————————————
Sent to Anastasius, Bishop of
the City of Rome.
————————————
This document was called forth
by accusations against Rufinus made, soon after his accession, to
Anastasius, who held the Roman see from 498 to 503. The authority of
the Roman Popes at this time was not what it afterwards became, and it
is improbable that Anastasius should have summoned Rufinus, as some
suppose him to have done, from Aquileia, where he was living on
confidential terms with the Bishop Chromatius, to come to Rome to
answer a formal accusation or to be judged by him. But since Rome was
the centre of information, a Christian would not wish to be ill-thought
of by its Bishop. Those who accused Rufinus were the friends of Jerome
at Rome, especially the noble widow Marcella and the Senator
Pammachius. They had endeavoured to gain some condemnation of Rufinus
from Siricius before his death in November 398; but Siricius befriended
Rufinus (“his simplicity was imposed on,” according to
Jerome). On the election of Anastasius, however, in 399, they accused Rufinus of having, by his translation of Origen’s Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν introduced heresy into the Roman church. Jerome thus speaks of Marcella, Ep. cxxvii. 10. “She was the cause of the condemnation of the heretics: she brought witnesses who had been at a former time under their instruction, and thus imbued with error and heresy; she showed how many there were who had been deceived; she had the volumes of the Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν brought in, and pointed out the alterations which the Scorpion had made in them: till at last letters were written, and that more than once, summoning the heretics to come and defend themselves, but they did not dare to come. So great was the force of conviction brought to bear on them that, to prevent their heresy being exposed in their presence, they chose to stay away and be condemned.” From the letter of Anastasius to John of Jerusalem about Rufinus we gather that, while he strongly disapproved the translation of Origen, he left Rufinus himself to his own conscience, and did not care to know what had become of him. The letter of Rufinus, though called an Apology, bears no trace of being an answer to a summons or judgment of the Pontiff, but merely a reply to statements which were likely to prejudice him in the Pontiff’s opinion. The year in which the Apology was written was 400
1. It has been brought to my
knowledge that certain persons, in the course of a controversy which
they have been raising in your Holiness’ jurisdiction on matters
of faith or on other points, have made mention of my name. I venture to
believe that your Holiness, who have been trained from your infancy in
the strict principles of the Church, has refused to listen to any
calumnies which may have been directed against an absent person, and
one who has been favourably known to you as united with you in the
faith and love of God. Nevertheless, since I hear it reported that my
reputation has been attacked, I have thought it right to make my
position clear to your Holiness in writing. It was impossible for me to
do this in person. I have just returned to my family after an absence of nearly 30 years; and it would have been harsh and almost inhuman to come away again so soon from those whom I had been so late in revisiting. The labour also of my long journey has left me too weak to begin the journey again. My object in this letter is not to remove some stain of suspicion from your mind, which I regard as a holy place, as a kind of divine sanctuary which does not admit any evil thing. Rather, I desire that the confession I am about to make to you may be like a stick placed in your hands to drive away any envious persons who may be barking like dogs against me.
2. My faith, indeed, was
sufficiently proved when the heretics persecuted me. I was at that time
sojourning in the church of Alexandria, and underwent imprisonment and
exile which was then the penalty of faithfulness; yet for the sake of
any who may wish to put my faith to the test, or to hear and learn what
it is I will declare it. I believe that the Trinity is of one nature
and godhead, of one and the same power and substance; so that between
the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost there is no diversity at all, except that the one is the Father, the second the Son, and the third the Holy Ghost. There is a Trinity of real and living Persons, a unity of nature and substance.