Letter 42: 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. 1.

Letter 42: To Marcella, On the Sin Against the Holy Spirit (385 AD) [At Marcella's request, Jerome explains the "unforgivable sin" — blasphemy against the Holy Spirit — and demolishes the interpretation offered by Novatian, the rigorist schismatic.] 1. Your question is short and the answer is clear. The Gospel passage reads: "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this world or the next" [Matthew 12:32]. Now, Novatian claims that only Christian apostates can commit this sin. But if that's true, then the Jews who blasphemed Christ were innocent of it — even though they were the "wicked tenants" who had killed the prophets and were then plotting the Lord's own death [Matthew 21:33], so completely lost that the Son of God declared he had come specifically to save them [Matthew 18:11]. What must be proved to Novatian is this: the unforgivable sin is not the anguished denial wrung from people under torture who, in their agony, renounce their Lord. It is the deliberate slander of those who, seeing that God's works are the fruit of divine power, attribute that power to a demon — who declare that the miracles belong not to God but to the devil. This is the whole point of the Savior's argument when he teaches that Satan cannot cast out Satan and that his kingdom is not divided against itself [Matthew 12:25-26]. If the devil's purpose is to injure God's creation, why would he want to cure the sick and expel himself from the bodies he possesses? Let Novatian prove that any of those compelled to sacrifice before a judge's tribunal ever declared that the works recorded in the Gospel were performed not by the Son of God but by Beelzebub, prince of demons [Matthew 12:24]. Then — and only then — can he sustain his claim. 2. But here is an even sharper question. Let Novatian explain how speaking against the Son of Man differs from blaspheming the Holy Spirit. On his own principles, people who deny Christ under persecution have only spoken against the Son of Man; they haven't blasphemed the Holy Spirit. When someone is asked if he's a Christian and says he isn't, he denies Christ — the Son of Man — but he doesn't commit an offense against the Holy Spirit as such. But if denying Christ necessarily involves denying the Holy Spirit, then perhaps this heretic can explain how the Son of Man can be denied without sinning against the Spirit. When the apostle Peter, flustered by a servant girl's question, denied the Lord — did he sin against the Son of Man or against the Holy Spirit? A question that Novatian cannot answer without undermining his entire system.

To Marcella 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. 1. The question you send is short and the answer is clear. There is this passage in the gospel: Whosoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaks against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world to come. Matthew 12:32 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; Matthew 21:33 and so utterly lost were they that the Son of God told them that it was they whom he had come to save. Matthew 18:11 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. Matthew 12:25-26 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; Matthew 12:24 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. 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, Matthew 26:74 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. John 21:15-17 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. 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. About this page Source. Translated by W.H. Fremantle, G. Lewis and W.G. Martley. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 6. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001042.htm>. Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is feedback732 at newadvent.org. (To help fight spam, this address might change occasionally.) Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.