THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
being buried in the church of San Marcello on the Via Salaria. Vigilius was no uncompromising adherent of what he deemed right; and though it is true that the justice of the condemnation of the His three chapters is a moot question, that Character. the dogmatic verdict can not be rendered simply from the attitude of the Africans and their sympathizers, and that ecclesiastical polity had some reason to sacrifice Theodore for Chalcedon, all this does not justify his instability. And while his policy was, in its last analysis, the essentially papal principle of refusing to allow the State to dictate to the Church, he lacked ability to attain his ends by other than surreptitious means. When, under the influence of Pelagius, he demanded a free council on western soil and declined to attend the synod at Constantinople, he was on the right path, dangerous as this might prove when opposed to the policy of an emperor like Justinian; but his past was against him, and his recantation might have been expected. (G. Kricer.)
BrstioGRAPHy: Original documents are in MPL, Ixix. 15- 178; CSEL, xxxv. 230-320, 348 saq.; Jaffé, Regesta, i. 117-124; MGH, Epist., iii (1891), 57-68, and Auct. ant., xi (1893), 200 sqq. Consult further: Liber pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, i. 296-302, Paris, 1886; J. Basnage, Hist. de Véglise, i. 517-547, Rotterdam, 1699; J. Punkes, Papst Vigilius, Munich, 1864; lL. Duchesne, Vigile et Pélage, in Revue des questions historiques, xxxvi (1884), 369-381; B. Constant, in Pitra’s Analecta novissima, i (1885), 370-461; J. Langen, Geschichte der rémischen Kirche, i. 341-382, Bonn, 1885; Revue des questions historiques, xxxvii (1885), 540-578, 579-593; A. Knecht, Die Religionspolitik Justinians I., Wiirzburg, 1896; L. M. Hartmann, Geschichte Italiens im Mittelalter, i. 382-394, Leipsic, 1897; H. Grisar, Geschichte Roms und der Papste im Mittelalter, i. 502-507, 574-580, Freiburg, 1900; Bower, Popes, i. 345-370; Platina, Popes, i. 128-130; Milman, Latin Christianity, i. 462-470; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte,
vols. ii.iii. passim, Hing. transl., vol. iv. passim, Fr. transl., vols. ii.—ili. passim; DCB, iv. 1144-51 (full, names sources) ; KL, xii. 956-959; and the literature under THREH-CHAP- TERS CONTROVERSY.
VIGILIUS OF THAPSUS: Bishop of Thapsus (the modern Dimas or Ras Dimas, 90 m. s.e. of Tunis); flourished in the latter part of the fifth century. He is to be identified with the “ Vigilius Tapsitanus,” who with others was cited by Hunerich to appear at Carthage on Feb. 1, 484, to give an account of his faith; and probably also with the “‘ Vigilius Tapsensis,” who, according to the testimony of manuscripts, wrote three books against Eutychianism. No other details of his life are known with certainty, but it seems probable that after the disastrous termination of the visit to Carthage he was banished; at least, he must have been deposed like all the other Catholic bishops. According to Theodulf of Orléans (De Spiritu Sancto, MPL, cy. 273), and Aineas of Paris (Adv. Grecos, MPL, exxi. 717), Vigilius composed his works against Eutyches at Constantinople. More might be stated concerning the episcopal career of Vigilius could he be identified with the Vigilius to whom Celsus addressed his De Judaica incredulitate (Cyprian, ed. G. Hartel, Vienna, 1871, III., iii. 119-132). He would then seem to have been a monk suddenly raised to the episcopate to end the controversies concerning the choice of a bishop at a time of per-
secution when bishops stood in imminent peril of death. This identification, however, is uncertain, and his own writings contain nothing concerning the events of his life.
Perceiving the spread of Eutychianism in the East, Vigilius wrote at the exhortation of his ‘‘ holy brethren” the Libri quinque contra Hutychetem (MPL, Ixii. 95-154) formerly ascribed to Vigilius of Trent (q.v.). dn his refutation of Eutyches he proceeds from the Catholic principle of the mean between the extreme and mutually antagonistic views of heretics. The date of the work is uncertain, but should probably be set not long after the Council of Chalcedon. In the fifth book Vigilius alludes to his polemics against Sabellius, Photinus, and Arius. This work, in three books, and entitled by the first editor of Vigilius (F. Chifflet, Victoris Vitensis et Vigilii Tapsensis provincie Bizacene episcoporum opera, Dijon, 1664) Contra Arianos, etc., dialogus (MPL, xii. 179-238), is in the form of a debate between Athanasius (Vigilius himself), Arius, Sabellius, and Photinus before the judge Probus (God). Sabellius and Photinus advance arguments which prove mutually destructive, so that only Athanasius and Arius remain, the victory being awarded the former by the judge. From this work an extract was made, apparently in the Carolingian period, in which only Arius and Athanasius debate, an introduction being provided on the basis of the ‘‘ Church History ” of Rufinus (MPLZ, Ixii. 155-180). It is also very probable that the Liber contra Felicianum et Arianum de unitate Trinitatis ad Optatum (MPL, \xii. 333-352) was written by Vigilius.
Vigilius of Thapsus was the author of a number of other works now lost. In his Dialogus (ii. 45) he mentions a polemic ‘‘ against Maribadus,’”’ probably the deacon Marivadus, who enjoyed the special favor of Hunerich. Chifflet wrongly identified this lost work with the Idacii Clari Hispani contra Varimadum Arianum Liber et difficillimorum quorumque locorum de Trinitate declaratio (MPL, Ixii. 351-434), first edited by J. Sichardt in his Antidotum (Basel, 1528). Vigilius also replied to the attack of the Arian bishop Palladius on Ambrose (Dialogus, ii. 50). This work has likewise vanished. Chifflet wrongly ascribed to Vigilius the De Trinitate libri duodecim (MPL, \xii. 237-334), but of these only books i.—viii. belong together, ix.-xii. being by another author, while even the first eight books represent a revised and enlarged second edition of the books i—vii. It is generally conceded that both these recensions were written in Spain, not Africa or Italy, at the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century. In all probability books i— vil. of the De Trinitate were written by Gregory of Elvira (q.v.), the author of the pseudo-Ambrosian De fide (MPL, \xii. 449-468), whose seven books De Trinitate, written before 383, had been suspected of Sabellianism, and who had accordingly composed the De fide and revised his seven books, besides adding an eighth. The Libellus fidei, the ninth book of the De Trinitate, must be by the same author. Books xxii. of the De Trinitate have not yet been sufficiently studied. The concluding portions of the first and second parts are repeated word