demned in a council, held in 387, by Flavian, Bishop of Antioch, and also in another council, held about the same time by St. Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, the Metropolis of Pamphilia (24). They were finally condemned in the first Council of Ephesus, especially in the seventh session, and they were proscribed by the Emperor Theodosius, in the year 428. It was a long time before this heresy was finally extinct in the East, and in 1018, during the reign of the Emperor Alexius Comnenus, another heresy sprung out of it, the followers of which were called Bonomilists, which signifies, in the Bulgarian language, the beloved of God. Their founder was Basil, a physician, or monk, who, after practising his errors for fifty-two years, and deluding a great number, was burned alive, with all his followers, by order of the Emperor. This unfortunate man promulgated many blasphemous opinions, principally taken from the Messalians and Manicheans; he said that we should use no prayer, except the "Our Father," and rejected every other prayer but that which, he said, was the true Eucharist; that we ought to pray to the devil even, that he might not injure us, and that we should never pray in churches, for our Lord says: "When you pray, enter into your chamber;" he denied the books of Moses, and the existence of the Trinity, and it was not, he said, the Son of God, who became incarnate, but the Archangel Michael. He published many other like opinions, so that there is little doubt but that he lost, not alone the faith, but his senses likewise (25). 82. About the year 380, the heresy of the Priscillianists first appeared in the East. The founder of this sect was an Egyptian of Memphis, of the name of Mark; he went to Spain, and his first disciples were, a lady of the name of Agapa, and Elpidius, a rhetorician, invited to join him by the lady. These two next wheedled Priscillian to join them, and from him the sect took its name. Priscillian was both noble and rich; he had a great facility of speech, but was unsettled, vain, and proud of his knowledge of profane literature. By his affable manners he gained a great number of followers, both noble and plebeian, and had a great number of women, especially, adherents, and soon the heresy spread like a plague over great part of Spain, and even some bishops, as Instantius and Salvianus, were infected by it. The foundation of this doctrine was Manicheism, but mixed up with the Gnostic, and other heresies. The soul, they said, was of the substance of God himself, and of its own will came on earth, passing through the seven heavens, to combat the evil principle, which was sown in the body of the flesh. They taught that we depended altogether on the stars, which decided our fate, and that our bodies depended on the signs of the zodiac, the ram presiding over the head, the bull (24) Fleury, t. 3, l. 19, n. 25; Nat. Alex. t. 8, c. 3, ar. 16; Orsi, t. 8, l. 12, n. 78. (25) Graveson, Hist. Eccl. t. 3, col. 2; Nat. Alex. t. 8, c. 4, ar. 5; Gotti. Ver. Rel. t. 2, e. 88, s. 2; Van Ranst, Hist. sec. xii. p. 195; Bernini, t. 2, c. 1. over the neck, the twins over the back, and so on with the remainder of the Twelve Signs. They made merely a verbal profession of the doctrine of the Trinity, but they believed, with Sabellius, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, were one and the same thing, and that there was no real distinction of persons. They did not reject the Old Testament, like the Manicheans, but they explained everything in it allegorically, and they added many apocryphal books to the canonical ones. They abstained from meat, as an unclean thing, and separated married people, notwithstanding the repugnance manifested by those who were not followers of their sect, and this they did through hatred of procreation; for the flesh, they said, was not the work of God, but of the devil; but they used to assemble by night for prayer, and the lights being extinguished, indulged in revolting and promiscuous licentiousness; however, they denied all this when caught. and they taught their followers to practise the doctrine contained in the Latin distich: "Jura perjura, secretum prodere noli"-" Swear away, but never tell the secret." They used to fast on every Sunday, and even on Easter Sunday and Christmas-day, and on these days they used to hide themselves, and not appear at church; their reason for this conduct was their hatred of the flesh, as they believed that Christ was not really born or arose in the flesh, but only in appearance. They used to receive the Eucharist in the church, like other Christians, but they did not consume the species. They were condemned in the Council of Saragossa, by St. Damasus, and in several particular synods. Finally, Priscillian was condemned to death, at the instance of Ithacius, Bishop of Ossobona, in the year 383, by Evodius, appointed Prefect of the Pretorium by the tyrant Maximus (26). 83. St. Augustin (27) speaks of some heretics who lived about this time, and always went barefooted, and taught that all Christians were bound to do likewise (28). 84. Audæus, chief of the Audæans, was born in Mesopotamia, and was at first a man of exemplary life, and a strict observer of ecclesiastical discipline, but afterwards separated from the Church, and became founder of a sect. He celebrated Easter after the Jewish rite, and said that man was like to God corporeally; interpreting, in the plainest literal sense, that passage of Genesis, where the Lord says: "Let us make man in our own image and likeness;" and he and his followers were Antropomorphites. Noel Alexander says that the only error of the Audæans was in separating themselves from the Church, but as for the rest, they never deviated from the faith; but Petavius (29), and others, attribute to them the (26) Nat. Alex. t. 8, c. 3, ar. 17; Fleury, t. 3, l. 17, n. 56, & l. 18, n. 30; Orsi, t. 8, L. 18, n. 44 & 100. (27) St. Augus. I. de Her. c. 68. (28) Nat. Alex. ibid. ar. 20. (29) App. Roncag. Nota, ad N. Alex. t. 8, c. 3, ar. 9; Diz. Portat. t. 1, Ver. Audæo ; Berti, t. 1, sec. 4, c. 3. errors of the Antropomorphites, since they attributed to God, literally, the corporeal members the Scripture mystically speaks of. He also taught some errors concerning the administration of the sacrament of penance, and died in the country of the Goths, in ~370 (30). CHAPTER V. HERESIES OF THE FIFTH CENTURY. ARTICLE I. THE HERESIES OF ELVIDIUS, JOVINIANUS, AND VIGILANTIUS. 1. Heresy of Elvidius. 2. Errors of Jovinian. 3. Adverse Opinions of Basnage refuted. 4. Vigilantius and his Errors. 1. ELVIDIUS was a disciple of the Arian Ausentius, who was intruded into the See of Milan by the Emperor Constans, when he banished St. Dionisius. St. Jerome says he was a turbulent character, both as priest and layman; but, notwithstanding this high authority, it is doubtful whether he ever was a priest, because, as Noel Alexander says, he was a poor peasant, who scarcely knew his letters. He began to disseminate his heretical doctrines in the year 382. He said that the Blessed Virgin had other children.by St. Joseph, besides our Lord, and he relied on the authority of Tertullian for this blasphemy; but St. Jerome proves that Tertullian never held such doctrine. St. Ambrose, St. Epiphanius, and especially St. Jerome refuted the errors of Elvidius. He drew three arguments from the Scriptures in support of his heresy: First. That text of St. Matthew: "Before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. i. 18). He, therefore, argued, as the text says "before they came together," it is a proof that they afterwards did so. Next he adduced the twentyfifth verse of the same chapter: "And he knew her not until she brought forth her first-born son." Therefore, he argues he knew her after. St. Jerome, in his answer, says: Should I grieve or smile at this folly?" He then asks, in derision: If any one should say that Elvidius was seized on by death before he did penance, is that a proof that he did penance after death? He then brings other texts of Scripture to refute him. Our Lord says to his apostles, "Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world" (Matt. xxviii. 20); does that prove, says St. Jerome, that Jesus Christ will not be with his elect any more after the end of (30) Nat. Alex. loc. cit. the world? St. Paul says of Christ, "For he must reign until he hath put all his enemies under his feet" (Cor. xv. 25); so, when our Lord has conquered his enemies, he will reign no longer. In the book of Genesis it is said of the crow that left the ark, "That it did not return till the waters were dried up" (Gen. viii. 7); does it then follow that it returned to the ark when the waters were dried up? Away, then, with arguments of this sort, says St. Jerome (1); the Scripture here tells, not what was done, but what was not done-not what took place, but what did not. The second proof Elvidius adduces is taken from the text already mentioned (Matt. i. 25): " She brought forth her first-born son;" therefore, if he was her first-born, she must have had others after. St. Jerome answers this: The Lord commanded, that for every first-born a certain ransom should be paid a month after the birth (Numbers, xviii. 15, 16). Here, then, says St. Jerome, according to Elvidius, one might say: "How can I be obliged to pay a price for my firstborn after a month; how can I tell whether I shall ever have a second? I must wait till a second is born to me, and then I can pay for the first-born." But the Scripture says itself, that the firstborn is that which first "openeth the womb." The same is declared in Exodus, where it says: "The Lord slew every first-born in the land of Egypt" (Exod. xii. 29). Here there is no doubt, but that the text speaks of only-born as well as first-born. His third argument is from the text of St. Luke (viii. 19): "His mother and brethren came to him." Therefore, he had brothers; but St. Jerome proves, from a great many passages in the Scriptures, that firstcousins are also called brothers, and the brothers referred to in that text are St. James and St. John, the children of the other Mary, the sister of the Mother of God. 2. Jovinian shall now occupy our attention. He was a monk in Milan; and after spending the early years of his life in the austere practices of monastic life-fasting on bread and water, going barefooted, and labouring with his hands-he forsook his monastery, and went to Rome, where, as St. Ambrose (2) informs us, he began to disseminate his errors. After falling into this impiety he abandoned his mortified manner of living-went shod, and clothed in silk and linen garments-nourished and dressed his hair-frequented taverns, and indulged in play, banquets, delicate dishes, and exquisite wines-and still professed all along to be a monk, and led a life of celibacy, to avoid the responsibility of marriage. Preaching a doctrine pleasing to the senses, he soon had many followers of both sexes in Rome, who, having previously led chaste and mortified lives, now abandoned themselves to luxury, and got married. Jovinian was first condemned by Pope Siricus, in a Council, held in Rome, in the year 390, and soon after, in another Council, held (1) St. Hieron. l. 1, Comment. in cap. ii, Matt. (2) St. Ambrose, Ep. 41, n. 9. by St. Ambrose, in Milan. In the end he was exiled by the Emperor Theodosius, and afterwards by Honorius, to Boas, a maritime town of Dalmatia, and died there in misery, in the year 412 (3). He taught many errors: First, that marriage and virginity were equally meritorious; secondly, that those once baptized can sin no more; thirdly, that those who fast and those who eat have equal merit, if they praise God; fourthly, that all have an equal reward in heaven; fifthly, that all sins are equal; sixthly, that the Blessed Virgin was not a virgin after giving birth to our Lord (4). This last error was followed by Hinckmar, Wickliffe, Bucer, Peter Martyr, Molineus, and Basnage (5), but has been ably refuted by St. Jerome, and condemned in a Synod by St. Ambrose. Petavius says, that all the Fathers unanimously profess the belief in the virginity of the Blessed Virgin, as fixed by a decree of the Catholic faith. St. Gregory says, that, as Jesus Christ entered into the house, where the apostles were assembled, with the doors shut, in the same manner, at his nativity, he left the inviolated cloister of Mary. The letter of Theodotus of Ancira was approved of by the General Council of Ephesus, in which, speaking of the Blessed Virgin, he says: the birth of Jesus Christ makes her a mother without injury to her virginity. The third canon of the Lateran Council, celebrated in the year 649, under Martin I., says: that he should be condemned, who does not confess that the Mother of God was always a virgin. A similar declaration was made in the Council of Trullus, in 692, and in the eleventh Council of Toledo, in 675 (6). He was also condemned by St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Isidore Pelusiot, St. Proclus, St. John Chrysostom, St. John Damascenus, St. Augustin, St. Ambrose, St. Siricus Pope (who excommunicated him and his followers, in a synod held in Rome), St. Peter Chrysologus, St. Hilary, St. Prosper, St. Fulgentius, St. Eucherius, St. Paulinus, St. Anselm, St. Bernard, St. Peter Damian, and many others; and any one who wishes to see the opinions expressed by the Fathers, has only to look to Petavius's Theology (7). The text of Ezechiel: "This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened,' (Ezechiel, xliv. 2), is generally understood to refer to the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God, and St. Leo (8), Pope Hormisdas, Pelagius I., and the Council of Chalcedon, in the discourse addressed to the Emperor Marcion, all understood it thus. 3. Let us now hear what Basnage, and the heretics who hold the contrary opinion, have to say. Their first argument is founded on that text of Isaias: "Behold a virgin shall conceive, and shall bring forth a son" (Isaias, vii. 14), which St. Matthew, speaking of the Incarnation of the Divine Word, quotes (Matthew, i. 13). Basnage then argues on this text: The prophet says, that Mary con (3) Nat. Alex. t. 8, c. (4) Nat. Alex. t. 8, ar. 19. Con. t. 1, col. t. 10, col. 1151. 3, ar. 19; Orsi, t. 9, l. 20, n. 27; Fleury, t. 3, 1. 19. n. 25. (6) Col. (8) St. Leo, Epist. |