_Ruffinus_ pretended this Letter to be supposititious, and to have been forged by St. _Jerom_, alleging, that he could not believe the Bishop of _Rome_ capable of such a crying Piece of Injustice as to condemn an innocent Man, and condemn him in his Absence. He added, that if _Anastasius_ had ever written such a Letter to _John_ of _Jerusalem_, _John_, with whom he lived in great Intimacy, would have acquainted him with it, which he had not done. In Answer to this Charge, _Jerom_ refers him to the Archives of the _Roman_ Church[N44.1]; and to _Jerom_ I refer the Jesuit _Halloix_, supposing the Letter to have been feigned, tho’ not by St. _Jerom_, on account of the following Words, that seem to wound the pretended Supremacy. _I have intirely separated myself from him_, meaning _Ruffinus_: _I will not even know where he is, or what he is doing: let him try, if he pleases, to be absolved elsewhere_. So that _Anastasius_ thought he might be absolved elsewhere, though condemned at _Rome_. This _Halloix_, more jealous of the Papal Supremacy than the Pope himself, will not allow, and therefore pretends the Letter to be supposititious. But, since the Time of _Ruffinus_, none besides him ever questioned its Authenticity. Footnote N44.1: Hier. in Ruff. l. 3. c. 5, & 6. ----- [Sidenote: _The Condemnation of_ Origen _owing chiefly to the Bishop of_ Alexandria.] Such is the Account the contemporary Writers, and _Jerom_ himself, give us of the Condemnation of _Origen_, and his Interpreter _Ruffinus_, very different from that which we read in _Baronius_, introducing his _High Pontiff Anastasius_ as acting the First Part on that Occasion; though _Jerom_ tells us, in express Terms, that _Anastasius_ followed the Example of _Theophilus_; that he condemned in the West, what had before been condemned in the East[1365]; and that _Rome_ and all _Italy_ owed their Deliverance to the Letters of _Theophilus_[1366]; meaning the circular Letter, which _Theophilus_ writ to all the Catholic Bishops, acquainting them that he had condemned _Origen_, and prohibited his Books, and exhorting them to follow his Example[1367]. It was by this Letter that _Anastasius_ was induced to condemn _Origen_: For what else could _Jerom_ mean by saying, that _Rome_ and _Italy_ were, by the Letters of _Theophilus_, delivered from the Errors of _Origen_? _Baronius_ could not but know, that the Letter of _Theophilus_ was addressed to all the Catholic Bishops, since it is styled by _Theophilus_ himself, in a Letter he writ to _Epiphanius_[1368], and by _Epiphanius_, in one of his Letters to _Jerom_[1369], _A general Letter to all Catholics_; and yet the Annalist speaks of it as directed to _Anastasius_ alone, in order to impose by that means on his Readers, and persuade them, _that the Bishop of_ Alexandria _submitted the Sentence he had pronounced to the Judgment of_ Anastasius, _being well apprised_,