Vigilantius

A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography

Vigilantius (1) , a presbyter of Comminges and Barcelona, known by his protests against superstitious practices in the church. He was born c. 370 at Calagurris, near Comminges (Convenae), a station on the great Roman road from Aquitaine to Spain ( Itiner. Antonin. quoted in Gilly's Vigilant. p. 128). His father probably kept the statio or place of refreshment there; and Vigilantius was apparently brought up as an inn-keeper and wine-seller "Iste Caupo Calagurritanus," Hieron. cont. Vig. 1), but had from the first an inclination to learning. Sulpicius Severus, who had estates in these parts, took him into his service, and probably baptized him. It is certain that in 395 he was sent with letters from Sulpicius to Paulinus, then recently settled at Nola (Paul. Ep. i. 11), by whom he was treated as a friend. Paulinus speaks of hm as "Vigilantius noster" ( Ep. v. 11), and reports the care with which he had watched him during illness, refusing to let him depart till well. On his return to Severus, then living at Elusa in Gaul, he was ordained; and, having a desire for learning and a wish to visit Jerusalem, set forth by way of Nola. His father, it seems, had died, since he was wealthy enough to have many notaries in his employ (Hieron, Ep. lxi. 4), and he was the proprietor of the inn at Convenae ( ib. lxi. 3; cont. Vig. i.). Paulinus gave him a very honourable introduction to Jerome (Hieron. Ep. lxi. 3), then living at Bethlehem, where he was received with great respect (lviii. 11). He remained there a considerable time, staying partly with Jerome, but partly, it is supposed, with others, possibly with Rufinus (Hieron. Apol. iii. 11). The schism between the monasteries of Bethlehem and the bp. of Jerusalem was at its height; and probably in connexion with this Vigilantius had his first disagreement with Jerome (Hieron. Ep. lxi. 1; Apol. iii. 19). Origenism, which had caused the schism, and with which Vigilantius afterwards connected Jerome's name, was, no doubt, the subject of this disagreement. But Vigilantius was brought to confess himself in the wrong and to ask pardon (Hieron. Ep. lxi. end). He was an inmate of Jerome's monastery on the occasion of a tremendous storm with earthquake and eclipse ( cont. Vig. ii.). He was for a time favourably impressed by what he saw at Bethlehem, and on one occasion, when Jerome was preaching upon the reality of the body at the resurrection, sprang up, and with applause of hands and feet saluted Jerome as champion of orthodoxy ( Ep. lxi. 3). But the extremes of asceticism, the corruption produced by indiscriminate almsgiving, and the violence, perhaps the insincerity, of Jerome's dealing with the question of Origen [HIERONYMUS, § Origenism] produced a reaction against Jerome. Vigilantius begged to be dismissed, and left in great haste ( Ep. cix. 2) without giving any reason. He bore Jerome's reply to Paulinus at Nola ( Ep. lxi. 11); but his journey home was first by Egypt ( ib. 1; cont. Ruf. iii. 12), "by Hadria and the Cottian Alps" (Hieron. Ep. cix. 12). He landed probably at Naples, and, after visiting Nola, went home by the land route, staying a considerable time at various places. His account of what he had seen in the East, which was related to Jerome either by report or by some writing of Vigilantius to or about Jerome, provoked a reply ( Ep. lxi.), wherein Jerome shews a jealous sensitiveness for his own orthodox reputation, and treats him with contempt, declaring that he had never understood the points in dispute (lxi. 1). On his return to Gaul, Vigilantius settled in his native country.

His work against superstitious practices was written c. 403. We may presume that his intercourse with Severus, Paulinus, and Jerome furnished the principal motives and materials for it. Similar practices no doubt arising in a grosser form in his own neighbourhood among a population emerging from heathenism provoked his protest against the introduction of heathen ceremonial into Christian worship. The work is only known to us through the writings of Jerome, of whose unscrupulousness and violence in controversy we have many proofs. Nothing of the kind appears in the quotations from the book of Vigilantius, which, considering the extreme difficulty of his position in the rising flood of superstition, we must presume to have been a serious and faithful protest. It was not written hastily, under provocation, such as he may have felt in leaving Bethlehem, but after the lapse of six or seven years. His own bishop (Hieron. Ep. cix. 1) and others in his neighbourhood ( cont. Vig. ii.) approved his action, and he was apparently appointed after the controversy to a church in the diocese of Barcelona (Gennad. ut infra ).

The points against which he argues are four: (1) The superstitious reverence paid to the remains of holy men, which were carried round in the church assemblies in gold vessels or silken wrappings to be kissed, and the prayers in which their intercession was asked; (2) the late and frequent watchings at the basilicas of the martyrs, from which scandals constantly arose, the burning of numerous tapers, which was a heathen practice, the stress laid on the miracles performed at the shrines, which, Vigilantius maintained, were of use only to unbelievers; (3) the sending of alms to Jerusalem, which might better have been given to the poor in each diocese, and generally the monkish habit of divesting oneself of possessions which should be administered as a trust by the possessor; and (4) the special virtue attributed to the unmarried state. Vigilantius held that for the clergy to be married was an advantage to the church; and he looked upon the solitary life as a cowardly forsaking of responsibility.

The bishop of the diocese (possibly Exuperius of Toulouse, known to have had communications with pope Innocent about this time on points of discipline) strongly favoured the views of Vigilantius, and they began to spread widely in S. Gaul. The clergy who were fostering the practices impugned by him found their people imbibing his opinions, and two of them, Desiderius and Riparius, wrote to Jerome, representing the opinions of Vigilantius and asking for his advice. Jerome answered Riparius at once ( Ep. 109, ed. Vall.), expressing chagrin and indignation but without sober argument. He declares that no adoration was paid to martyrs, but that their relics were honoured as a means of worshipping God. He expresses wonder that the bishop of the diocese should acquiesce in Vigilantius's madness. It was a case for such dealing as that of Peter with Ananias and Sapphira. He offered to answer more fully if the work of Vigilantius were sent him. This offer was accepted. Through their friend Sisinnius, Riparius and Desiderius sent the book in the latter part of 406 ( Pref. to Comm. on Zach. ). Jerome gave little attention to it at first, but finding Sisinnius obliged to leave Bethlehem in haste, sat down, and in one night wrote his treatise contra Vigilantium . This treatise has less of reason and more of mere abuse than any which he wrote. He throughout imputes to his adversary extreme views, which it may certainly be assumed he did not hold.

What effect was produced by this philippic is unknown. Possibly Exuperius, if Vigilantius was in his diocese, by degrees changed towards him, and that it was on this account that Vigilantius passed into the diocese of Barcelona, where Gennadius places him. Jerome in his Apology (iii. 19) expressly repels the imputation of having asserted that the character of Vigilantius had been stained by communion with heretics. But the official leaders of the church came to reckon as enemies those whom Jerome had so treated, and Vigilantius was by degrees ranked among heretics. The judgment of Gennadius ( de Sc. Eccl. 35) is: "Vigilantius the presbyter, a Gaul by birth, held a church in the Spanish diocese of Barcelona. He wrote with a certain zeal for religion; but was led astray by the praise of men, and presumed beyond his strength; and being a man of elegant speech but not trained in discerning the sense of the Scriptures, interpreted in a perverse manner the second vision of Daniel, and put forth other works of no value, which must be placed in the catalogue of heretical writings. He was answered by the blessed presbyter Jerome." This judgment lasted long. In 1844 Dr. Gilly, canon of Durham, published a work on Vigilantius and his Times (Seeley), bringing together all the known facts, and shewing the true significance of his protest by describing the life of Severus, Paulinus, and Jerome from their own writings.

[W.H.F.]

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

a presbyter of the early part of the 5th century, belongs to the number of isolated testes veritatis who rose in opposition to the errors of the Church with respect to worship and morals, which were becoming increasingly notorious with the advancing years of the 4th century. He was a native of Calagurris, now Casere, in the county of Commenges (Convennae). His Gallic extraction is indisputably proven, despite the fact that some authorities have been misled into stating that he was of Spanish family. He was brought up to follow the business of inn-keeping; but in 395 (?) visited Paulinus of Nola (q.v.), and immediately afterwards was ordained presbyter. Recommended to Jerome by Paulinus, he traveled into the East and visited Jerusalem in 396, meeting with a friendly reception at the hands of Jerome, but making no favorable impression upon his heart. Jerome had two especially tender spots in his character-the one an inordinate vanity because of his learning, and the other an exalted opinion of his own orthodoxy; and Vigilantius managed to fret them both. He was not possessed of learned culture, though Gennadius credits him with being lingua politus; and yet he laid claim to the literary character; and, with the practical disposition of a Western mind, he objected to the speculative dogmatics of Origen, upon whose study Jerome was at that time employed, and even raised suspicions against the soundness of Jerome's personal views. Jerome at first attempted to prove the correctness of his creed; but Vigilantius, having refused to avail himself of the scholar's hospitality and departed from Jerusalem, felt himself bound by no restraints, and issued an epistle condemnatory of Jerome's Origenism (see Hieron. Ep. 109, 2, inter Adriae Fluctus Cottiique Regis Alpes), in response to which the irascible saint compared him to Judas and termed him an ass. Either just before, or immediately subsequent to, the sojourn at Jerusalem, Vigilantius went to Egypt, but the exact time is not determined; and a similar uncertainty surrounds the place of his residence on his return to the West. The letters of Jerome appear to compel the conclusion that his opponent was settled in Gaul, while Gennadius makes him to have charge of a parish in Barcelona. We incline to believe the former the only settlement of the question which can be successfully defended. Eight years after the departure of Vigilantius from Jerusalem, a presbyter named Riparius notified Jerome that his adversary was teaching very questionable doctrines and disturbing the entire (Gallic?) Church with the promulgation of his views. He thereupon renewed his attacks upon Vigilantius (Ep. Contra Vig. 18), but, much to the surprise of himself and other students of the situation, without giving wider dimensions to the quarrel; for Vigilantius was certainly supported by many of the lower clergy and of the laity, and was even protected by bishops. No answer was made to Jerome's abusive epistle, and Vigilantius thenceforward drops out of view, either because he soon afterwards died, or because the barbarian invasions of Gaul crowded the paper quarrels of incensed churchmen out of sight.

The views which stirred the soul of Jerome to wrath are not preserved to us in sufficient fullness to furnish a connected system. The primary object of attack by Vigilantius was the veneration of martyrs and of relics. He doubted the genuineness of the relics, and condemned the bearing about of dead men's bones enswathed in costly wrappings. He also considered the invocation of martyrs as a deifying of the creature and a step backward into heathenism, and insisted that it implies the doctrine of their omnipresence, and that their intercession cannot be safely relied upon, since their prayers in their own behalf were not always answered. He held that the miraculous power with which relics were supposed to be endowed had not extended further than to the close of the distinctively missionary period of the Church. The burning of daylight candles in the basilicas was rejected by him on the ground that the martyrs, in whose honor the basilicas were erected, were rejoicing in the light of the Lamb on the throne, and had no need of such illuminations. The celebration of vigils (q.v.) and martyrs feasts was denounced as involving danger to public morals; but he violated consistency in consenting that vigils might be kept in connection with the Easter festival.

In the field of morals, Vigilantius draws still nearest to the evangelical position, particularly upon the question of the celibacy of the priesthood, which he condemned, as he did monasticism, with its voluntary vows of poverty and solitude. He reasoned that it is better to contribute regularly to the relief of the poor than toe alienate possessions by a single act, and that to flee from the world is not to conquer it. He was especially outspoken in criticisms of the fanatical monks of the East, whose fantastic eccentricities he had himself observed. He furthermore opposed the donations of money, which it was customary to send to Jerusalem a measure, which Jerome might almost regard as a direct attack upon himself. In all these arguments, Vigilantius evidently holds that there is no distinction of morality into higher and lower classes, but that the demands of virtue are equally binding upon all men. He was not the equal of Jovinian (q.v.) in speculative ability, but merely a clear-headed exponent of the instinct of an earnest piety which lived in his soul. He was pious rather than philosophical; and he was, moreover, not deeply learned in the Scriptures. His work was not of lasting consequence, probably because he lacked the reformatory spirit which alone is competent to resist the perverse tendencies of a degenerating age. See Jerome, Epp. and De Viris Illustribus, with the continuation of Gennadius (q.v.); Paulinus of Nola, Ep. ad Severum, 5, 11 (Aug. Epp. 24. 4); Vogel, De Vigilantio Haretico Orthodoxo (Erfurt, 1756), in Walch, Ketzergesch 3, 673-704. The latter gives, in addition, citations from other and earlier writers. See also Baur, Die christl Kirche vom 4. bis un 6. Jahrhundert, p. 317 sq.; and Lindner, De Joviniano et Vigilantio, etc. (Lips. 1840); Herzog, Real-Encyklop. s.v.