A letter from Jerome (385)

Translated letter:

1. There is a clear answer to the brief little question you sent. It is what is written in the gospel: "whoever speaks a word against the son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, neither in this age/world nor in the future" [Matth.12:32]. Novatian affirms that one can not sin against the holy spirit unless one is Christian and afterwards denies it; it is clear that Jews who blasphemed at the time are not bound by the sin of blasphemy, indeed those who, impious colonists, after the prophets had been killed thought of the death of the lord and were lost because the son of god said he had come to save them. Wherefore since they had to be convinced about the whole order of scripture, their blasphemy could not be called unforgiveable who, compelled by torments and lacerated by various tortures denied the lord, but those who when they saw the works of god in his powers slandered them and claimed they were by force of the demon and that all the signs pertained not to divine magnificence but to the devil. Whence the saviour made the whole argument of his response that Satan could not be cast out by Satan and his kingdom if divided against itself could not stand [Matth.12:25-29]. For when it is the devil's desire to injure god's creature, how could he of his will cure those languishing and put himself to flight from their possessed bodies? Novatian makes this point about those who compelled to sacrifice before the tribunal answer the judges that everything written in the gospel was done not by the son of god but by Beelzebub, prince of demons, and then he could demonstrate that this was unforgiveable blasphemy against the holy spirit. 2. But if we question them more sharply, they answer that to blaspheme against the holy spirit is to speak against the son of man. I, indeed, assert that in a similar sense, who denied Christ in persecution, spoke against the son of man and did not blaspheme against the holy spirit. For who is asked whether he is a Christian and answers that he is not, so denying Christ the son of man, does not do injury to the holy spirit. If however by denying Christ he denied the spirit, the heretic must explain how he does not sin against the spirit who denies the son of man. Or if he thinks the holy spirit in this place should be understood as the father, no mention is made by the denier of the father when he denies. Did Peter the apostle at the time that, terrified by the question of the handmaid, he denied the lord, seem to commit a sin against the son of man or the holy spirit? If when he said "I do not know the man" [Matth.26:72]" it would be ridiculous if he wanted that to be interpreted that he had denied him not to be Christ but man, that he made the saviour a liar who predicted that he would deny him to be the son of god. But if he denied the son of god, for which he wept bitterly and afterwards wiped out his triple denial with a triple confession, it is obvious that a sin against the holy spirit could not be renounced, because it involves blasphemy as when you see god in his powers and slander [him as] Beelzebub in the deeds. Let him teach therefore that a denier who called Christ Beelzebub, I go a step further, that denier can not gain mercy. It is one thing to give in to torture and deny Christ, another to say Christ is a devil, as scripture and its contexts attentively read could show you. 3. This might be discussed further but since we can not deny our presence to friends who came to our humble little dwelling and not to answer you immediately seemed quite arrogant, we have encompassed a broad dispute in a brief speech, dictating not so much a letter as a little commentary.

Original letter:

1. Breuis quaestiuncula, quam misisti, et aperta responsio est. si enim de eo, quod in euangelio scribitur: quicumque dixerit uerbum contra filium hominis, remittetur ei; qui autem dixerit contra spiritum sanctum, non remittetur ei neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro, Nouatianus adfirmat non posse peccare in spiritum sanctum nisi eum, qui Christianus sit et postea negauerit, manifestum est Iudaeos, qui eo tempore blasphemabant, peccato blasphemiae non teneri, quippe qui, inpii coloni, interfectis prophetis de nece domini cogitabant et in tantum erant perditi, ut ad saluandos eos se dei filius uenisse responderit. unde et de toto ipsius scripturae ordine conuincendi sunt, non his inremissibilem dictam blasphemiam, qui tormentis conpulsi et uariis euiscerati cruciatibus dominum denegassent, sed his, qui, cum uideant in uirtutibus opera dei, calumnientur et clamitent daemonis esse uirtutem et omnia signa, quae facta sunt, non ad diuinam magnificentiam, sed ad diabolum pertinere. unde et saluator toto responsionis suae hoc agit argumento, ut doceat non posse a satana eici satanan et regnum eius inter se non esse diuisum. cum enim diaboli studium sit dei laedere creaturam, quomodo eiusdem esse poterit uoluntatis sanare languentes et se ipsum de obsessis fugare corporibus? probet itaque Nouatianus aliquem de his, qui sacrificare conpulsi sunt ante tribunal iudicis, respondisse omnia, quae in euangelio scripta sunt, non a filio dei, sed a Belzebub, principe daemoniorum, esse perfecta, et tunc poterit adprobare inremissibilem in spiritum sanctum esse blasphemiam. 2. Ut autem et acutius aliquid interrogemus, respondeant, quid sit contra filium hominis dicere et in spiritum sanctum blasphemare. ego quippe adsero iuxta sensum illius eos, qui Christum in persecutione negauerint, contra filium hominis dixisse et non in spiritum sanctum blasphemasse. qui enim interrogatur, an Christianus sit, et Christianum se non esse responderit, utique negando Christum, hoc est filium hominis, spiritui sancto non fecit iniuriam. si autem Christum negando negauit et spiritum, edisserat hereticus, quomodo non peccet in spiritum, qui filium hominis denegarit. aut si spiritum sanctum hoc loco intellegendum patrem putat, patris nulla est a negatore mentio facta, cum negaret. Petrus apostolus eo tempore, cum ancillae interrogatione perterritus dominum negauit, in filium hominis an in spiritum sanctum uidetur commisisse peccatum? si id, quod ait: nescio hominem, ridicule uoluerit interpretari non Christum eum negasse, sed hominem, mendacem faciet saluatorem, qui se, hoc est filium dei, negandum esse praedixerat. si autem negauit filium dei, unde et amare fleuit et trinam negationem trina postea confessione deleuit, manifestum est peccatum in spiritum sanctum id non posse dimitti, quod habeat blasphemiam, ut, cum uideas in uirtutibus deum, Belzebub calumnieris in factis. doceat igitur aliquem negatorem Belzebub uocasse Christum, et ultro referam gradum negatorem non posse ueniam consequi. aliud est tormentis cedere et se Christianum negare, aliud Christum diabolum dicere, sicut tibi ipsa scriptura atque contextus adtentius lecta poterunt demonstrare. 3. Fuerat quidem prolixius disserendum, sed quoniam et amicis, qui ad nostrum hospitiolum conuenerunt, praesentiam nostram negare non possumus et tibi non statim. respondere admodum uisum est adrogantis, latam disputationem breui sermone conprehendimus, ut non tam epistulam quam commentariolum dictaremus.

Historical context:

Jerome answers Marcella's "little" but complex question about unforgiveable blasphemy against the holy spirit. 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.

Printed source:

Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae, ed. Isidorus Hilberg, 3 v. (New York: Johnson, 1970, repr. CSEL, 1910-18), ep.42

Date:

385