I don't agree with the conclusion that Jovinian's teaching arose mainly due to Jerome's ascetic campaign at Rome in the years 383-385. I prefer to agree with Hunter.
Ambrose, Jerome. Damasus and Siricius were united in reformulating the church on the basis of a neo-Manichaean caste system, and relying on imperial power to achieve it, and so were very sensitive to allegations of Manichaeism condemned by the Emperors. The "heresy" and persecution of Jovinian was surely not narrowly related to objections to Jerome's particular activities, but to his undermining of the very powerful aristocratic clique running the church, and to his aspersions of Manichaeism against that clique. That Jovinian's attentions were directed to the prevailing philosophy of the church is evidenced by his extensive reliance on scripture, and broad arguments; and reflected in his forceful condemnation by the likes of Siricius, a veritable wolf in sheep's clothing judging by the tone of his letters.
Against this background I suspect the Priscillianists with their own neo-Manichaean practices were seen as far less objectionable than Jovinian.
Naturally Jovinian and his party was hated and persecuted in a similar way to the English protestants before the reign of Elizabeth I.
Last edited:
