In a Journal of Early Christian Studies article from the 1990's David Hunter argues contrary to Jerome and later interpreters (such as Edward Gibbon) that the late fourth century protests of Vigilantius of Calagurris were not the result of innovation on his part, nor the lone voice of an outlier, but rather represented an extant and thus older tradition in protest to a newly developing piety.
Hailing from Southern Gaul, Vigilantius was famously attacked
by Jerome for his criticisms regarding ascetic practice, monasticism, the
veneration of relics, and the growing body of theology regarding intercession
for the dead. While some of these practices were extant prior to Constantine,
the fourth century represented an explosion of new piety and a theology to go
with it.
Hunter establishes the context and focuses on the growth of
relic veneration which was being aggressively promoted by the likes of Ambrose
of Milan. He also makes a strong case suggesting that while Vigilantius certainly
had his enemies, he in fact had many ecclesiastical allies in the West – an
often missed point made in passing by Jerome. If one understands the growth of
asceticism as emanating from the Orient (the Levant, Asia Minor, and Egypt) and
relic worship from similar locales and moving West as demonstrated with Ambrose's
promotion of them in Italy, then it shouldn't surprise us to find that the
'backwards' and less cosmopolitan districts of the Western periphery – places
like Gaul, Iberia, and perhaps North Africa represent a form of conservatism –
as would Britain in the subsequent centuries. Change was afoot, a change
unleashed in particular by the events surrounding Constantine's legislation and
transformation of the Roman Empire – which would reach its culmination during
the reign of Theodosius (379-395). Additionally, there were ongoing debates
over the execution of Priscillian and his followers (c.385) and the larger
implications of that action. These tragic events took place less than twenty
years before the controversy surrounding Vigilantius erupted – with Jerome
writing his Contra Vigilantius in 406,
a few years after the events in question. The debate was touchy as the ecclesiastical
mainstream defended the growing ethos of asceticism (and its monastic
corollary) even while condemning Priscillian as an extremist. But it might be a
mistake to reckon these people as the 'conservatives'.
Hunter also suggests Jerome's own views and place within the
Origenistic Controversies left him somewhat compromised and might have played a
part in his reaction to the Gallic presbyter – who made accusations against
him. In other words a case can be made that Jerome was out to destroy
Vigilantius' character and standing.
As mentioned, a case can also be made that a new piety was
forming during this period. The record is plain enough – it was a time of great
innovation and many practices in the realm of liturgy and piety that became
common during the subsequent Middle Ages find their genesis during this time.
The fact that they were widely accepted is not disputed as proponents of the
Constantinian Shift/Great Apostasy narrative will freely admit. The world
invaded the Church and its clear most were content with the new arrangement. The
history isn't in question. Primarily this is a debate concerning authority, the
role of Scripture versus Tradition and so forth. How one answers these
questions informs how one interprets the history.
But in terms of the history itself, it is also clear that
there were voices of dissent and the nature of these minority voices and their
geographical placement is also of interest and raises many questions that still
have not been answered – and may not be this side of glory. We also know that
in subsequent centuries the Roman Catholic Church destroyed the writings of
opponents and resistors to both its theology and its narratives. It is likely
no accident that the works of Vigilantius did not survive and we are (ironically)
forced to reconstruct his works from the writings of his bitter opponent
Jerome.
It's interesting if not refreshing to read of Vigilantius'
equation of relic veneration and the liturgical developments surrounding it as
rituals 'almost pagan' – a seeming recognition of what was transpiring during
this period of syncretism.
There are other issues of interest (touched on by Hunter) concerning
the Divine and saintly presence in the relics and the question of
fragmentation. If the saint's body has been divided into multiple pieces placed
in multiple locations – how then is the saint present? Are they in possession
of some kind of ability akin to omnipresence? Are they metaphysically divided?
These questions were in the air as the practice was novel and the tradition not
yet fully established or understood.
Victricius of Rouen who received relics from Ambrose defends
their veneration and reckons with such theological inquiries in a most
non-scholastic fashion – dismissing such questions as philosophically-driven speculation.
One can sympathize with his polemical methods and objections even if one cannot
agree with his apologia for the practice.
Vigilantius rightly relies on Scripture, turning to a passage
like Revelation 6 to argue that the saints are told to rest and do not appear
to have the power of intercession. His argument is true but coming from
Revelation it is easily entangled by the myriad interpretations men have
generated from that work. There are of course other Scriptures that could be
employed to refute the idolatry.
In the end, because we do not have the writings of
Vigilantius but must rely on Jerome's (often dubious) word, we are limited in
our ability to interpret what he said and what his writings might have told us
about the Church in Gaul during the late fourth and early fifth century. It
remains a fascinating if elusive question but the article was refreshing in
that it not only called into question the likes of Jerome and Gibbon but by
implication that the arguments and interpretations of historians like Philip
Schaff must be called into question.
Gibbon's use of the proto-Protestant label with regard to
Vigilantius has generated controversy over the centuries and in some respects
it is misleading. For the Enlightenment era commentator, it simply suggests
that he was a progressive before his time – that he had worked through certain
points that led him to effectively break with the mindset of Late Antiquity and
the Middle Ages – a kind of anachronistic expression of modernity. That would
be in keeping with certain aspects of the Magisterial Reformation (as
highlighted by historians like Schaff and others) but this is not in keeping
with the First Reformation/Primitivist position I argue for. The
proto-Protestantism of the First Reformation was of a different character than
how pre-sixteenth century would-be reformers are viewed (and used) by
contemporary proponents of the Magisterial Reformation.
The Primitivism in connection with the First Reformation
rejects the pre-modernist and modernist views of the Magisterial Reformation
and at the same time rejects much of the Medieval mindset as well – though at
times can find certain affinities with it. This is in keeping with the world
and context in which Vigilantius was based and the outlook of the Church in
that setting. Despite the majority embrace of the Constantinian transformation,
it's clear there were nevertheless not a few leaders apprehensive about the new
Christianity associated with men like Constantine and Theodosius – and the new
piety which emerged in its wake. Vigilantius was not a Magisterial
Reformation-type Protestant before his time but represents New Testament
primitivism in keeping with the (also named) proto- (or first) Protestantism of
the First Reformation. It could be said that Gibbon was right in what he said,
but for the wrong reasons.
For many, the likes of Vigilantius and Claudius of Turin
remain largely ignored footnotes in the historical record. There are
nevertheless lessons to be gleaned and their testimonies provide a great deal
worthy of reflection.
See also:
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2020/09/testimonies-of-early-dissent.html