Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol. VI:
The Letters of St. Jerome.: Letter XV

Letter XV. To Pope Damasus.

This letter, written in 376 or 377 a.d., illustrates Jerome’s attitude towards the see of Rome at this time held by Damasus, afterwards his warm friend and admirer. Referring to Rome as the scene of his own baptism and as a church where the true faith has remained unimpaired (§1), and laying down the strict doctrine of salvation only within the pale of the church (§2), Jerome asks “the successor of the fisherman” two questions, viz.: (1) who is the true bishop of the three claimants of the see of Antioch, and (2) which is the correct terminology, to speak of three “hypostases” in the Godhead, or of one? On the latter question he expresses fully his own opinion.

1. Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, “woven from the top throughout,” 261 since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, 262 and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover “the sealed fountain” and “the garden inclosed,” 263 I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. 264 I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. 265 The wide space of sea and land that lies between us cannot deter me from searching for “the pearl of great price.” 266 “Wheresoever the body is, there will the eagles be gathered together.” 267 Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact. The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold; but here the seed corn is choked in the furrows and nothing grows but darnel or oats. 268 In the West the Sun of righteousness 269 is even now rising; in the East, Lucifer, who fell from heaven, 270 has once more set his throne above the stars. 271 “Ye are the light of the world,” 272 “ye are the salt of the earth,” 273 ye are “vessels of gold and of silver.” Here are vessels of wood or of earth, 274 which wait for the rod of iron, 275 and eternal fire.

2. Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! 276 This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. 277 This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. 278 But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. 279 Conp. 19 sequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors 280 who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. 281 He that gathers not with you scatters; 282 he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist.

3. Just now, I am sorry to say, those Arians, the Campenses, 283 are trying to extort from me, a Roman Christian, their unheard-of formula of three hypostases. 284 And this, too, after the definition of Nicæa 285 and the decree of Alexandria, 286 in which the West has joined. Where, I should like to know, are the apostles of these doctrines? Where is their Paul, their new doctor of the Gentiles? I ask them what three hypostases are supposed to mean. They reply three persons subsisting. I rejoin that this is my belief. They are not satisfied with the meaning, they demand the term. Surely some secret venom lurks in the words. “If any man refuse,” I cry, “to acknowledge three hypostases in the sense of three things hypostatized, that is three persons subsisting, let him be anathema.” Yet, because I do not learn their words, I am counted a heretic. “But, if any one, understanding by hypostasis essence, 287 deny that in the three persons there is one hypostasis, he has no part in Christ.” Because this is my confession I, like you, am branded with the stigma of Sabellianism. 288

4. If you think fit enact a decree; and then I shall not hesitate to speak of three hypostases. Order a new creed to supersede the Nicene; and then, whether we are Arians or orthodox, one confession will do for us all. In the whole range of secular learning hypostasis never means anything but essence. And can any one, I ask, be so profane as to speak of three essences or substances in the Godhead? There is one nature of God and one only; and this, and this alone, truly is. For absolute being is derived from no other source but is all its own. All things besides, that is all things created, although they appear to be, are not. For there was a time when they were not, and that which once was not may again cease to be. God alone who is eternal, that is to say, who has no beginning, really deserves to be called an essence. Therefore also He says to Moses from the bush, “I am that I am,” and Moses says of Him, “I am hath sent me.” 289 As the angels, the sky, the earth, the seas, all existed at the time, it must have been as the absolute being that God claimed for himself that name of essence, which apparently was common to all. But because His nature alone is perfect, and because in the three persons there subsists but one Godhead, which truly is and is one nature; whosoever in the name of religion declares that there are in the Godhead three elements, three hypostases, that is, or essences, is striving really to predicate three natures of God. And if this is true, why are we severed by walls from Arius, when in dishonesty we are one with him? Let Ursicinus be made the colleague of your blessedness; let Auxentius be associated with Ambrose. 290 But may the faith of Rome never come to such a pass! May the devout hearts of your people never be infected with such unholy doctrines! Let us be satisfied to speak of one substance and of three subsisting persons—perfect, equal, coeternal. Let us keep to one hypostasis, if such be your pleasure, and say nothing of three. It is a bad sign when those who mean the same thing use different words. Let us be satisfied with the form of creed which we have hitherto used. Or, if you think it right that I should speak of three hypostases, explaining what I mean by them, I am ready to submit. But, believe me, there is poison hidden under their honey; the angel of Satan has transformed himself into an angel of light. 291 They give a plausible explanation of the term hypostasis; yet when I profess to hold it in the same sense they count me a heretic. Why are they so tenacious of a word? Why do they shelter themselves under ambiguous language? If their belief corresponds to their explanation of it, I do not condemn them for keeping it. On the other hand, if p. 20 my belief corresponds to their expressed opinions, they should allow me to set forth their meaning in my own words.

5. I implore your blessedness, therefore, by the crucified Saviour of the world, and by the consubstantial trinity, to authorize me by letter either to use or to refuse this formula of three hypostases. And lest the obscurity of my present abode may baffle the bearers of your letter, I pray you to address it to Evagrius, the presbyter, with whom you are well acquainted. I beg you also to signify with whom I am to communicate at Antioch. Not, I hope, with the Campenses; 292 for they—with their allies the heretics of Tarsus 293 —only desire communion with you to preach with greater authority their traditional doctrine of three hypostases.

Footnotes

Joh. xix. 23.

Song of Sol. 2.15.

Song of Sol. 4.12.

Rom. i. 8: I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

I.e. holy baptism; cf. Gal. iii. 27.

Matt. xiii. 46.

Matt. xxiv. 28.

Matt. 13:22, 23.

Mal. iv. 2.

Luke x. 18.

Isa. xiv. 12.

Matt. v. 14.

Matt. v. 13.

2 Tim. ii. 20.

Rev. ii. 27.

Matt. xvi. 18.

Ex. xii. 22.

Gen. vii. 23.

I.e. the bread of the Eucharist, at this time sent by one bishop to another in token of communion; or possibly the allusion is different, and what Jerome means to say is: “You are the oracle of God, but owing to my present situation I cannot consult you.”

Certain bishops banished from their sees by Valens. See Letter III. § 2.

The three rival claimants of the see of Antioch. See note on Letter XVI. § 2.

Matt. xii. 30.

I.e. the field party. The Meletians were so called because, denied access to the churches of the city, they had to worship in the open air outside the walls.

ὑπόστασις=substantia. It is the word used in Heb. i. 3, “The express image of his person [R.V. substance].” Except at Alexandria it was usual to speak of one hypostasis as of one ousia in the Divine Nature. But at Alexandria from Origen downwards three hypostases had been ascribed to the Deity. Two explanations are given of the latter formula: (1) That at Alexandria ὑπόστασις was taken in the sense of πρόσωπον, so that by “three hypostases” was meant only “three persons.” (2) That “three hypostases” was an inexact expression standing for “three hypostatic persons” or “a threefold hypostasis.” This latter seems to be the true account of the matter. See an interesting note in Newman, Arians of the Fourth Century, Appendix IV.

In the Nicene Creed the Son is declared to be “of one substance [οὐσία] with the Father.”

This decree allowed the formula of “three hypostases” to be susceptible of an orthodox interpretation. It did not, however, encourage its use.

οὐσία.

Cauterio unionis inurimur. Sabellius recognized three “aspects” in the Godhead but denied “three persons,” at least in the Catholic sense.

Ex. iii. 14.

Ursicinus, at this time anti-pope; Auxentius, Arian bishop of Milan.

2 Cor. xi. 14.

I.e. the followers of the orthodox Bishop Meletius, who, as they had no church in Antioch, were compelled to meet for worship outside the city.

These appear to have been semi-Arians or Macedonians. Silvanus of Tarsus was their recognized leader.