Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hilary’s Exile

  • Chapter
Hilary of Poitiers’ Role in the Arian Struggle

Part of the book series: Kerkhistorische Studiën ((KEST))

  • 32 Accesses

Abstract

Hilary arrived sometime before September 356, at his place of exile,1 which according to some sources was Phrygia.2 He himself alludes to his place of abode as the East,3 but also mentions more specifically the ten provinces of Asia,4 i.e. the diocese Asia which consisted of the province Asia, Hellespontus, Lydia, Phrygia (Phrygia prima or Pacatiana and Phrygia secunda or Salutaris), Caria, Provincia Insularis, Pisidia, Pamphylia and Lycia.5 The report that Hilary was banished to Phrygia may be correct, as he spent most of the time of his exile in this province,6 but it is evident that he was, to some extent free to go where he wished, and he certainly visited a number of cities.7

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. According to Sulpicius Severus, Chron. II 42,2 (CV 1.95,19–20) Hilary was in his fourth year of exile when the council was held at Seleucia in September 359. Cf. p. 31 n. 79 above.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Jerome, de viris illustribus c. 100; Sulpicius Severus, loc. cit.; Venantius Fortunatus, Vita S. Hil. I 5 (PL 88.442B).

    Google Scholar 

  3. W. Ensslin, “Valerius Diocletianus,” PVK, (Zweite Reihe) Vol. VII, 1948, col. 2457.

    Google Scholar 

  4. In his de Syn. 1 (PL 10.479B–480B) he wrote to his fellow-bishops in Gaul: cum frequenter vobis ex plurimis Romanarum provinciarum urbibus significassem.

    Google Scholar 

  5. E.g. Rufinus, b.e. X 32 (GCS 9,2 p. 994,13); Cassian, de incarnatione Domini contra Nestorium VII 24 (CV 17.382,20). In the quotations from Socrates, h.e. III 10 cited by Antweiler, op. cit.,p. 49 and from Sozomenus, h.e. III 14,41 cited by Reinkens, op. cit., p. 137 n. 5, there is no proof that reference is made to a title of a work.

    Google Scholar 

  6. De Trin. I 16 (PL 10.36B): quidam ita evangelicae fidei corrumpunt sacramentum; de Trin. I 17 (PL 10.37C): ut unum in fide nostra sint uterque.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jerome, de viri! ill. c. 86 and 100: adversus Arianos; Bp. 55,3 (CV 54.490,11–13): contra Arrianos. Schanz, op. cit., p. 295, points out that Jerome was very careless with regard to references to titles of works.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Contra Julianum I 3,9 (PL 44.645).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cassiodorus, de institution divinarum litterarum c. xvi (PL 70.1132C); Venantius Fortunatus, Vita S. Hil. I 14 (PL 88.447C).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Reinkens, op. cit., p. 138; Watson, op. cit., p. xxx; Bardenhewer, op. cit., p. 377; Schanz, op. cit., p. 295; Giamberardini, op. cit., p. 20 n. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  11. The line reads (PL 10.160A): consequens existimavimus omnem jam in primo (quarto) licet libro editionem hujus haereseos conscriptam, nunc quoque huic sexto inserere.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Watson, op. cit., p. xxxiii; Holmes, op. cit., p. 159. Holmes however is very dependent on Watson for his description of the events concerning Hilary.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Eg. I 30,32,24. Smulders, op. cit., p. 41 n. 113.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Reinkens, op. cit., p. 130; Bardenhewer, op. cit., p. 378; Schanz, op. cit., p. 294; Bardy, “Humaniste,” p. 13. Some unsolved problems remain, e.g. that in V 2 the fifth book is called the second book and VI 4 refers to the fourth as the first and yet just after that, the sixth is correctly referred to.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Galtier, op. cit., pp. 41–2; Watson, op. cit., pp xxxi—xxxiii, surmises that Books 2 and 3 formed a separate work, as well as Books 4–7. Even the remaining books, the eighth to the twelfth were published separately, according to Watson. However, when Hilary began to write Book 8, he had already determined to use his previous minor works. Finally he wrote Book 1 and then published all 12 as a complete book.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Reinkens, op. cit., p. 130. Bardenhewer, op. cit., p. 378; Schanz, op. cit., p. 295; Labriolle, op. cit., p. 347, and Griffe, op. cit., p. 171, also thought that it was written during his exile.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bardenhewer, loc. cit.; Schanz, op. cit., p. 294; Antweiler, op. cit., p. 22; McKenna, op. cit., p. vii; Smulders, op. cit., p. 194. Loofs, “Hilarius,” p. 60, thought that it must have been written even before he came to know of the homoeousianism, thus before the synod at Ancyra (358).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Smulders, op. cit., p. 281 n. 11, thought that de Trin. VII was written about the same time as his de Syn., i.e. winter 358–359.

    Google Scholar 

  19. De Trin. II 2 (PL 10.51A).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ibid. II 5 (PL 10.53C). According to II 1 the Apostles were commanded by the Lord only to preach the Gospel but the action of the heretics forced Hilary to go beyond this command and investigate the secrets of the divine nature, McKenna, op. cit., p. 38 n. 5. Hilary thought that the so-called baptismal command in Matt. 28:19, 20 was a perfect summary of the knowledge which was necessary for man’s salvation. See II 1.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ibid. II 3 (PL 10.51B–52A): De intelligentia enim haeresis, non de Scriptura est: et sensus, non sermo fit crimen.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ibid. V 1 (PL 10.129B–130C). Athanasius thought that there were three points which had to be considered when expounding a text, viz. Kateòv, Kai cò neóaconov, «di iò neây,ua,Or. c. Ar. I 54 (PG 26.124B).

    Google Scholar 

  23. In addition top. 50 n. 80 above, see Comm. in Matt. 13,1 (PL 9.993C). Cf. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, London, 1958, p. 47.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ad Const. (II) 9 (CV 65.204,9–11; PL 10.570A): omnes scriptural sine scripturae sensu loquuntur et fidem sine fide praetendunt. scripturae enim non in legendo sunt, sed in intellegendo neque in praeuaricatione sunt, sed in caritate.

    Google Scholar 

  25. J. N. Bakhuizen van den Brink, “Traditie,” Pro Regno Pro Sanctuario, Nijkerk, 1950, p. 13. In connection with this problem, see from the same author: “Traditio,” Nederlands Theologisch Ti/dschrift, Vol. 2 (1947–8), pp. 321–340 and “Traditio im theologische Sinne,” Vigiliae Christianae, Vol 13 (1959), pp. 65–86.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cf. for example de Trin. VIII 28; V 25; VII 7; VIII 40; VI 7. Athanasius used similar names in his Or. c. Ar.,e.g. Ariomanites, I 4 (PG 26.20A), III 58 (PG 26.444C); and in I 3 (PG 26.17C) he said that they are not Christians.

    Google Scholar 

  27. A. van Haarlem, Incarnatie en verlossing b Athanasius, Wageningen, 1961, pp. 97–8.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ibid. IV 12–13 (PL 10.104B–107A). It is repeated in VI 5–6 (PL 10.160A–161B). There are a few minor differences between these two texts. The Greek text is found in Athanasius, de Synodis 16 (PG 26.708C–712A; Hahn, § 186 p. 255).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ibid. IV 15. Tertullian, adv. Praxean 18 (ed. Evans p. 111), had stated that the confession of one God, the Father, does not deny the Son, but denies another God; but the Son is not another God.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ibid. IV 17 (PL 10.110B—C). Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. III 29 (PG 26.385A–388A), used a similar argument. He cites John 1:1–3, Phil. 2:6–8 and states that if one reads the Scriptures with these words in mind, it will be clear that God the Father spoke to the Son in the beginning when the world was created and man was made (Gen. 1:3,6, 26).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ibid. IV 17–18. Cf. Tertullian, adv. Prax. 12 (ed. Evans p. 101), for a similar argument. Novatian, de Trin. XXVI 146 (ed. Weyer p. 166), cited the account of the creation to prove that Christ was not the Father but the second Person in the Trinity, for in Gen. 1 the Father spoke to the Son.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ibid. IV 23–24. Novatian, de Trin. XVIII 103 (ed. Weyer p. 124), drew attention to the fact that the Angel was called Lord and God.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ibid. IV 25, 27. Novatian, de Trin. XVIII 105 (ed. Weyer p. 126f.), refuted those who thought that God was visible here, by stating that it was the Son Who was seen. Novatian saw in this receiving of the Son as a guest by Abraham, a foreshadowing of the Incarnation. Cf. Hilary, de Trin. IV 27 (PL 10.117B): sacramentum scilicet futurae corporationis agnoscens.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ibid. IV 29. Irenaeus, adv. Haer. III 6,1 (ed. Harvey II p. 21), said that the Son received power from the Father to judge Sodom. Cf. IV 58,4 (ed. Harvey II p. 280). Novatian, de Trin. XVIII 106 (ed. Weyer p. 128), also thought it was the Son of God Who caused the rain of fire. Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. II 13 (PG 26.173A), cited the same text to illustrate that Christ was Lord and King.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ibid. IV 32. Contrary to this view, Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. III 14 (PG 26.352A), declared that the angel was not the God of Abraham, but that God spoke through the angel just as He spoke in a cloud to Moses in the tabernacle.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ibid. IV 35. Irenaeus, adv. Haer. III 6,1 (ed. Harvey II p. 21), said that it was the Father Who anointed and the Son Who was anointed. Tertullian, adv. Prax. 13 (ed. Evans p. 102), said that Two are called “God” in this text. Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. I 46 (PG 26.108A), used this text to refute the Arian view that Christ was anointed to become God. Athanasius contended that He was already God and King and therefore He was anointed for our sake.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ibid. IV 38. Cf. Tertullian, adv. Prax. 13 (ed. Evans p. 102). Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. II 23 (PG 26.196C), used this text to illustrate how the Son will be worshipped by all nations.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ibid. IV 42 (PL 10.128B): pater Deus et filius Deus unum sunt, non unione personae, sed substantiae unitate. Unio was a technical expression used to indicate the doctrine of Sabellius and corresponds to the Greek,uovdç. It differs from unitas in that unitas refers to the nature and unio to the persons. Cf. PL 10.128 n. f and Smulders, op. cit., p. 122 n. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ibid. V 3: Nulli autem dubium est, veritatem ex natura et ex virtute esse (PL 10.131C). Cf. Itaque quia naturae virtus praestat veritatem (PL 10.132A).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ibid. V 11,13. Novatian, de Trin. XVIII 103 (ed. Weyer p. 124), also remarks that the Angel could not have promised a blessing of offspring if He had not been God. The context however in which Novatian used this text, was to prove that not God the Father was seen as an Angel but the Son of God.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Cf. Arius in his Thalia (Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. I 6 PG 26.21C–24A). 46 De Trin. V 14.

    Google Scholar 

  42. It is not quite clear to which confession Hilary refers. In the above-mentioned letter of Arius (de Trin. IV 12), Hilary has “omnium creatorem” instead of “omnium judicem” which is the reading of the Greek text. It may however be a reference to Ps. 7:12 which is cited in de Trin. IV 8 (PL 10.101B), where Hilary quotes a number of texts which the Arians adduced as proof that God the Father was One.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ibid. V 19. Tertullian, adv. Prax. 14 (ed. Evans pp. 104–106), maintained that God had said that no one could see His face and live. Yet Jacob said that he had seen God (Gen. 32:30) and therefore it was the Son Whom he had seen. Novatian, de Trin. XIX 112–113 (ed. Weyer p. 134), said that Jacob had struggled with a Man and yet entreated His blessing because he knew that it was God. Cf. Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. III 12 (PG 26.348A).

    Google Scholar 

  44. De Trin. V 32. In 31 Hilary pointed out that the context shows that in vss. 1 and 2 the Speaker was the same as in 13–16.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ibid. II 3 (PL 10.52A); VIII 40 (PL 10.267A). Cf. Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. III 6 (PG 26.333A).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ibid. VI 26. Irenaeus, adv. Haer. IV 11,5 (ed. Harvey II p. 161), said that only the Son can reveal knowledge of the Father to mankind.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hilary changed the text by making it negative. His version might be a combination of John 7:28 and 8:19.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Arius in his Thalia (Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. I 6 PG 26.24A), had asserted that the Father was invisible to the Son and that the Logos was unable to see or know His Father.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Cf. Arius in his Thalia (Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. I 5 PG 26.21A).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ibid. VI 30–31. Novatian, de Trin. XV 83 (ed. Weyer p. 104), said that had Christ merely been a man, He could not have said that He had gone forth from God (John 8:42), for man was created by God and did not go forth from God.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Hilary probably alluded to the cited letter of Arius (de Trin. IV 12) which read: genuisse filium unigenitum ante omnia saecula… creaturam Dei perfectam.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ibid. XII 2. Smulders, op. cit., p. 152 n. 59, pointed out that here Hilary, who merely teaches an external sonship — the sonship of man being more of a new designation than a new being — differs from Athanasius, who saw an intimate relationship to God in our sonship. The believers, although by nature creatures, later become sons of God and thus have God the Creator as their Father. The Father, seeing His Son in us, therefore also calls us sons (Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. II 59 PG 26.272B–273C). P. T. Wild, The Divinization of Man according to Saint Hilary of Poitiers, Mundelein, 1950, p. 50 n. 9, corrected Smulders’ view to some extent, because in Hilary’s Commentary on the Psalms he does consider the adoption of man as something more intimate than a mere granting of the name of son. Cf. Wild, op. cit., pp. 55–6 n. 42.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Ibid. XII 15. Cf. J. P. Baltzer, Die Theologie der h. Hilarius von Poitiers, Rottweil, 1879, p. 12; Wild, op. cit., p. 51 n. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Ibid. VII 10. Irenaeus, adv. Haer. III 6,4 (ed. Harvey II p. 25), distinguished between people who were called “god” and the true God, and he mentioned the example of Moses (Ex. 7:1) who was only called “god.” Tertullian, adv. Prax. 13 (ed. Evans p. 103), cited Ps. 81(82): 6 to prove the Divinity of Christ by arguing that if those were called gods who by faith had been made sons of God, then the true and only Son of God has much more right to the name of God and Lord. This argument is found in John 10:34ff. Novatian, de Trin. XX 120 (ed. Weyer p. 140), used a similar argument in citing Ex. 7:1 and stating that if Moses received the name “god,” although only with restrictions, then the title could not be denied Christ, Who without restriction, is Lord and God of the whole creation.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ibid. VII 11. Nam cum audio, Et Deus eras Verbum; non dictum solum audio Verbum Deum, sed demonstratum intelligo esse quod Deus est: quia sicut superius in Moyse deo et in cognominatis diis per appellationem nomen adjectum sit; hic autem res significata substantiae est, cum dicitur, Deus erat. Esse enim non est accidens nomen, sed subsistens veritas, et manens causa, et naturalis generis proprietas (PL 10.208B).

    Google Scholar 

  56. De Trin. IV 12 (PL 10.105A). Cf. VI 5 (PL 10.160B). The Greek text reads: yevv?aavza bÈ ov Boicl)aec, ci.1.2ez d1.910eia (Athanasius, de Syn. 16 PG 26.709A; Hahn § 186).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Ibid. IV 12, VI 5: nec sicut Manichaeus partem unius substantiae Patris Natum exposuit. The Greek reads: ovb’ cóç 6 Marixaioç j uieog ópoovatov tufi HarQòç rò yévvrlµa eiarjyliaaro (Athanasius, de Syn. 16 PG 26.709A; Hahn § 186).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ibid. IV 12, VI 5: nec sicuti Sabellius, qui unionem dividit, ipsum dixit Filium quem et Patrem. The Greek reads: ovb’ cihç EaßéUwç rip,uovdôa State6)v, viondroea elnev (Athanasius, de Syn. 16 PG 26.709A; Hahn § 186).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ibid. VI 11 (PL 10.165B): Nobis autem in confessione nativitas est: et unionem detestantes, unitatem divinitatis tenemus; scilicet ut Deus ex Deo unum sint in genere naturae, dum quod per nativitatis veritatem ex Deo in Deum exstitit, non aliunde quam ex Deo esse substiterit.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Ibid. VI 12 (PL 10.167A): Unigeniti ex Deo Dei nativitas non series est, sed progenies, non tractus est, sed ex lumine lumen.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Ibid. V 37 (PL 10.154C–155A): Non enim per desectionem aut protensionem aut derivationem ex Deo Deus est, sed ex virtute naturae in naturam eamdem nativitate subsistit.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Ibid. VI 13 (PL 10.167A). Cf. VII 2 (PL 10.200B); VI 35 (PL 10.185C).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ibid. II 9. Cf. II 12. Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. II 36 (PG 26.224A), known to God alone and to His Son and that to ask questions about the Son was generated, was irreligious.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Ibid. VI 35 (PL 10.185C): a Deo exitio potius quam partus est. because of the words in John 16:28,30, where the Lord said that He God.“

    Google Scholar 

  65. De Trin. VII 14 (PL 10.210C): Quis rogo furor est, nativitatem unigeniti Dei ad degenerem ex Deo referre naturam. “Degener” is rendered as “a nature inferior” by Watson, “herabgemindert” by Antweiler and “a spurious nature” by McKenna, but it should be taken in its original sense of “something that departs from its race or kind.”

    Google Scholar 

  66. Ibid. VII 14. In his Or. c. Ar. II 56–57 (PG 26.268A—C), Athanasius explained the difference between a creature who has a beginning and is created, and the Son Who was begotten and is eternal, for “in the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1).

    Google Scholar 

  67. De Trin. VII 17. Tertullian, adv. Prax. 15 (ed. Evans p. 108), proved to his adversaries, that it was the Son Who was always seen, and not the Father, and that the Son conversed and the Son always wrought, by the authority and will of the Father, because “The Son can do nothing of Himself…,”—the Father doing it, of course, in His consciousness. For the Father acts by consciousness, whereas the Son sees and accomplishes that which is in the Father’s consciousness (in sensu scilicet facientem. pater enim sensu agit, filius vero quod in patris sensu est videns perficit).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Ibid. VII 20. The Arians used dyivvrizoç with regard to the Father to express the essence of divinity which they denied to the Son. In the orthodox view, dyivvsjzoç denoted not the essence of divinity, but the relation of the first to the second Person of the Trinity. Cf. A Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. by G. W. H. Lampe, Oxford, 1961, s.v. dyivv3p oç, pp. 15–16.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Ibid. VII 21 (PL 10.217A): Filius est, quia ab se nihil potest: Deus est, quia quaecumque Pater facit, et ipse eadem facit: unum sunt, quia exaequatur in honore, eademque facit, non alia: non est pater ipse, quia missus est.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Ibid. VII 23. Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. III 27 (PG 26.381A—B), thought that the Jews and Arians arrived at the same unbelief and that the daring of their irreligion was equal and the dispute with the orthodox believers a common one. While the Jews sought to kill the Lord because He had said that God was His own Father, thereby making Himself equal to God, the Arians not only deny that He is equal to God and that God is His own Father, but they seek to kill those who hold this view.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Ibid. VII 25. Tertullian, adv. Prax. 22 (ed. Evans p. 117), said that the text is an indication of two Persons; the “We are” cannot refer to one Person only; and the expression is “We are one thing” and not “We are one Person.” The fact that two of the masculine gender are one in the neuter, indicates that it is not connected with singularity but with unity. In adv. Prax. 25 (ed. Evans p. 121), it is again said that the words are used with respect to unity of substance, not as regards the singular number. Novatian, de Trin. XIII 69 (ed. Weyer p. 96), said that no man could utter the words in this text but only Christ, conscious of His Divinity. Cf. XV 87 (ed. Weyer p. 108). In XXVII 148 (ed. Weyer p. 168f.), Novatian argued that if Christ was the Father, He would have said: “ego pater unus sum.” But the Son separated and distinguished Himself from the Father. Athanasius cited this text frequently and said that the identity of the Godhead and the unity of essence was indicated and that They are two; for the Father is Father only and not the Son, but Their nature is one, Or. c. Ar. III 3–4 (PG 26.328B—C).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Ibid. VII 26. Cf. VII 36. Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. II 12 (PG 26.172B), used this text to prove that Christ was manifested to be not merely man but God in a body and also Lord.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Ibid. VII 31. In Or. c. Ar. 115 (PG 26.44C), Athanasius also taught the strict unity of the Divine Essence. The Son partakes from the essence of the Father.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Ibid. VII 32 (PL 10.227A): Invicem autem sunt, cum unus ex uno est: quia neque unus uni aliud per generationem quam quod suum est dedit, neque unus ab uno aliud per nativitatem obtinet quam unius. Smulders, op. cit., p. 227 n. 34, thought that “invicem sunt” should be translated by “l’un l’autre” and not “personne correlative.”

    Google Scholar 

  75. Ibid. VII 37. Tertullian, adv. Prax. 24 (ed. Evans p. 120), said that the Father becomes visible in the Son by deeds of power, not by the visible manifestation of His Person.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Ibid. VII 40. Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. II 33 (PG 26.217B), said that the true Godhead of the Son is revealed in this text. The Son is not begotten from without, but from the Father.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Ibid. VII 41. Tertullian had to refute the view that the Father and the Son were two names for the one Person and he used this text among others, to refute this view, adv. Prax. 24 (ed. Evans p. 120).

    Google Scholar 

  78. The punctuation in the Greek text is different: rovróv Bsóv is connected with the preceding and the new line begins with yevvsaavra viòv, tovoyevi,crA. (Athanasius, de Syn. 16 PG 26.709A; Hahn § 186). In the text by Opitz there is no comma between Beòv yevv1aavra, Opitz II 1 p. 243,31.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Ibid. XII 21 (PL 10.446A). Novatian, de Trin. XXXI 184 (ed. Weyer p. 196), said that the Son is always in the Father because the Father is always Father. Tertullian, adv. Hermogenem 3 (CV 47 p. 129), taught that there was a time when the Father did not have the Son. In adv. Prax. 7 (ed. Evans pp. 94–5), it is said that the Word was first established under the name of Wisdom, then begotten for activity and thereafter He became Son. It must however be borne in mind that for Tertullian Wisdom, Word and Son are identical. Cf. Evans, p. 225. In his Comm. in Matt. 16,4 (PL 9.1008C–1009A), Hilary clearly taught the eternity of the Son, e.g. that He received His eternity from the eternity of the Father and that if the Son is not always Son then the Father is not always Father. Hilary did not however, in this early work teach the eternity of the Son’s generation, but only that the Son, in His birth, received the Divine nature which is eternal. In his de Trin. he teaches the eternal generation of the Son, probably as a result of his contact with the Greek theology. Cf. Loofs, “Hilarius,” p. 61.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Ibid. XII 21. Athanasius dealt at length with the problem of the eternity of the Son, Or. c. Ar. I 11–14, and said, inter alia, that the Son is the eternal offspring of the Father, I 14 (PG 26.41B), and that the Son is eternal for He said: “I am the Truth” etc. and not “I became the Truth,” I 12 (PG 26.37B).

    Google Scholar 

  81. Arius denied that God was always a Father (Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. I 5 PG 26.21A).

    Google Scholar 

  82. De Trin. XII 23. Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. III 66 (PG 26.464B), said that as the Father is always good by nature, so He is always generative by nature.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Ibid. XII 35. Hilary’s text read: Dominus creavit me in initium viarum suarum. According to the Benedictines the in would have to be omitted to agree with the LXX, but that would not be in accordance with the mss. and Hilary’s exposition of this text, see PL 10.454 n. f.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Ibid. XII 39. Hilary distinguishes between on the one hand, “parare” and “componere” which indicate the creative work of God within time, and on the other hand, “praeparare” which is used for the eternal activity. Cf. Baltzer, op. cit., p. 15 n. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Ibid. XII 42. Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. II 51 (PG 26.256A), explained that when it was said that He was created “for the works,” He thereby did not want to signify His essence but the economy which came after His being. He was created for a specific purpose while in the case of creatures they are created to exist and only later are they given a certain task to perform.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Ibid. XII 44. Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. II 44 (PG 26.240C–241A), said that concerning this passage in Proverbs, it should be remembered that proverbs are of a figurative nature and should be interpreted; their sense must be unfolded. It is understood that this is done with the help of the regula fidei.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Ibid. XII 45. Tertullian, adv. Prax. 6–7 (ed. Evans pp. 94–5), saw in Prov. 8:22ff the establishment of Wisdom Herself, or rather the establishment in Her of the world as proposed for creation in the mind of God, and then after Wisdom had received expression as the Word, the creation of the world through the Word as God’s Agent. Cf. the notes by Evans, pp. 220–225. Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. II 45 and 51 (PG 26.241C, 256A), also emphasized that the phrase: “The Lord created Me for the beginning of His ways,” is an indication of His manhood and the economy which took place. Smulders, op. cit., p. 193 n. 61, rightly asserted that although Athanasius and Hilary are in accord on this point, they differ on the details in their interpretation of this text.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Ibid. XII 49. Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. II 60 (PG 26.276A), stressed the difference between a creature and an offspring. If the Word was a creature and there was no difference between creature and offspring, it would not have been necessary to add the sentence “But before all the hills He begat Me” to the preceding “The Lord created Me for a beginning of His ways.”

    Google Scholar 

  89. Ibid. VIII 7. Si ergo per fidem, id est, per unius fidei naturam unum omnes erant; quomodo non naturalem in his intelligis unitatem, qui per naturam unius fidei unum sunt? Omnes enim renati erant ad innocentiam, ad immortalitatem, ad cognitionem Dei, ad spei fidem… Si vero regenerati in unius vitae atque aeternitatis naturam sunt, per quod anima eorum et cor unum est; cessat in his assensus unitas, qui unum sunt in ejusdem regeneratione naturae (PL 10.241B-C).

    Google Scholar 

  90. Ibid. VIII 13. For the different meanings of “sacramentum” in Hilary’s works, cf. J. P. Brisson, ed. Traité des mystères, Paris, 1947, p. 24 n. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  91. De Trin. VIII 18. Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. III 5 (PG 26.329B—C), said that the attributes of the Father are ascribed to the Son because the Son is the Offspring from the Father and only because He is the Offspring.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Ibid. VIII 19–20. Novatian, de Trin. XVI 90 (ed. Weyer p. 112), said that John 16:14 affirmed that Christ could not have been merely a man, for the Spirit does not receive anything from man but grants knowledge to man. Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. II 24 (PG 26.197B), referring to John 16:15 said that it is a property of the Son to have the things of the Father.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Ibid. VIII 25 and 23. Tertullian, adv. Prax. 11 (ed. Evans pp. 100–101), cited Luke 4:18 with other texts to indicate that there is a distinction within the Trinity, viz. Father, Son and Spirit.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Ibid. VIII 27. Novatian, de Trin. XXVIII 158 (ed. Weyer p. 178), quoted this text to prove that Christ was not the Father. Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. III 11 (PG 26.344 A-C), maintained that the likeness and oneness must be referred to the Essence of the Son and Father and as such They dwell in the believer.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Ibid. VIII 34–35. Cf. 41. Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. III 4 (PG 26.329A-B), said that since the Father and the Son are one, and the Godhead Itself one, the same things which are said of the Father are said of the Son, and in this sense he quoted 1 Cor. 8:6.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Ibid. VIII 37. Irenaeus, adv. Haer. III 17,2 (ed. Harvey II p. 84), cited this text to prove that Jesus Christ was one Person and the Son of God. Tertullian, adv. Prax. 13 (ed. Evans p. 104), used the same argument as Hilary. Cf. Novatian, de Trin. XIII 69 (ed. Weyer p. 96). Athanasius cited this text a few times but not always to emphasize the Divinity of Christ. In Or. c. Ar. I 11 (PG 26.33C), the eternity of Christ was being stressed.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Ibid. VIII 43. Novatian, de Trin. XIV 76 (ed. Weyer p. 100), cited John 5:19 and 26 to prove the Divinity of Christ, for had He only been man He could not have uttered these words. Cf. XXI 122 (ed. Weyer p. 142).

    Google Scholar 

  98. The Latin text reads: et omnis lingua confiteatur quia Dominus Iesus Christus in gloria est Dei Patris.

    Google Scholar 

  99. De Trin. VIII 47. Novatian, de Trin. XXII 126–131 (ed. Weyer pp. 146–152), fully treated this passage and concluded that it clearly taught that the Lord Jesus Christ was also God. Cf. Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. I 40 (PG 26.93B—C).

    Google Scholar 

  100. Ibid. IX 1. Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. III 5 (PG 26.329B–332A), said that the attributes of the Father were ascribed to the Son, and the Son is the proper Offspring of the Father’s essence. The Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son.

    Google Scholar 

  101. John 10:17,18. Cf. John 2:19 where Jesus said that He would raise the temple in three days.

    Google Scholar 

  102. De Trin. IX 10–12. Novatian, de Trin. XXI 121–122 (ed. Weyer p. 142), said that only the Word, Christ, Who proved to be God and man, could say these words.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Ibid. IX 28. Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. III 15 (PG 26.352C–353A), emphasized that the orthodox faith does not confess many gods. The Word has no other Godhead than that of the Only God, because He is born from Him.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Ibid. IX 33. Novatian, de Trin. XVI 91 (ed. Weyer p. 112), said that this text proved the Godhead of Christ. He wanted to be acknowledged as God. Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. III 9 (PG 26.337C–340A), stated that if the Father be called the only true God, this was said not to deny Christ when He said: “I am the Truth,” but to deny those who by nature are not true as the Father and His Word are true. The Lord at once added: “And Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent.” Had He been a creature, He would not have added this.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Ibid. IX 39–42. Tertullian, adv. Prax. 23 (ed. Evans p. 119), cited this text to prove that the Son was not the Father.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Ibid. IX 42 (PL 10.315C): Si enim in sese eum glorificat Pater, et solus Pater Deus verus est, non extra solum verum Deum Christus est: quia glorificatum in Deum Christum, glorificet Pater verus Deus solus in sese.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Ibid. IX 51. Tertullian, adv. Prax. 9 (ed. Evans p. 97), in order to prove that the Father is not identical with the Son, described the Father as “the whole substance, while the Son is an outflow and assignment of the whole, as He Himself professes, Because My Father is greater than I.” The Father is thus other than the Son, as the Begetter is other than the Begotten. Cf. the notes by Evans, pp. 245–7, on the phrase “filius vero derivatio totius et portio.” Tertullian did not suggest an inferior grade of deity with these words (Evans p. 247). Novatian had proved that the Son is God but to combat the heresy that, because there is only one God, Christ is therefore the Father, Novatian cited many texts and among them John 14:28, to prove that the Father and the Son are not one Person, de Trin. XXVI 146; XXVIII 159 (ed. Weyer p. 166; 178). Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. I 58 (PG 26.133B), quoted this text to emphasize the fact that the Son has the same nature as the Father. If He did not have the same nature as the Father, Christ would have said: “My Father is better than I.” But He used the word “greater,” not in greatness or in time, but because of His generation from the Father.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Ibid. IX 58. In connection with the mystery of the birth of Christ, Irenaeus declared that concerning the ineffable mysteries of God, man had to acknowledge that they were only known to God, for even the Son declared that only the Father knew the day of judgment (Mark 13:32), and man therefore did not know exactly how the Son came forth from the Father, adv. Haer. II 42,3 (ed. Harvey I p. 355).

    Google Scholar 

  109. Hilary’s text read: “et ipse est ante omnes.”

    Google Scholar 

  110. Ibid. IX 59. Athanasius also dealt at length with the explanation of Mark 13:32. He used arguments which Hilary also used. Athanasius said that the Lord by Whom all things were made and the Son Who knows the Father, could not be ignorant of the day. He had spoken of the events preceding this day and therefore He must have known the day, Or. c. Ar. III 42 (PG 26.412A—C).

    Google Scholar 

  111. Ibid. IX 62. Nam cum ignoratio ejus, secundum quod omnes thesauri in eo scientiae latent, dispensatio potius quam ignoratio sit; habes causam ignorandi sine intelligentia nesciendi (PL 10.331B).

    Google Scholar 

  112. Ibid. IX 63. In omnibus enim, quae ignorare se Deus loquitur, ignorantiam quidem profitetur, sed ignoratone tarnen non detinetur: dum ad id quod nescit, non nesciendi infirmitas est, sed aut tempus est non loquendi, aut dispensatio est non agendi… Scire ergo Deum, non est ignorantiae demutatio, sed temporis plenitudo. (PL 10.331B,332A). Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. III 50 (PG 26.428C), used the examples of God asking Adam “where art thou” and Cain “where is your brother Abel.” As God asked Adam and Cain and yet knew what He had asked, so the Son (as God) knew, and yet asked.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Ibid. IX 65–67. Athanasius ascribed the ignorance of the Lord to His manhood; because to be ignorant is a property of man, Or. c. Ar. III 45 (PG 26.417C); 43 (PG 26.416A); 46 (PG 26.420C) etc. Elsewhere Athanasius said that it was to the advantage of man that Christ said that He did not know, for that would prevent carelessness and encourage people to be always prepared for His coming, Or. c. Ar. III 48–49 (PG 26.424C–428A).

    Google Scholar 

  114. Förster, art. cit., p. 662, His view is shared by J. P. Baltzer, Die Christologie des hl. Hilarius von Poitiers Rottweil, 1889, p. 32; Bardenhewer, op. cit., p. 392.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Cf. Le Bachelet, art. cit., col. 2444–5; G. Giamberardini, “De Incarnatione Verbi secundum S. Hilarium Pictaviensem,” Divus Thomas Vol. 51 (1948), pp. 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Baltzer, Christologie pp. 23–32; Watson, op. cit., pp. lxxiii—lxxvii, G. Rauschen, “Die Lehre des hl. Hilarius von Poitiers über die Leidensfähigkeit Christi,” Theologische Quartalschrift Vol. 87 (1905), pp. 424–439, and in ZkTh Vol. 30 (1906), pp. 295–305; Smulders, op. cit., pp. 203–206; Galtier, op. cit., pp. 131–141.

    Google Scholar 

  117. J. A. Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi Berlin, 18512, Vol. I, pp. 1037–1057; Förster, art. cit., pp. 660–666; A. Beck, Kirchliche Studien und Quellen Amberg, 1903, pp. 82–102: “Die Lehre des hl. Hilarius von Poitiers über die Leidensfähigkeit des Leibes Christi,” and in ZkTh Vol. 30 (1906), pp. 108–122,305— 310; Kelly, op. cit., p. 335.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Ibid. X 11–12. Quia et voluntas moriendi et potestas reviviscendi extra naturam timons est, dum timeri mors non potest et in voluntate moriendi et in potestate vivendi (PL 10.352A).

    Google Scholar 

  119. Ibid. X 15. Quod si assumpta sibi per se ex Virgine carne, ipse sibi et ex se animam concepti per se corporis coaptavit; secundum animae corporisque naturam, necesse est et passionum fuisse naturam (PL 10.353A—B).

    Google Scholar 

  120. Hilary’s text reads: Primus homo de terrae limo… (PL 10.356A). One manuscript reads: de terra terrenus.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Ibid. X 16–18. In Hilary’s text John 6:51 reads: “Si quis manducaverit de pane meo.”

    Google Scholar 

  122. Ibid. X 19 (PL 10.357B): Ut sicut per naturam constitutam nobis a Deo originis nostrae principe, corporis atque animae homo nascitur, ita Jesus Christus per virtutem suam carnis atque animae homo ac Deus esset, habens in se et totum verumque quod homo est, et totum verumque quod Deus est.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Ibid. X 23. Passus quidem est Dominus Jesus Christus, dum caeditur, dum suspenditur, dum crucifigitur, dum moritur: sed in corpus Domini irruens passio, nec non fuit passio, nec tamen naturam passionis exseruit: dum et poenali ministerio desaevit, et Virtus corporis sine sensu poenae vim poenae in se desaevientis excepit (PL 10.362A). Habens ad patiendum quidem corpus, et pansus est; sed naturam non habens ad dolendum (PL 10.363A).

    Google Scholar 

  124. Ibid. X 24. Neque enim turn, cum sitivit aut esurivit aut flevit, bibisse Dominus aut manducasse aut doluisse monstratus est: sed ad demonstrandam corporis veritatern, corporis consuetudo suscepta est, ita ut naturae nostrae consuetudine consuetudini sit corporis satisfactum. Vel cum potum et cibum accepit, non se necessitati corporis, sed consuetudini tribuit (PL 10.364A—B).

    Google Scholar 

  125. Ibid. X 35. Genuit (=virgo) etenim ex se corpus, sed quod conceptum esset ex Spiritu; habens quidem in se sui corporis veritatem, sed non habens naturae infirmitatern: dum et corpus illud corporis veritas est quod generatur ex virgine; et extra corporis nostri infirmitatem est, quod spiritalis conceptionis sumpsit exordium (PL 10.371B—C).

    Google Scholar 

  126. Ibid. X 36–38. Irenaeus, adv. Haer. III 31,2 (ed. Harvey II p.122), cited many texts to prove that Christ had indeed taken true flesh from Mary and in this context quoted Matt. 26:38. Tertullian, adv. Prax. 27 (ed. Evans pp. 124–5), stated that Jesus Christ was both God and man; He was two natures in the one Person for He manifested deeds of power, but on the other hand the flesh experienced sufferings, e.g. He wept, and was “sad unto death.” Watson, op. cit., p. lxxvi, called Hilary’s explanation of Matt. 26:38–39 an ingenious misinterpretation. Cf. Galtier, op. cit., p. 134: une exégèse aussi arbitraire qu’ingénieuse.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Ibid. X 39. Cf. Comm. in Matt. XXXI 4–5 (PL 9.1067B–1068B), where Hilary gave the same explanation of Jesus’ words in Gethsemane. Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. III 34 (PG 26.396A—B), emphasized that Christ suffered “for us in the flesh.” He taught that the Word Himself is impassible by nature, and yet because of the flesh which He put on, it was said that He suffered. Cf. III 55 (PG 26.437B). In III 57 (PG 26.441B—C) Athanasius said of Matt. 26:39 that for the sake of the flesh Christ combined His own will with human weakness so that by overcoming weakness, He might make man undaunted in face of death. Cf. van Haarlem, op. cit., pp. 154–8, who concluded that traces of Platonism are found in Athanasius’ attempt to combine the Word and the body.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Ibid. X 47. Passus igitur unigenitus Deus est omnes incurrentes in se passionum nostrarum infirmitates; sed passus virtute naturae suae, ut et virtute naturae suae natus est: neque enim, cum natus sit, non tenuit omnipotentiae suae in nativitate naturam (PL 10.380B). Fallitur ergo humanae aestimationis opinio, putans hunc dolere quod patitur. Portans enim peccata nostra, peccati nostri scilicet corpus assumens, tarnen ipse non peccat. Missus namque est in peccati carnis similitudine; portans quidem in carne peccata, sed nostra. Et pro nobis dolet, non et doloris nostri dolet sensu: quia et habitu ut homo repertus, habens in se doloris corpus, sed non habens naturam dolendi, dum et ut hominis habitus est, et origo non hominis est, nato eo de conceptione Spiritus sancti (PL 10.381A).

    Google Scholar 

  129. Ibid. X 49. Tertullian cited this text to prove that it was not the Father as Son Who suffered, but it was the Son Who as a different Person from the Father, cried out to His Father, adv. Prax. 25; 26; 30 (ed. Evans pp. 121; 123; 128).

    Google Scholar 

  130. Ibid. X 55–56. Non est vivificaturi fiere, nec glorificandi dolere: et tarnen vivificat, qui et flevit, et doluit (PL 10.388B).

    Google Scholar 

  131. Ibid. XI 13–15. Tertullian twice cited John 20:17 to prove that the Father and the Son are different Persons and that the Son could not have been the Father. The Father could not go to the Father 1 Adv. Prax. 25; 28 (ed. Evans pp. 121; 126). Novatian refuted the same heretical view as Tertullian and among other texts, he quoted John 20:17 to prove that the Son is the Second Person in the Godhead, de Trin. XXVI 146 (ed. Weyer p. 168).

    Google Scholar 

  132. Ibid. XI 18–20. In de Trin. IV 35 (see p. 59 n. 32). Hilary used this text to prove the distinction within the Godhead and concluded that the Father and the Son are Both mentioned in this text by the same name “God” and that They are one in majesty. The Son was born from God to share the Godhead.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Ibid. XI 21 and 25. Tertullian used this text to prove that the Father and the Son are two Persons and that the monarchy is not harmed although it is with the Son Who will restore it to the Father, adv. Prax. 4 (ed. Evans p. 92).

    Google Scholar 

  134. J N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds London, 1950, p. 287.

    Google Scholar 

  135. G. Rasneur, “L’Homoiousianisme dans ses rapports avec l’orthodoxie,” RHE Vol. 4 (1903), p. 199.

    Google Scholar 

  136. For the following see de Syn. 12–26 (PL 10.489B–500B). The numbcrs in the Greek text are given in brackets. Cf. Epiphanius,Haer. 73,10,1–11,10 (GCS 37.280–4); Hahn § 162.

    Google Scholar 

  137. De Syn. 12 (PL 10.490A): Essentia est res quae est, vel ex quibus est, et quae in eo quod maneat subsistit. Dici autem essentia, et natura, et genus, et substantia uniuscujusque rei poterit. Proprie autem essentia idcirco est dicta, quia semper est. Quae idcirco etiam substantia est, quia res quae est, necesse est subsistat in sese; quidquid autem subsistit, sine dubio in genere vel natura vel substantia maneat. Cum ergo essentiam dicimus significare naturam vel genus vel substantiam, intelligimus ejus rei quae in his omnibus semper esse subsistat.

    Google Scholar 

  138. The Greek text reads: Kai si rig rò »sKrcal µe« Kai rd »yevreí,ue« 7cae’ avrov d cotkov KzA. (Epiphanius, Haer. 73,11,1 GCS 37.282). Hilary’s text reads: Si quis condidit vel creavit me et genuit me ab eodem audiens (De Syn. 16 PL 10.493A).

    Google Scholar 

  139. De Syn. 27 (PL 10.500B). According to a footnote by the Benedictines (PL 10.499 n. f) this “all” referred to what the synod of Sirmium had published, but this is impossible because the synod was referred to as the “recent heresy.” These twelve anathemas were included in the statement published at Sirmium (June 358). Hilary elsewhere (de Syn. 90 PL 10.542A—B) hinted that the others were omitted, because it was thought that they might offend some bishops. Hilary also said that if they had been omitted because Basil and his friends had changed their view about these anathemas, then they had to be wary of the anathemas being repeated in the future. For this reason Hilary might have decided not to comment on them.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Athanasius, de Synodis 23 (PG 26.722B; Opitz II 1 p. 249). For the creed cf. Hahn § 154.

    Google Scholar 

  141. In the creed it was said that: Ut sint quidem per substantiam tria, per consonantiam vero unum (de Syn. 29 PL 10.503B). The Greek text reads: ç drat a) µév vnovrdaec vela, -r i Sè avµvori sv (Athanasius, de Syn. 23 PG 26.724B; Opitz II 1 p. 249,33).

    Google Scholar 

  142. Cf. their encyclical letter, Coll. ant. Par. Ser. A IV (fragm. III); de Syn. 33 (PL 10.506B); contra Const. 23 (PL 10.599A), 25 (PL 10.600B).

    Google Scholar 

  143. Cf. Coll. ant. Par. Ser. B II 1,7 (CV 65.120,4–5; fragm. II 7 PL 10.637B): Uenientes etenim Serdicam per singula loca synodos faciebant inter se et pactiones cum interminationibus.

    Google Scholar 

  144. Feder, “Studien I,” p. 68. According to Hefele—Leclercq, op. cit., Vol. I.2 pp. 818–819, they sent their letter from Philippopolis, but because they considered themselves to have been the true council of Sardica, they said that it had been written at Sardica.

    Google Scholar 

  145. Gwatkin’s statement, op. cit., p. 128 n. 4, that Hilary thought that the so-called fourth Creed of Antioch was only compiled at Philippopolis, is unfounded.

    Google Scholar 

  146. Hilary’s translation of no. 3 differs from the Greek. Cf. Athanasius, de Syn. 27 (PG 26.736C; Opitz II 1 p. 254,35–36): Kai el ri.ç Aiywv Oedv rdv Xecardv nee) aidwaw vide rov“ Beov tinoveY,p o ’ ra rw paroi sic rs)r rcöv óAwv Srjµioveylav wlj óµo2oyoirj drdBe,aa éarw. Hilary, de Syn. 38 (PL 10.510A): Et si quis, unum dicens Deum, Christum autem Deum ante saecula filium Dei obsecutum Patri in creatione omnium non confitetur: anathema sit.

    Google Scholar 

  147. De Syn. 49 (PL 10.516B—C): Verbum autem, quod caro factum est, licet se passioni subdiderit; non tarnen demutatum est passibilitate patiendi. Nam pati potuit, et passibile esse non potuit: quia passibilitas naturae infirmis significatio est; passio auteur est eorum quae sint illata perpessio: quae quia indemutabilis Deus est, cum tarnen Verbum caro factum sit, habuerunt in eo passions materiam sine pass ibilitatis infirmitate.

    Google Scholar 

  148. The Greek text added: “and the Holy Spirit.” Athanasius,de Syn. 27 (PG 26.740A; Opitz II 1 p. 255).

    Google Scholar 

  149. The scholars Loafs, “Hilarius,” p. 62 and Bardenhewer, op. cit., p. 380, thought that from ch. 66 Hilary addressed the Eastern bishops, but that is incorrect. The chapters 67–77 were in the first place addressed to the Western bishops and from ch. 78 he directly appealed to the Eastern bishops.

    Google Scholar 

  150. De Syn. 67 (PL 10.525A—B): Nam si secundum naturae proprietatem ac similitudinem, ut similitudo non speciem solam afferat, sed genus teneat; religiose unam substantiam praedicamus, dummodo unam substantiam proprietatis similitudinem intelligamus, ut quod unum sunt, non singularem significet, sed aequales. Aequalitatern dico, id est, indifferentiam similitudinis, ut similitudo habeatur aequalitas; aequalitas vero unum idcirco dicatur esse, quia par sit; unum autem, in quo par significatur, non ad unicum vendicetur.

    Google Scholar 

  151. Ibid. 74 (PL 10.529A): Ita similitudo proprietas est, proprietas aequalitas est, et aequalitas nihil differt. Quae autem nihil differunt, unum sunt; non unione personae, sed aequalitate naturae.

    Google Scholar 

  152. In Sirmium II it was said: Ut autem Scripturae omnes docent, et praecipue ipse magister gentium Apostolus, hominem suscepisse de Maria Virgine, per quem cornpassus est (de Syn. 11 PL 10.489B). The Greek translation reads: aveeconor dviAaßev o Xeeazd ç dad Maelaç zfiç naeOsvov, de od nénovOe (Athanasius, de Syn. 28 PG 26.744A; Opitz II 1 p. 257,22).

    Google Scholar 

  153. According to Athanasius seventy bishops were present when Paul of Samosata was deposed, de Syn. 43 (PG 26.769A; Opitz II 1 p. 268,28).

    Google Scholar 

  154. The text “homoeusii ambiguitas” (de Syn. 89 PL 10.541A), is clearly a spelling mistake and should read “homousii,” as in the Verona edition of 1730.

    Google Scholar 

  155. J. Gummerus, Die homöusianiscbe Partei bis Zum Tode des Konstantius Helsingfors, 1900, p. 114.

    Google Scholar 

  156. J. Quasten, Patrology Vol. III, Utrecht/Antwerp, 1960, p. 62.

    Google Scholar 

  157. Athanasius, de Syn. 33–38 (PG 26.749D–761A; Opitz II 1 pp. 260–5).

    Google Scholar 

  158. Ibid. 43–45 (PG 26.768C–776A; Opitz II 1 pp. 268–271). Various explanations have been given to the different reports by Hilary and Athanasius of the use of d,uoovatoç in the synod which condemned Paul of Samosata. G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic thought London, 19522, pp. 201–209, thought that Athanasius had given the correct report. F. Loofs, Paulus von Samosata Leipzig, 1924, pp. 148–53; G. Bardy, Paul de Samosate Louvain, 19292, pp. 336–49; Smulders, op. cit., p. 92 n. 3 and Kelly, Creeds pp. 247–8, believed that Hilary’s account of the sense in which the word was used, was more reliable than that of Athanasius.

    Google Scholar 

  159. Gummerus, op. cit., p. 112; L. Coulange, “Métamorphose du Consubstantiel; Athanase et Hilaire,” Revue d’Histoire et de Littérature Religieuses Vol. 8 (1922), pp. 191–207.

    Google Scholar 

  160. E.g. Harnack, op. cit., p. 232 n. 4; H. Kraft, “’0poovatoç”, ZKG Vol. 66 (195455), p. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  161. Lietzmann, Geschichte der alten Kirche Vol. III p. 107; Kelly, Creeds p. 251.

    Google Scholar 

  162. Müller, op. cit., p. 386; A. Gilg, lVeg and Bedeutung der altkirchlichen Christologie München, 19612, p. 64.

    Google Scholar 

  163. For the following see Prestige, op. cit., pp. 197ff.; Kelly, Creeds pp. 243ff.; Kraft, op. cit., pp. 3ff.

    Google Scholar 

  164. E.g. Harnack, op. cit., p. 217 n. 1; Seeberg, op. cit., p. 42.

    Google Scholar 

  165. For the following see Prestige, op. cit., pp. 212–215; Kelly, Doctrines pp. 234–7.

    Google Scholar 

  166. Gilg, op. cit., p. 65; Kelly, Creeds p. 260.

    Google Scholar 

  167. Cf. in Matt. 8,8 (PL 9.961C); Coll. ant. Par. Ser. B II 11,5 (CV 65.153; fragm. II 32 PL 10.657A); c. Aux. 7 & 8 (PL 10.614A & B), 11 (PL 10.616A).

    Google Scholar 

  168. Athanasius, de Syn. 8 (PG 26.692B; Opitz II 1 p. 235,21–3).

    Google Scholar 

  169. Hilary, Coll. ant. Par. Ser. B VI 3 (CV 65.163; fragm. XV 3 PL 10.721A–722A).

    Google Scholar 

  170. Socrates, h.e. II 37 (PG 67.304C). Gummerus, op. cit., p. 118 n. 2, thought this report not very trustworthy, and thought that in view of the bishops who were present, it was more likely that it was originally written in Greek. The report by Socrates is generally accepted by modern scholars. The original Latin version has been lost.

    Google Scholar 

  171. Athanasius, de Syn. 3 (PG 26.685A; Opitz II 1 p. 232,29).

    Google Scholar 

  172. For the creed cf. Athanasius, de Syn. 8 (PG 26.692B–693B; Opitz II 1 p. 235, 29–236,15).

    Google Scholar 

  173. Epiphanius, Haer. 73,22 (GCS 37.295).

    Google Scholar 

  174. For the creed cf. Athanasius, de Syn. 30 (PG 26.745C–748C; Opitz II 1 pp. 258–9). 8 Viehhauser, op. cit., p. 29; Reinkens, op. cit., p. 189; Feder, “Studien III,” p. 15. 1° Sulpicius Severus, Chron. II 42,2–3 (CV 1.95).

    Google Scholar 

  175. Sulpicius Severus, Chron. II 45,3 (CV 1.98): tribus libellis publice datis audientiam regis (Hilarius) poposcit.

    Google Scholar 

  176. K. M. Setton, Christian attitude towards the Emperor in the Fourth Century especially as shown in addresses to the Emperor New York, 1941, p. 100.

    Google Scholar 

  177. The “proximi anni fides” were 1) bomoousion was not to be used; 2) bomoousion was to be preached; 3) ousiam was not used; 4) ousiam was condemned. It is difficult to ascertain which four statements were meant The Benedictines (PL 10.567 n. b) thought Sirmium II (357), Ancyra, Rimini-Nicé, Seleucia (Acacians). To reach this conclusion a) proximi anni was not taken in a strict sense; b) bomoeousion had to be substituted for bomoousion in the second statement of faith. Loofs, “Hilarius,” p. 63, thought that Sirmium IV (Dated Creed); the definition of the Western bishops at Rimini; Acacians at Seleucia; Constantinopolitan on 31 Dec. 359, were referred to. Feder, “Studien III,” p. 13, suggested Sirmium II (357), Ancyra, Rimini (359) and Nicé. Hilary probably referred to Sirmium II (357); the Western bishops at Rimini; Sirmium IV (= Nicé); the Acacian formula at Seleucia.

    Google Scholar 

  178. In contra Conti. Hilary called himself an exile (2), he said that he was persecuted (9), and elsewhere we find the puzzling phrase “fugere mihi sub Nerone licuit” (11). Cf. Loofs, “Hilarius,” p. 63.

    Google Scholar 

  179. Wilmart, BB Vol. 24 (1907), p. 150: à moitié renvoyé de Constantinople, à moitié fugitif volontaire.

    Google Scholar 

  180. De viris ill. c. 100 (PL 23.738C–739A): et alius in Constantium, quem post mortem ejus scripsit.

    Google Scholar 

  181. Contra Coast. 2 (PL 10.578D–579A).

    Google Scholar 

  182. Elsewhere Hilary again calls Constantius the antichrist (c. 6), but also the precursor of the antichrist (c. 7). Athanasius, Historia Arianorum 74–77 (PG 25.781C–788A) also called Constantius the precursor of the antichrist. Cf. Lucifer, De sancto Athanasio II 11 (CV 14.168,13–6).

    Google Scholar 

  183. Contra Conrt. 16 (PL 10.594A): Nolo, inquit, verba quae non scripta sunt dici. Hoc tandem rogo quis episcopis jubeat? et quis apostolicae praedicationis vetet formam?

    Google Scholar 

  184. Harnack, op. cit., p. 252 n. 1; Jullian, op. cit., p. 216; H. von Campenhausen, Lateinische Kirchenväter Stuttgart, 1960, p. 78.

    Google Scholar 

  185. K. Aland, “Kaiser and Kirche von Konstantin biz Byzanz,” Kirchengeschichtliche Entwürfe Gütersloh, 1960, p. 278.

    Google Scholar 

  186. Cf. note 31 above.

    Google Scholar 

  187. Textus narrat. 1 (CV 65.185,6–9; ad Const. (I) 6 PL 10.561A): Si ad fidem ueram istiusmodi uis adhiberetur, episcopalis doctrina obuiam pergeret diceretque: deus uniuersitatis est dominus, obsequio non eget necessario, non requirit coactam confessionem.

    Google Scholar 

  188. S. L. Greenslade, Church and State from Constantine to Theodosius London, 1954, pp. 41–2.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Dr. C. F. A. Borchardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1966 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Borchardt, C.F.A. (1966). Hilary’s Exile. In: Hilary of Poitiers’ Role in the Arian Struggle. Kerkhistorische Studiën. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0697-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0697-7_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-015-0200-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-0697-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation