I can recall, following the sense, not the words, of the writer, and now proceeding along the same path but not in the same footsteps, now returning to the same road by certain byways, I shall attempt the style of the narrative; and I shall say nothing other than what is either written there or could have been written consistently.

A NOTE ON THE FOLLOWING LETTERS, from the Treatise of Cardinal Baronius on the Roman Martyrology, chapter VII. As for the letter written in the name of the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus to Jerome, you will easily detect the imposture from its very inscription, if you have regard for the manner of speaking of those times: for in it the aforesaid bishops, indeed the synod itself (for they profess to write in the name of the synod which they pretend) call Jerome himself, a presbyter, "Father"; you will find absolutely no example of this nomenclature among the writers of those times, that bishops, or a synod itself, would call a presbyter of any merit "Father" in a letter, since they were accustomed to address even bishops of the most extensive sees and patriarchs as nothing more than "brothers." Mention is made in the same letter of a certain council of bishops from all Italy, convened at Milan in the presence of the Emperor Theodosius. But do not doubt that this is a fabrication: for how could it happen that such a celebrated synod fell out of the written records, was so shrouded in silence, that none of the writers of those times—of whom there was certainly no small number—remembered it even by name? But these things will be made clearer if an exact account of the chronology of Jerome's works is had. When, I ask, do they wish that synod to have been gathered at Milan before Theodosius?

For if it is asked, "Did he not come to Italy from Constantinople in the tenth year of his reign, when he was about to fight against the tyrant Maximus?" Certainly this cannot be said, for what Saint Jerome writes vehemently contradicts it: for in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers, at the end, when he lists all the works he had composed up to the fourteenth year of the same Emperor Theodosius, he does not have even a word about having written or translated the book On the Martyrs, which those same recited letters indicate was written immediately after that synod; from which it is sufficiently clear that the said synod, being fictitious, cannot be referred to Theodosius's first arrival at Milan. But if they should say that the same synod was celebrated at Milan on the occasion of his second arrival (it is certain that he came to Italy only twice after assuming the empire), when he descended from the East into Italy a second time to overthrow the tyrant Eugenius, the chronology certainly contradicts this. Theodosius descended into Italy with his army in the sixteenth and final year of his reign, and, engaging with Eugenius, defeated him on the sixth day of September, and then betook himself to Milan; but what was done by him there from that time until the day of January on which he departed this life is exactly described by Ambrose in the oration he delivered at his funeral, and by other writers of that time; so that no time appears to remain for holding a council of that kind.

From all this, therefore, that entire fabrication concerning the letters sent from the aforementioned synod, and other matters contained in those same epistles, is clearly exposed: as, for instance, what is said in them about Gregory, bishop of Corduba, celebrating morning and evening Masses. For Augustine, who lived in the same times, seems to testify that this was customarily done in the Catholic Church only on Thursday of Holy Week, at the Lord's Supper, writing to Januarius in Epistle 118, chapter 5. Although we know that in the times of Cyprian, the offering of the morning and evening sacrifice in Africa was once in use, as Cyprian himself testifies writing to Caecilius in the epistle of Pamelius' edition—a custom which, according to Sozomenus in his Ecclesiastical History, book 7, chapter 19, persisted only among the Egyptians. Moreover, we also know that in the Council of Agde, according to a more recent reading, mention is made of morning and evening Masses, and from that, chapter 13, distinction 15. But we do not oppose this, since we know that the custom of ecclesiastical rites varied among different peoples. The imposture concerning Gregory is also detected in this: that it says he celebrated the feasts of the martyrs even during the time of fasting. That the Church's custom was different from this is attested by the ancient canons, such as the Council of Laodicea, canon 51, in Martin's collection, canons 48 and 55, question 1: "It is not permitted during Lent...

Moreover, that in both the said letter of the bishops and in the one which is held to have been given back to them under the name of Jerome, Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, is commended with the praise of sanctity, is regarded as a monstrosity. For although the title of sanctity once seemed more common, so that it was attributed not only (as today) to those Christians who, having departed this life, reign in heaven with Christ, but also to any faithful of more praiseworthy life, yet that it was ever given to a heretical man, no one will be able rightly to say. But with what titles the same Jerome was accustomed to name Eusebius himself, let us hear from him: who, writing to Pammachius, says this about him in a letter: "He is a most open defender of the impiety of Arius," etc. At the end, he also has many things to the same effect. In the Apology against Rufinus, book 1, he says this about the same man: "Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, once the standard-bearer of the Arian faction." And in book 2, he calls him the prince of the Arians. The same, writing to Ctesiphon, speaking of his writings, says: "That he was an Arian, there is no one who does not know." And in a letter to Minerius, he openly testifies that he erred in the truth of the doctrines.

Behold with what titles, and how different from the praise of sanctity, Eusebius is named by Jerome; so that from these at least you may clearly recognize that the author of that letter was someone far different from Jerome: whom (even if there were nothing else, and the rest agreed on the same point) anyone reading that letter would very easily recognize to be far different from him, from the style of speaking. So much for the words. But if you examine the very matters written in it, you will understand the imposture more and more. For if the things which the same author narrates as having taken place between Constantine Augustus and Eusebius are true, what great modesty was there in Eusebius, who has always seemed an eminent proclaimer of his own praises, that he passed over those things in silence, when the same author, whenever he treats of the book written by him on the Martyrs, would have a suitable opportunity to repeat them often? For he himself is accustomed to narrate, extol, and frequently inculcate the things done by him with Constantine, as in the Life of Constantine, book ii, chapters and 45; book iii, chapters 57, 58, and 60; and book iv, chapters 33, 34, 35. Finally, what the author (whoever he was) in the same letter excepts concerning the Kalends of January, as if no martyr suffered on that day; how false and frivolous that exception concerning the Kalends is, consult what is noted below on the day of January B. These things now (even if others also remained) we consider sufficient for refuting the falsity of the aforesaid letters.

LETTER IV. Likewise under the names of Saints Chromatius and Heliodorus, to the same Saint Jerome, concerning the Natalitia of the Saints, or the work of compiling a Martyrology: to which is also added the response of Pseudo-Jerome: (From the Treatise of Cardinal Baronius On the Roman Martyrology; and from volume XI of the Works of Saint Jerome, Verona edition of Domenico Vallarsa, column and following.) LETTER V. OF CHROMATIUS AND HELIODORUS, BISHOPS, TO THE BLESSED JEROME, Concerning the work of compiling a Martyrology. To the holy lord Father Jerome, Chromatius and Heliodorus, bishops, send greetings in the Lord. When the most religious Augustus Theodosius had entered the city of Milan, and had invited all the bishops of Italy to himself, and was inquiring into the cause of some bishops who had polluted their souls with the Arian dregs, it happened that our littleness was also present at that same council. In which, when what needed to be said had been said, and what needed to be defined had been defined, the most Christian prince began to extol Saint Gregory, the bishop of the Church of Corduba, because every day, whether when not fasting he was celebrating the morning Masses, or when fasting he was celebrating the evening Masses, he would recall the names of very many of those martyrs whose natalitia it was. And it came about that we all decided to write to your charity, that you might compile the most famous festival days from the archive of Saint

We find that the blessed Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, inquired that the feasts of the martyrs be sent to us, so that we might, through your holy industry, perform this office better and more perfectly for the honor of God and the martyrs. LETTER VI. Response of the Blessed Jerome to the Same, on the Same Subject. To the holy bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, Jerome, presbyter. It is certain that our Lord Jesus Christ receives the triumphs of his martyrs every day, whose passions we find written by the holy Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea. For when the Emperor Constantine Augustus had entered Caesarea and told the aforementioned bishop to ask for some benefits that would profit the Church of Caesarea, it is read that Eusebius replied: His Church was enriched with its own resources, and he was compelled by no necessity to seek benefits; yet he had an immovable desire that whatever had been done in the Roman state concerning the holy judges of God, with successive judges throughout the whole Roman world, be sought out with careful investigation, by examining public records; and that the names of the martyrs, by which judge, in which province or city, on which day, and with what perseverance they obtained the palm of their passion, be taken from those archives and sent to Eusebius himself by royal command.

Hence it came about that, being a suitable narrator, he both wove anew the ecclesiastical history and, as a diligent historian, set forth the trophies of nearly all the martyrs of every Roman province: so that, offering sacrifice to God each day, they might recall their names—studying, on the very day on which the sacrifice was offered, who had stood forth as victors over the devil and, flourishing in the triumph of their martyrdom and rejoicing, had arrived at their King, Christ. For this reason we have written down the feasts of each month and each day, as you deigned to command, believing that the perpetual memory of our insignificance would endure when the holy names of the Saints were festively celebrated on all days throughout so many years. And since on each day the names of more than eight hundred and nine hundred martyrs from diverse provinces and diverse cities are named—so that no day exists which cannot be found to have within it a number of five hundred assigned, except the day of the Kalends of January—considering that among countless multitudes the reader's mind might grow weary within a single month, lest this happen, I have recalled only those who are in the most ample festivity in their own places, above all others, so that, with tedium removed, a single booklet, once written down, may suffice for all.

Indeed, in the first part of the little book, we have recorded the feasts of all the blessed Apostles, so that the different days may not seem to divide those whom a single dignity of the apostolate has made sublime in heavenly glory.