A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

The Author of the Confessions of Faith, attributed to RUFINUS.

F. SIRMONDUS published, in 1650. a long Confession of Faith, which bears the Name of Rufinus, and which Joannes Diaconus hath attributed to him, that was a Priest * 1.1 of Aquileia. But this learned Jesuit, at the same Time, assures us, That it cannot be his, because it expressly contradicts the Doctrine of Origen, which Rufinus never condemned. In the Manuscripts of the Abby of Corby, Pelagius is said to be the Author of that Writing which he published under Rufinus's Name.

F. Garner hath also put out since another Confession of Faith, much shorter than the former, made up of Twelve Anathema's, which is found at the beginning of the Collection of Pieces composed by Marius Mercator. This also condemns the Opinions of Origen, and particularly that of the Pre-existence of Souls, which the Priest of Aquileia never would condemn: So that this cannot be Rufinus of Aquileia's, no more than the former. Nevertheless it appears to be him to whom it is commonly attributed, and not another Rufinus, as F. Garner affirms. 1. Because the Author, who hath preserved it, hath put it at the end of Anastasius's Letter to Rufinus of Aquileia. 2. Because the same Author tells us, That it is this Rufinus which is spoken of in Anastasius's Letter by this Title, Incipit fides ejusdem Rufini: Here begins the Sum of Rufinus's Faith. 3. Because it is said of the Author of that Confession of Faith, That he held and defended heretofore the Doctrines which he now condemns. This agrees to Rufinus, who had defended the Opinions of Origen. 4. Because the Opinions of Origen condemned in that Confession of Faith, are the very same that Rufinus is accused to have held, and about which he defends himself in his Apology to Pope Anastasius, and in his Invectives against S. Jerom. It is true, he doth not condemn them in those Places, as it is noted in that Profession of Faith; nor will I ascertain you that it is infallibly Rufinus's of Aquileia, but I say it belongs to him to whom it is attributed; for I am apt to believe, That it is a Form of Confession of Faith which Pope Anastasius made for Rufinus of Aquileia to sign.

As to the First Confession of Faith, 'tis certainly the Work of some Pelagian, for he directly opposes Original Sin: He maintains, That Infants are born without Sin: That they are not baptized for the Remission of that Sin, since they are innocent, and that those that die without Baptism are not condemned to Eternal Torments. He owns, That the First Man had not died if he had not sinned; but he affirms that he was created Mortal, and that Death, Griefs and Pains, which are the effects of Sin, are profitable for Man; which comes very near the Opinion of Julian, whom F. Garner makes the Author of the Translation of this Writing, for it is noted at the end, That it was translated out of Greek into Latin. This proves to us, That the Author of this Confession was a Greek, or at least, that it was made in the East. We can say nothing more of the Author of this Confession.

F. Garner affirms, That it is certainly one Rufinus's, altho' it be not the Priest's of Aqui∣lcia, but another Rufinus, whom he believes to be he that was Pelagius's Master, of whom Coelestius speaks in the Council of Carthage; That he had heard of Rusinus the Holy Priest, who maintain'd at Rome with Pammachius, That the Sin of the first Man did not descend to his Posterity. It hath ever been thought that this Rufinus was the Priest of Aquileia; and indeed S. Jerom says in several Places, That Rufinus was the fore-runner of Pelagius and his Adhe∣rents. But F. Garner maintains, That it is another Rufinus of whom Coelestius speaks; and he says likewise, That it is he that S. Jerom sent to Rome in the Time when he had the Contests with Rufinus of Aquileia, of whom this last complains in his Apology to Pope Anastasius.

There is no doubt but that this Rufinus condemned the Opinions of Origen, and that he contended with the Priest of Aquileia, because he defended them: But we do not see that he maintained the Doctrine of Pelagius touching Original Sin. Let us consider the Reasons which F. Garner brings, to shew that the Master of Pelagius and Coelestius is a different Person from the famous Rufinus of Aquileia. 1. The Master of Pelagius was a Syrian, but the Priest of Aquileia was an Italian, according to the Testimony of M. Mercator. 2. This same Author speaks of the Master of Pelagius, as a Man little known, one Rufinus, saith he. 3. The Priest of Aquileia came to Rome under Syricius; The Master of Pelagius came not till the Popedom of Anastasius, according to the Testimony of the same Author. 4. The Master of Pelagius sojourned with Pammachius; the Priest of Aquileia was none of this great Man's Friends; but on the contrary it was Pammachius that put S. Jerom upon writing against Rusinus. 5. The Master of Pelagius taught at Rome, That there was no such thing as Original Sin; the Priest of Aquileia was gone when this Doctrine was preached. 6. When S. Jerom accuses the Priest of Aquileia of being the Fore-runner of Pelagius, he speaks of no other Doctrines but those of Apathy and Sinlesness. 7. Paulinus, who disputed against Coelestius, in the Council of Carthage, doth not retort upon him, That that Rufinus, whom he cited, had been condemned, which he undoubtedly would have done, if he had heard him speak o•• the Priest of Aquileia. 8. Coelestius speaks of Rufinus, as then alive; the Priest of Aquileia was then dead. 9. Lastly, Rufinus, cited by Coelestius, was in the Communion of the Church; the Priest of Aquileia was excommunicated from it. These Reasons are not inca∣pable of Reply, and it may be said that many of them are too subtle.

That which amazeth me most is that which Coelestius says, That Rufinus, who denied Original Sin, abode with Pammachius; for what likelihood is there that he should lodge with one of his greatest Adversaries, and one of the best Friends of S. Jerom? The rest are weaker; for Rufinus having dwelt in Palaestine for near Thirty Years, and coming from that Country, when he taught his Doctrine to Pelagius, Marius Mercator might say, That he was a Syrian, and that he first brought that Doctrine to Rome; and so much the rather, because this Author had a Design to demonstrate that this Doctrine came from the East. It is true that Rufinus came to Rome at the end of the Popedom of Syricius in 397. but he staid there some time in the Popedom of Anastasius. Coelestius doth not say, That he, of whom he speaks, was then alive. If Paulinus did not object his Condemnation, if he passed for a Man, who died in the Communion of the Church, it was because he was not looked upon in Africk as an Heretick, or an excommunicate Person. There is then nothing of Difficulty in any of the Objections, but concerning the abode with Pammachius, but perhaps Coelestius was mistaken, or Rufinus was after reconciled to Pammachius. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied but that the Opinion of F. Garner hath much probability in it. For this cause I have set down his Reasons, that it may be left to the Reader to judge.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The Au∣thor of the Con∣fessions of Faith, &c.