A. D. 406. Par. 9, 10. Tapers and wax-lights. P. 401. leaders of the Gnostics in the second century. Basilides was eminently fanciful and visionary. He defended the doctrine of the Seven Eons, and averred that from two of these, called Power and Wisdom, proceeded the highest order of angelic beings. Upon this notion he grafted many others equally fantastic and derogatory from the glory of the Supreme. Now the whole system advocated by Vigilantius was the very reverse of what may be termed visionary; but Basilides was also accused of encouraging profligacy, and it was for this reason that Jerome put Vigilantius among the followers of that heretic. The next paragraphs revert to topics previously treated upon, and profess to refute the objections of Vigilantius to the use of tapers and wax-lights at the shrines and in the churches, to the veneration of relics and to vigils. Jerome denied that candles were lighted in the day-time, during religious services, for the reasons assigned by Vigilantius: but assuredly the practice was becoming common,* and justified the warning voice of Vigilantius, who protested against adopting any customs of the kind in imitation of idolatrous worship. It was forbidden to the ancient church of God to imitate the religious practice of the gentiles, and he considered that the Church of Christ ought also to abstain from them. The use of wax-lights, in processions, was notoriously of heathen origin. *Paulinus boasted that lights were burning day and night in honour of St. Felix. Nocte dieque micant.'-Natal. 3. 102. The Council of Eliberis prohibited it,* and Lactantius denounced it in language quite as strong as any which Vigilantius could have uttered. They light up candles to God, as if he lived in the dark; do they not therefore deserve to pass for madmen who offer lamps to the author and giver of light?' Jerome quotes Psalm cxix. 105, Matt. xxv. 1, Luke xii. 35, John v. 35, in defence of the custom. He might as well have cited Virgil, ' O Lux Dardaniæ, spes O fidissima Teucrum.'-Æn. ii. 281. or Homer, · Νύμφας δ' ἐκ θαλάμων, δάιδων ὑπολαμπομενάων A. D. 406. services over the relics of martyrs. In deprecation of the custom of administering Sacramental the sacrament of the Lord's Supper upon the altars or tombs, under which the bones of the apostles and martyrs were deposited, Vigilantius had asked, 'Do the souls of the martyrs love their own ashes; do they hover about them, and are they always present there, lest if a votary should come during their absence his invocation would not be heard?' This sensible way of showing the absurdity of p. 404. the practice raised the anger of Jerome to such a pitch, that he stigmatized it as the dregs of the heresy of Eunomius and of the Caïnan heresy,t * Cereos per diem placuit in cœmeterio non incendi.' + The Cainites were a branch of the Gnostics, who spoke contemptuously of martyrdom in the second century: so called from A. D. 406. p. 405, 6. and imputed to Vigilantius a contempt for martyrdom altogether-' I wonder you do not tell us that martyrdoms ought to be exploded, for God, who requires not the blood of goats and bulls, requires that of men still less. Though you have not exactly said as much as this, yet you will be considered as having said it. You who assert that the relics of the martyrs are to be trampled on, do in reality forbid that blood to be spilled, which is worthy of no honour." * Here is another instance of the unscrupulous conduct of Jerome when he was resolved to crush an opponent. He puts words into the mouth of Vigilantius which Vigilantius did not utter. He had nothing to advance in proof of Vigilantius having spoken contemptuously of the martyrs or of their ashes, and yet he takes upon himself to say, that a refusal to enshrine relics was tantamount to the belief and assertion that martyrdom was unnecessary and worthless in the eyes of God. But no wonder that the choleric monk, who was unsparing of Chrysostom and Augustine, should deal thus unfairly with Vigilantius for stoutly exposing the fanaticism of relicworship. Who after this will accept the evidence of Jerome as to the heresy of Vigilantius? But their ridiculous opinions about Cain. The names of Barbelus, and Balsamus, and Leusibora are also flung at Vigilantius, as if he partook of their absurdities. These heretics are among those enumerated by Irenæus. *The original (see p. 406) is embarrassing as it is now pointed: Quod quum dixeris.' Perhaps there should be a dash after dixeris, as in Virgil. Quos ego-sed melius motos componere fluctus.'En. i. 139. upon his authority solely, the presbyter of the Pyrenees has been placed on the list of heretics.* A. D, 406. Par. 10. nocturnal in the Vigilantius objected to the midnight assemblies Vigils and in the churches, and at the graves of the martyrs, assemblies because they were conducive in many cases to churches. scandalous immoralities. The Reformer was tender not only of the conduct but of the character of young Christians, and he well knew that much evil had resulted from the nocturnal prayer-meetings against which he protested. But everything that Vigilantius did and said must be derided and traduced he pleads for chastity, and he is called unchaste: he advocates the cause of pure religion, and he is called a heretic: he shows that the frequent celebration of vigils and night-watchings lead to mischief, and forthwith vigils and nightwatchings are defended by Jerome,—by the very man, who had before warned a matron, in whom he took an interest, not to allow her daughter to go to such meetings, except in her company, and who was well aware that many good men had foreseen and pointed out the danger.† * Bayle has observed upon the eagerness with which calumnies against Vigilantius have been propagated. For example, Jerome said in this treatise: Perhaps you will pretend, after the fashion of the gentiles, and the impious Porphyry and Eunomius, that these miracles are the tricks of devils' (see supra, p. 409). Baronius took up this ‘perhaps you will pretend,' and boldly asserted that Vigilantius did so pretend. Idem nebulo respuens sanctorum reliquias addebat illud horrendum dictu,' &c.-Sub anno 406, § 50. Had Vigilantius said anything like this, Jerome would have been glad enough to adduce it. Lindanus, Prateolus, Gaultier, Godeau, and Moreri have repeated the same calumny. + Hier. Op. Epis. ad Læt. 4. pars ii. p. 595. A. D. 406. Successive abuses. The Council of Eliberis, canon thirty-five, expressly forbade women to be present at the pernoctations held at the tombs of the saints, because of the flagitious proceedings which frequently took place on those occasions.* One abuse had followed another in rapid and appalling succession. First came the undue veneration. of the memory of holy men: then commemorations in their honour, which savoured of religious services, such as ought to be observed to glorify the Supreme only. Next the bones and ashes of the pious dead were pronounced to be objects worthy of religious reverence, and for those search was made, and imposture after imposture accompanied their exhumation, and exposure to the public eye. The translation of relics from place to place, the divulsion of them, and the deposit of them entire, or by morsels, under altars and in churches, led to solemn processions and pilgrimages, and to all manner of extravagant display. They were wrapt in fine linen, and placed in caskets of gold and silver enriched with precious stones, and the spots where they were enshrined were approached with the utmost awe. Observances, such as the heathens were wont to love, and which certainly were imposing and captivating, found acceptance with the clergy, because they attracted the people. * Placuit prohibere, ne feminæ in cœmeterio pervigilent, eo quod sæpe obtentu orationis latenter scelera committant.' In process of time these nocturnal assemblies were entirely prohibited. They became too scandalous to be tolerated (see Bellarm. de Eccl. Triumph. lib. iii.) and the objections of Vigilantius were justified by events. |