_Baronius_, finding he can neither disguise nor extenuate the Cruelties committed by those who adhered to _Damasus_, is at a great deal of Trouble to disculpate him, and lay the whole Blame on _Maximinus_, who, as appears from History, discharged the Office of _Præfectus Annonæ_ from the Latter-end of the Year 367. to the Beginning of 370. and was noted for his Cruelty. _Baronius_ is supported herein by the Authority of _Jerom_ and _Ruffinus_, of whom the former writes, that _Damasus_ remained Conqueror, without hurting the Conquered[1000]; and the latter, that the Cruelties practised by the Prefect _Maximinus_, who had espoused the Cause of _Damasus_, upon those of the adverse Party, rendered the Name of that virtuous Prelate odious, though he had no Share in them[1001]. But who is to be charged with the Massacre in the Basilic of _Sicinus_ or _Liberius_? On whom are the Murders to be laid, committed there? _Maximinus_ was not then in Power, and perhaps not at _Rome_. I cannot help thinking but _Damasus_ might at least have restrained his Followers from such Excesses; and consequently, as he did not, I cannot, with _Ruffinus_, conclude him to have had no Share in them; I say, _at least restrained_; for I will not charge him with heading and encouraging the riotous Multitude in that wicked Attempt, upon the bare Authority of _Marcellinus_ and _Faustinus_, both zealous Partisans of _Ursinus_. But neither ought _Baronius_, _Bellarmine_, _Davidius_, &c. upon the bare Testimony of Two Writers, no less sanguine in the Cause of _Damasus_, suppose him to have been no-ways concerned in those Disorders. The famous _Ammianus Marcellinus_, who lived at this very time in _Rome_, and, as a Pagan, was no-ways concerned in the Quarrel, nor more inclined to one Side than the other, assures us, that both were equally ambitious of the Episcopal Dignity, and both equally guilty[1002]. The Authority of a Writer, thus unbyassed, and in every other respect unexceptionable, ought to be preferred, without the least Hesitation, to that of any other, whom we have just Reason to suspect of Partiality. _Jerom_ indeed speaks with more Modesty and Reserve than _Ruffinus_, and those who have copied after him; for he only says, that _Damasus_ did not hurt his Enemies after he had conquered them. But, in relating the above-mentioned Massacre, and the Skirmishes that happened before the Party of _Damasus_ prevailed, he always describes his Partisans as the Aggressors, without ever pretending to excuse him, as having no Share in those Riots; which he would not have failed to do, had he not paid a greater Regard to Truth than _Ruffinus_ seems to have done. [Sidenote: _The Luxury of the Bishops of_ Rome.]