Jerome, Against John of Jerusalem 37.407a-b
created: This entry is taken from Against John of Jerusalem 37.407a-b written by Jerome i
edition published: 2023-06-30-05:00
language: la; la
availability: Except for materials quoted from other sources, this entry is copyright 2023 by the contributors (Joseph L. Rife, et al.) and the Caesarea City and Port Exploration Project. It is licensed under the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. Some texts quoted in this entry may be in the public domain in the United States. No copyright is asserted for these quotations. Some texts quoted in this entry may have copyright restrictions and are reused under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

https://caesarea-maritima.org/testimonia/370

Caesarea

,

Caesariensem

, and

Caesaream

are directly attested at Jerome, Against John of Jerusalem 37.407a-b. This passage was written ca. 397 C.E. possibly in Bethlehem. During the mid-390s St. Jerome was embroiled in the Origenist controversy with leading figures of the Church in the East. Following the open hostility between the bishops Epiphanius of Salamis and John of Jerusalem, Jerome opposed his bishop John on an accusation that amounted to heresy for his purported embrace of the teachings of Origen. In 397 Jerome sent a vehement and detailed essay to Pammachius, one of his noble Roman coterie, in part sustaining Epiphanius’ assault against John and in part defending himself against John’s specific complaints to Pope Siricius at Rome. Toward the end, Jerome rebukes John for appealing to Theophilus bishop of Alexandria against him, when in fact he should have recognized the authority of Caesarea and Antioch over the see of Jerusalem.

Tu qui regulas quaeris ecclesiasticas, et Nicaeni concilii canonibus uteris, et alienos clericos et cum suis episcopis commorantes tibi niteris usurpare, responde mihi, ad Alexandrinum episcopum Palaestina quid pertinet? Ni fallor, hoc ibi decernitur, ut Palaestinae metropolis Caesarea sit et totius Orientis Antiochia. Aut igitur ad Caesariensem episcopum referre debueras, cui spreta communione tua communicare nos noveras; aut si procul expetendum judicium erat, Antiochiam potius litterae dirigendae. Sed novi cur Caesaream, cur Antiochiam nolueris mittere. Sciebas quid fugeres, quid vitares. Maluisti occupatis auribus molestiam facere, quam debitum metropolitano tuo honorem reddere. Nee hoc dico, quod praeter amicitias, quae suspicionem generant, quidquam in legatione reprehendam; sed quia apud interrogantes magis et praesentes te purgare debueris.

[Ed. Migne 1883] [Minor corr. (punctuation)]

You who ask for ecclesiastical rules, apply the canons of the Council of Nicaea, and seize control over priests in another diocese and actually living with their own bishops, answer my question: what has Palestine to do with the bishop of Alexandria? Unless I am deceived, it is decreed in those canons that Caesarea is the metropolis of Palestine, and Antioch of the whole East. Therefore you ought either to appeal to the bishop of Caesarea, with whom you know that we have communion while we spurn communion with you, or, if judgement were to be sought from afar, letters ought rather to be addressed to Antioch. But I know why you were unwilling to send letters to Caesarea or to Antioch. You knew what to escape, what to avoid. You preferred to assail with your complaints ears that were preoccupied rather than pay due honor to your metropolitan. And I do not say this because I have anything to blame in the mission itself, except certain partialities which beget suspicion; I say this because you ought rather to clear yourself in the actual presence of your questioners.

[Adapted from Fremantle 1892]

Works Cited

[...] 37 407a-b
[...]

Additional Bibliography

[...]

[Alexandria

Antioch

Nicaea

Palestine]

[John, bishop of Jerusalem

St. Jerome]

[Christianity

Government and Law]