A letter from Jerome (385)

Translated letter:

1. The testimony gathered from the gospel of John which the follower of Montanus pressed on you, in which our saviour promises that he will go to the father and send the paraclete, in what time they were promised and completed the acts of the apostles witness: on the tenth day after the ascension of the lord, that is the fiftieth after the resurrection, the holy spirit descended and the tongues of believers were divided, so each spoke with the speech of all peoples, when certain people, few thus far among believers, asserted that they were drunk from new wine, and Peter standing in the middle of the apostles and the whole assembly says: "men of Judea and all who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and listen to what I say. These are not drunk as you suppose — for it is the third hour of the day [9AM] — but it is what was spoken through the prophet Johel: `in the last days,' the lord says, `I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and the young shall see visions and the old shall dream dreams; and I will pour out my spirit on my slaves/servants and handmaids'" [Acts 2.14-18]. 2. If, therefore, the apostle Peter on whom the lord founded the church, reminded us that prophecy and promise from the lord were complete at that time, how can we claim another time for us? But if they should answer that the four daughters of Philip later prophesied and there was a prophet Agabus and the apostle wrote about divisions of the spirit among apostles and learned prophets and Paul himself prophesied many things about future heresies and the end of the world, let them know that we do not reject such prophecy which is signed by the lord's passion, but we do not accept what is not consistent with the authority of the old and new testament. 3. First we differ in the rule of faith. We assert that the father son and holy spirit are one and the same person, though we connect them by substance; those following the doctrine of Sabellius force the trinity into the narrowness of one person. We do not attack marriage but concede as Paul ordered that widows and young women marry; they think that second marriage is a crime, so whoever commits it is considered an adulterer. We fast for one forty day period according to the tradition of the apostles, the same for the whole world; they do three in a year, as if three saviors had suffered the passion, not that it is not permitted to fast throughout the year except at pentecost, but that it is an offering to be made by will rather than necessity. With us bishops take the place of apostles, with them the bishop comes third. They put the patriarchs of Pepusa in Phrygia first, those they call koinonous [Grk] second, and demote to third, that is virtually last, the rank of bishop, as if their religion were more honorable if what is first with us were last with them. They close the doors of the church to almost every crime; we read daily: "I prefer the penitence of the sinner to his death" [Ezek.18:23] and "when someone falls does he never get up?" [Jer.8:4] says the lord, and "turn back to me, changeable children, and I will heal your grief" [Jer.8:25]. But they are rigid. Not that they do not sin worse, but there is this difference between us, that they blush to confess sins as if they were just, while we do penance and deserve mercy more easily. 4. I pass over polluted mysteries which are said about the nursing boy and marriage with the conquering witness. I prefer not to believe evils; let everything that is of blood be false. But a blasphemy has been uncovered that must be conquered of those saying that God wished to save the world first in the old testament through Moses and the prophets; that since he could not, he took on a body from the virgin and preaching met death in Christ as the son, that since he could not save the world through those two steps, he at last descended through the holy spirit into Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, crazy women, and Montanus, the cut-off half-man, had the fullness which Paul could not have when he said "in part we know and in part we prophesy" and "now we see through a mirror in a riddle" [1Cor.13.9, 12].(1) These things do not need argument; to have described them is to have overcome them. It is not necessary to subvert the brief speech of a letter to answer their individual absurdities, since you, before all others, having the scriptures, were not so much moved by their questions as you wanted to inquire from me what I thought.

Original letter:

1. Testimonia, quae de Iohannis evangelio congregate tibi quidam Montani spectator ingessit, in quibus salvator noster se ad patrem iturum missurumque paraclitum pollicetur, in quod promissa sint tempus et quo conpleta sint tempore. apostolorum Acta testantur: decima die post ascensum domini, hoc est quinquagesima post resurrectionem, spiritum sanctum descendisse linguasque credentium esse divisas, ita ut unusquisque omnium gentium sermone loqueretur, quando quidam adhuc parum credentium eos musto ebrios adserebant et Petrus stans in medio apostolorum omnisque conventus ait: viri Iudaei et omnes, qui habitatis in Hierusalem, hoc vobis notum sit et percipite auribus verba mea. non enim, sicut vos aestimatis, hi ebrii sunt -- nam est hora diei tertia -- sed hoc est, quod dictum est per Iohel prophetam: in novissimis diebus, dicit dominus, effundam de spiritu meo in omnem carnem et prophetabunt filii et filiae eorum et iuvenes visiones videbunt et seniores somnia somniabunt; et quidem in servos meos et ancillas effundam de spiritu meo. 2. Si igitur apostolus Petrus, super quem dominus fundavit ecclesiam, et prophetiam et promissionem domini illo tempore conpletam memoravit, quomodo possumus nobis tempus aliud vindicare? quodsi voluerint respondere et Philippi deinceps quattuor filias prophetasse et propheten Agabum repperiri et in divisionibus spiritus inter apostolos et doctores prophetas quoque apostolo scribente formatos ipsumque Paulum multa de futuris heresibus et de fine saeculi prophetasse, sciant a nobis non tam prophetiam repelli, quae domini signata est passione, quam eos non recipe, qui cum scripturae veteris et novae auctoritate non congruant. 3. Primum in fidei regula discrepamus. nos patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum in sua unumquemque persona ponimus, licet substantia copulemus; illi Sabellii dogma sectantes trinitatem in unius personae angustias cogunt. nos secundas nuptias non tam adpetimus, quam concedimus Paulo iubente, ut viduae adulescentulae nubant; illi in tantum scelerata putant iterate coniugia, ut, quicumque hoc fecerit, adulter habeatur. nos unam quadragesimam secundum traditionem apostolorum toto nobis orbe congruo ieiunamus; illi tres in anno faciunt quadragesimas, quasi tres passi sint salvatores, non quo et per totum annum excepto pentecosten ieiunare non liceat, sed quod aliud sit necessitate, aliud voluntate munus offerri. apud nos apostolorum locum episcopi tenent; apud eos episcopus tertius est. habent enim primos de Pepusa Phrygiae patriarchas, secundos, quos appellant {Greek letters], atque ita in tertium, id est paene ultimum, gradum episcopi devolvuntur, quasi exinde ambitiosior religio fiat, si, quod apud nos primum est, apud illos novissimum sit. illi ad omne paene delictum ecclesiae obserant fores; nos cotidie legimus: malo paenitentiam peccatoris quam mortem et: numquid, qui cadit, non resurgit? dicit dominus, et: convertimini ad me, filii convertentes, et ego curabo contritiones vestras. rigidi autem sunt. non quo et ipsi peiora non peccent, sed quod hoc inter nos et illos sit, quod illi erubescunt confiteri peccata quasi iusti, nos, dum paenitentiam agimus, facilius veniam promeremur. 4. Praetermitto scelerata mysteria, quae dicuntur de lactante puero et de victuro martyre confarrata. malo iniqua non credere; sit falsum omne, quod sanguinis est. aperta est convincenda blasphemia dicentium deum primum voluisse in veteri testamento per Moysen et prophetas salvare mundum; quod quia non potuerit explere, corpus sumpsisse de virgine et in Christo sub specie filii praedicantem mortem obisse pro nobis et, quia per duos gradus mundum salvare nequiverit, ad extremum per spiritum sanctum in Montanum, Priscam et Maximillam, insanas feminas, descendisse et plenitudinem, quam Paulus non habuerit dicens: ex parte cognoscimus et ex parte prophetamus et: nunc videmus per speculum in aenigmate abscisum et semivirum habuisse Montanum. haec coargutione non indigent; perfidiam eorum exposuisse superasse est. nec necesse est, ut singula deliramenta, quae proferunt, brevior epistulae sermo subvertat, cum et tu ipsa scripturas adprime tenens non tam ad eorum mota sis quaestiones, quam, quid sentirem, a me volueris sciscitari.

Historical context:

Jerome responds to Marcella's questions about New Testament discrepancies pointed out by Montanists. Jerome answers all of them, though he notes that since she has the scriptures in hand, she before all others does not need his answers but only wants to get his thoughts on the subject. Note that Jerome never identifies biblical passages he cites, a common omission among Christian writers, but in this case he would have been certain that Marcella could identify the context. Montanus was a Phrygian presbyter in the mid second century. His followers, believing that the end was imminent, claimed continuing prophecies from the holy spirit and refused to accept accomodations towards a more permanent church. Sabellius apparently taught the Trinity as one essence with three energies. On the early heresies, see Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, A History of the Development of Doctrine, 1. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1971).

Scholarly notes:

(1) Pelikan suggests that Montanus and Maximilla spoke when possessed by the holy spirit in the words of the spirit and some took this to mean they were claiming to be the holy spirit, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), 102-03.

Printed source:

Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae, ed. Isidorus Hilberg, 3 v. (New York: Johnson, 1970, repr.CSEL, 1910-18), ep.41

Date:

385