To Pammachius against John of Jerusalem 5

St Jerome (AD 345–420) · Contra Joannem Hierosolymitanum · PL 23, 350–396

5 PL 23, 359

5. But you say “the bishop of Alexandria approved of my letter.” What did he approve of? Your correct utterances against Arius, Photinus, and Manichæus. For who, at this time of day, accuses you of being an Arian? Who now fastens on you the guilt of Photinus and Manichæus? Those faults were long ago corrected, those enemies were shattered. You were not so foolish as to openly defend a heresy which you knew was offensive to the whole Church. You knew that if you had done this, you must have been immediately removed, and your heart was upon the pleasures of your episcopal throne. You so tuned your expressions as to neither displease the simple, nor offend your own incontestably marked by deceit and slipperiness; what, then, are we to do with the remaining five, with regard to which, because no opportunity was afforded for ambiguity, supporters. You wrote well, but nothing to the purpose. How was the bishop of Alexandria to know of what you were accused, or what things they were of which a confession was demanded from you? You ought to have set forth in detail the charges brought against you, and then have met them one by one. There is an old story which tells how a certain man, who, when he was speaking fluently, was carried along by a torrent of words, without touching the question before the court, and thus drew the wise remark from the judge, “Excellent! excellent! but to what purpose is all this excellence?” Quacks have but one lotion for all affections of the eyes. He who is accused of many things, and in dissipating the charges passes over some, confesses all that he omits to mention. Did you not reply to the letter of Epiphanius, and yourself choose the points for refutation? No doubt, in replying, you rested on the axiom, that no man is so brave as to put the sword to his own throat. Choose which alternative you like. You shall have your choice: you either replied to the letter of Epiphanius, or you did not. If you did reply, why did you take no notice of the most important, and the most numerous, of the charges brought against you? If you did not reply, what becomes of your “Apology,” of which you boast amongst the simple, and which you are scattering broadcast amongst those who do not understand the matter?

Theophilus quid probaverit. Sed dicis, epistolam meam probavit Alexandrinus episcopus. Quid probavit? contra Arium, contra Photinum, contra Manichaeum bene locutum. Quis enim te hoc tempore arguit Arianum? quis tibi nunc Photini, Manichaeique crimen impingit? Olim ista emendata sunt atque concussa. Non eras tam stultus, ut aperte defenderes haeresim, quam sciebas Ecclesiae displicere. Noveras te si hoc fecisses, statim loco movendum, et solii tui delicias suspirabas. Sic sententiam temperasti, ut nec simplicibus displiceres, nec tuos offenderes. Bene scripsisti, sed nihil ad causam pertinens. Unde noverat Alexandrinae Ecclesiae pontifex, in quibus arguereris? quorum a te confessio postularetur? Debueras tibi objecta proponere, et sic ad singula respondere. Vetus narrat historia: Quidam cum diserte diceret, ferreturque impetu ac volubilitate verborum, causamque omnino non tangeret, prudens auditor et judex: « Bene, inquit, bene, sed quo istud tam bene? » Imperiti medici ad omnes oculorum dolores uno utuntur collyrio. Qui arguitur in pluribus, et in dilutione criminum aliqua praetermittit, quidquid tacuerit, confitetur. An non respondisti ad epistolam Epiphanii, et proposuisti ipse quae dissolveres? Nimirum hac fiducia respondisti: Nullus fortiter a semetipso caeditur, Elige e duobus, quod vis. Optio tibi dabitur, aut respondisti ad epistolam Epiphanii, aut non. Si respondisti, cur maxima et plurima de his quae tibi objecta sunt, reliquisti? Si non respondisti: ubi est illa Apologia tua, in qua gloriaris apud simplices: et quasi [ Al. quam] ignorantibus causam, huc illucque disseminas?

Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (eds.), New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890-1900. Public domain: English translation first published 1885-1900 (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series). Latin: Migne, Patrologia Latina (1844-1855), public domain; transcription from Corpus Corporum (University of Zurich).

Save for later

Enter your email and we will send you a sign-in link. No password. What you save (articles, verses, chapters, documents) follows you to any device.