The Letters of St. Jerome 42
42.0 To Marcella PL 22, 477
At Marcella’s request Jerome explains to her what is “the sin against the Holy Ghost” spoken of by Christ, and shows Novatian’s explanation of it to be untenable. Written at Rome in 385 a.d.
42.1 To Marcella PL 22, 477
1. The question you send is short and the answer is clear. There is this passage in the gospel: “Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come.” Now if Novatian affirms that none but Christian renegades can sin against the Holy Ghost, it is plain that the Jews who blasphemed Christ were not guilty of this sin. Yet they were wicked husbandmen, they had slain the prophets, they were then compassing the death of the Lord; and so utterly lost were they that the Son of God told them that it was they whom he had come to save. It must be proved to Novatian, therefore, that the sin which shall never be forgiven is not the blasphemy of men disembowelled by torture who in their agony deny their Lord, but is the captious clamor of those who, while they see that God’s works are the fruit of virtue, ascribe the virtue to a demon and declare the signs wrought to belong not to the divine excellence but to the devil. And this is the whole gist of our Saviour’s argument, when He teaches that Satan cannot be cast out by Satan, and that his kingdom is not divided against itself. If it is the devil’s object to injure God’s creation, how can he wish to cure the sick and to expel himself from the bodies possessed by him? Let Novatian prove that of those who have been compelled to sacrifice before a judge’s tribunal any has declared of the things written in the gospel that they were wrought not by the Son of God but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils; and then he will be able to make good his contention that this is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which shall never be forgiven.
Brevis est quaestiuncula, quam misisti, et aperta responsio est. Si enim de eo quod in Evangelio scribitur: « Quicumque dixerit verbum contra Filium hominis, remittetur ei: qui autem dixerit contra 191 Spiritum Sanctum non remittetur ei, neque in hoc saeculo, neque in futuro » , Novatianus affimat non posse peccare in Spiritum Sanctum, nisi eum qui Christianus sit, et postea negaverit; manifestum est Judaeos qui eo tempore blasphemabant, peccato blasphemiae non teneri: quippe, qui impii coloni, interfectis Prophetis, de nece Domini cogitabant, et in tantum erant perditi, ut ad salvandos eos, se Dei Filius venisse responderit. Unde de toto ipsius Scripturae ordine convincendus est, non his irremissibilem esse dictam blasphemiam, qui tormentis compulsi, et variis eviscerati cruciatibus, Dominum denegassent; sed his qui cum in virtutibus videant opera Dei, calumnientur et clamitent, daemonis esse virtutem, et omnia signa quae facta sunt, non ad divinam magnificentiam, sed ad diabolum pertinere . Unde et Salvator noster toto responsionis suae hoc agit argumento, ut doceat, non posse Satanam ejici a Satana, et regnum ejus inter se non esse divisum. Cum enim diaboli studium sit, Dei laedere creaturam, quomodo ejusdem poterit esse voluntatis sanare languentes, et seipsum de obsessis fugare corporibus? Probet itaque Novatianus, aliquem de his, qui sacrificare compulsi sunt ante tribunal judicis, respondisse omnia quae in Evangelio scripta sunt, non a Filio Dei, sed a Beelzebub principe daemoniorum fuisse perfecta, et tunc poterit approbare irremissibilem in Spiritum Sanctum esse blasphemiam.
42.2 PL 22, 477
2. But to put a more searching question still: let Novatian tell us how he distinguishes speaking against the Son of Man from blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. For I maintain that on his principles men who have denied Christ under persecution have only spoken against the Son of Man, and have not blasphemed the Holy Ghost. For when a man is asked if he is a Christian, and declares that he is not; obviously in denying Christ, that is the Son of Man, he does no despite to the Holy Ghost. But if his denial of Christ involves a denial of the Holy Ghost, this heretic can perhaps tell us how the Son of Man can be denied without sinning against the Holy Ghost. If he thinks that we are here intended by the term Holy Ghost to understand the Father, no mention at all of the Father is made by the denier in his denial. When the apostle Peter, taken aback by a maid’s question, denied the Lord, did he sin against the Son of Man or against the Holy Ghost? If Novatian absurdly twists Peter’s words, “I know not the man,” to mean a denial not of Christ’s Messiahship but of His humanity, he will make the Saviour a liar, for He foretold that He Himself, that is His divine Sonship, must be denied. Now, when Peter denied the Son of God, he wept bitterly and effaced his threefold denial by a threefold confession. His sin, therefore, was not the sin against the Holy Ghost which can never be forgiven. It is obvious, then, that this sin involves blasphemy, calling one Beelzebub for his actions, whose virtues prove him to be God. If Novatian can bring an instance of a renegade who has called Christ Beelzebub, I will at once give up my position and admit that after such a fall the denier can win no forgiveness. To give way under torture and to deny oneself to be a Christian is one thing, to say that Christ is the devil is another. And this you will yourself see if you read the passage attentively.
Ut autem et acutius aliquid interrogemus, respondeat, quid sit contra Filium hominis dicere, et in Spiritum Sanctum blasphemare. Ego quippe assero juxta sensum illius, eos qui Christum in persecutione negaverint, 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 facit injuriam. Si autem Christum negando, negavit et Spiritum; edisserat Haereticus, quomodo non peccet in Spiritum, qui Filium hominis denegaverit. Aut si Spiritum Sanctum hoc loco 192 intelligendum Patrem putat, Patris nulla est a negatore mentio facta cum negaret. Petrus Apostolus eo tempore, quo ancillae interrogatione perterritus, Dominum negavit, in Filium hominis, an in Spiritum Sanctum videtur commisisse peccatum? Si id quod ait, nescio hominem, ridicule voluerit interpretari, non Christum cum negasse, sed hominem; mendacem faciet Salvatorem, qui se, hoc est, Filium Dei, negandum esse praedixerat . Si autem negavit Filium Dei, unde et amare flevit, et trinam negationem, trina postea confessione delevit, manifestum est, peccatum in Spiritum Sanctum, ideo non posse dimitti, quod habeat blasphemiam: ut cum videas in virtutibus Deum, Beelzebub calumnieris in factis, Doceat igitur aliquem negatorem, Beelzebub vocasse Christum, et ultro referam gradum, negatorem non posse veniam consequi post ruinam. Aliud est tormentis cedere, et se Christianum negare: aliud Christum, diabolum dicere, sicut tibi ipsa Scriptura, atque contextus, lecta attentius poterunt [ al. potuerunt ] demonstrare.
42.3 PL 22, 478
3. I ought to have discussed the matter more fully, but some friends have visited my humble abode, and I cannot refuse to give myself up to them. Still, as it might seem arrogant not to answer you at once, I have compressed a wide subject into a few words, and have sent you not a letter but an explanatory note.
Fuerat quidem prolixius disserendum: sed quoniam amicis, et qui ad nostrum hospitiolum convenerunt, praesentiam nostram negare non possumus, et tibi non statim respondere, admodum visum est arrogantis, latam disputationem brevi sermone comprehendimus, ut non tam Epistolam, quam Commentariolum dictaremus.