Hilary of Poitiers, Against Constantius
Hilary of Poitiers Against Constantius (In Constantium) Hilary of Poitiers 1 It is time for speaking, since the time for being silent has now passed.1
Let Christ be expected, because the Antichrist has assumed power.2 Let the shepherds shout, because the hired men have fled.3 Let us lay down our lives for the sheep, because the thieves have entered and the raging lion prowls.4 Let us advance to martyrdom by these words, because the angel of Satan has transformed himself into an angel of light.5 Let us enter through the door, because nobody comes to the Father except through the Son.6 Let the false prophets be revealed in their peace, because the approved will be made manifest through heresy and schism.7 Let this tribulation be endured, a tribulation such as there has never been since the creation of the world; but let it be understood that the days are to be shortened for the sake of God's elect.8 The prophecy is fulfilled that
1 See Ecclesiastes 3.7. The first chapter of Hilary's text is filled with quotations from and allusions to biblical passages, particularly prophecies and warnings concerning persecution and the End of Days.
2 See 1 John 2.18; Daniel 7.20–2. The eschatological rhetoric of the coming of the Antichrist appears frequently in this short text, sometimes with him explicitly identified as Constantius himself: see chapters 2, 5, 6, 7 and 11. In contrast, Lucifer only links Constantius with the Antichrist, rather than equating the two: see Moriundum 1 and 11. From Hist. Ar.
67 onwards Athanasius discusses resemblances between Constantius and the Antichrist, sometimes identifying the two, sometimes saying that the former is preparing the way for the latter.
3 See Jeremiah 25.34; John 10.11–13.
4 See John 10.8, 15; 1 Peter 5.8.
5 See 2 Corinthians 11.14.
6 See John 10.1–9, 14.6.
7 See Matthew 24.11, 24; 1 John 4.1; 1 Corinthians 11.19. This concept of the superficially attractive but ultimately false peace brought about by heretics also appears in Hilary's later work Contra Auxentium, written in the middle of the 360s: see Contra Auxentium 1 and 12.
8 See Matthew 24.21–2. This image of a time of unprecedented tribulation also appears at Ath. Hist. Ar. 77.2.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
says: The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires they will heap up teachers for themselves, having itching ears: and indeed they will turn from hearing the truth and will be turned to fables.9 But let us await the promise of him who pronounced: Blessed are you, when they will slander and persecute you, and will speak every evil against you for righteousness' sake. Rejoice and exult, because your reward is great in heaven. For in this way did they persecute the prophets who were before you.10 Let us stand before judges and powers for the sake of Christ's name, because blessed is he who will endure even unto the end.11 Let us not fear the man who can kill the body, but not the soul: but let us fear the one who can kill both body and soul in hell.12 Let us not be anxious for ourselves, because the hairs of our head have been numbered.13 And let us pursue the truth through the Holy Spirit, lest we believe falsehood through the spirit of error.14
And let us die with Christ, so that we may reign with Christ.15 For to be silent any longer is a sign of unbelief, not a plan of restraint, because there is no less danger in always having kept silent than in never having done so.
2 As for myself, brothers, as all my listeners and friends can testify, I foresaw long ago the gravest danger to the faith and so, more than four years ago, after the exile of the holy men Paulinus, Eusebius, Lucifer and Dionysius, I, together with the Gallic bishops, withdrew from communion with Saturninus, Ursacius and Valens;16 the rest of their colleagues were
9 2 Timothy 4.3–4.
10 Matthew 5.11–12; see also 5.10.
11 See Matthew 10.18; Matthew 10.22.
12 See Matthew 10.28. The original biblical passage makes reference to 'those' who could kill the body on earth, but Hilary has substituted the singular for the plural, probably to make the phrase refer to Constantius specifically. See also Lucifer, Moriundum 3, where the same change has been made, along with n. 41 on the translation of 'Gehenna' as 'hell'.
13 See Matthew 10.19; Luke 12.11; Matthew 10.30–1.
14 See 1 John 4.6.
15 See 2 Timothy 2.11–12.
16 The four orthodox bishops mentioned here are Paulinus of Trier, who was exiled in 353/4 at the Council of Arles, and Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer of Cagliari and Dionysius of Milan, who were all exiled at the Council of Milan in 355. See Introduction p. 11 on these events, as well as pp. 31–32 on the career of Lucifer. For the careers of the other bishops, see PCBE IV.2 1443–4 (Paulinus 1); PCBE II.1 692–7 (Eusebius 1); PCBE II.1
563–5 (Dionysius 1). The excommunicated bishops are Saturninus of Arles, Ursacius of Singidunum and Valens of Mursa. On Ursacius and Valens, who were regularly invoked as
HILARY OF POITIERS
granted the opportunity to recover their senses, so that the option of peace might still exist, while those limbs, which were putrid with deadly diseases and spreading to infect the whole body, might be amputated, if the most blessed confessors of Christ really did decide to abide by the decrees we had issued. A faction of these false apostles then compelled me to attend a synod at Béziers, where I proposed a hearing to reveal this heresy.17 But they were afraid that it might become public knowledge and so refused to hear any of the issues I had raised, believing that they would be able to feign innocence before Christ if they wilfully ignored what they would later knowingly do. Kept in exile ever since then, I have resolved neither to desert the confession of Christ nor to reject any honest and commendable method of achieving unity.18 Finally, I have neither written nor uttered any reproach against these present times, nor anything defamatory and appropriate to their impiety against that body which was then claiming to be the church of Christ, but is now a synagogue of the Antichrist.19 During this time I have not considered it an offence for anyone to speak with them or attend the house of prayer (although the fellowship of communion has been withdrawn) or hope for circumstances conducive to peace, until we leading 'Arians' by both Hilary and Athanasius, see Introduction pp. 9–10. On Saturninus, see PCBE IV.2 1714–16 (Saturninus 1). The phrase quinto abhinc anno, which I have rendered as 'more than four years ago', would suggest 359 or 360 as the date of composition, although the reference to the capitulation of the 'Homoiousian' delegates from the Council of Seleucia in chapter 15 means that work cannot have been completed before early 360.
On the issue of the date and process of composition, see Rocher (1987) 29–38 and Barnes
(1988), as well as Introduction pp. 29–30.
17 Hilary appeared at a council in Béziers (Biterrae) in southern Gaul, probably in 356.
The circumstances and proceedings of this event are obscure. See Introduction p. 26 and Sulpicius Severus, Chronicle 2.39. The term 'false apostle' (pseudoapostolus) comes from 2 Corinthians 11.13.
18 After the council at Béziers, Hilary went into exile in the eastern part of the empire, including attending the Council of Seleucia in 359 and then travelling to Constantinople, where he was when the council approved the 'Homoian' creed in January 360. Probably quite soon afterwards he returned to Gaul, although it is unclear how he obtained permission for this, or even that he did obtain it. See Introduction p. 28.
19 See Revelation 2.9, 3.9, where there are references to the 'synagogue of Satan'.
Chapters 2 and 3 function as a double apology, in which Hilary both explains that he does not write immoderate and extreme invective and simultaneously claims that his silence on this issue so far was not because of a lack of righteous anger about the injustices suffered by the Church. He thus attempts to defend himself against charges of saying either too much or too little. See also the opening of Moriundum 1, where Lucifer also justifies his decision to speak out against Constantius again.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
might prepare forgiveness of error and a return from the Antichrist to Christ through repentance.20
3 Therefore, if any astute man understands the reason for my silence, he undoubtedly affirms that, as my faithful freedom of speech in Christ bears witness, it is not through any vice of human passion that, having restrained until now my bitterness for this recent injustice, I have now at last been roused to write these words.21 I, who have remained silent for so long, will not speak too soon; nor did I, who now at last speaks, remain silent without discretion; nor do I, who kept quiet about a recent injustice, complain of any now; I devoted so great a time to silence for that period so that no one would think that I speak for my own cause. Now I speak for no other cause than that of Christ: it is for him that I had to keep silent until now, and I understand that I must be silent no longer.22
4 O omnipotent God and creator of all things, and also Father of our one Lord Jesus Christ, if only you had granted to my age and time the opportunity to have fulfilled this task of mine – to confess you and your only-begotten Son – during the reign of Nero or Decius!23 Fervent in the Holy Spirit and through the compassion of our Lord and God your Son
20 The phrase 'considered it an offence' translates criminis loco duxi. For the use of the phrase criminis loco in forensic oratory, see Cicero, Pro Caelio 4.
21 The Latin word libertas, here translated as 'freedom of speech', can be seen here as analogous to the Greek concept of parrhesia (παρρησία), which could mean speaking out boldly against those in authority: see n. 128 to Ath. Hist. Ar. 34.1 at p. 67.
22 Hilary had not remained completely silent during his exile, as he had written his De synodis, which was addressed to the bishops of a number of provinces in Britain and Gaul, and probably started compiling his Against Valens and Ursacius. He had also written his deferential Ad Constantium, although it is unlikely that any of his audience for this invective would have read it. Hilary's claim here is that he had previously remained silent about the great impieties of Constantius, while he was still hopeful that reconciliation could be effected. Now, he claimed, the circumstances were such that it was his duty to speak out.
On a more practical note, it is possible that his return to Gaul, probably fairly soon after Julian's usurpation, had provided him with a fortuitous opportunity to indulge in an attack on Constantius. On the circumstances of the composition of this text, see Introduction p. 27.
23 The term 'only-begotten' translates the word unigenitus. This is a Latin rendering of the Greek term monogenes (μονογενής), which appears in John 1.14, 1.18. Lucifer used the Latin term unicus as a translation of the same Greek word: see n. 4 to Moriundum 1 on p. 142.
Nero (AD 54–68) and Decius (AD 249–51) are here used as examples of Roman emperors who persecuted Christians. On Hilary's use of the tropes of persecution and martyrdom in this text, see Introduction pp. 33–4.
HILARY OF POITIERS
Jesus Christ,24 I would not have feared the rack, knowing that Isaiah was sawn asunder;25 I would not have shuddered at the fires, remembering the Hebrew boys singing in their midst;26 I would not have fled from the cross and the breaking of my legs, after recalling the robber carried over to Paradise;27 I would not have trembled at the depths of the ocean or the submerging tide of the waves of Pontus, since you have taught us, through Jonah and Paul, that survival at sea is granted to the faithful.28 My battle against your evident enemies would have been blessed, because there would be no doubt that they were persecutors, compelling people to deny you through tortures, swords and fire, nor could we pay out more than our deaths in bearing witness to you. We would be fighting openly and with confidence against deniers, against torturers, against cutthroats; and your people, knowing that it was a public persecution, would accompany us as their leaders to the rite of confession.29
5 But now we are fighting against a deceptive persecutor, a flattering enemy, Constantius the Antichrist, who does not strike the back, but rather caresses the belly;30 does not proscribe people to life but rather enriches
24 For the concept of being 'fervent in the spirit', see Acts 18.25; Romans 12.11.
25 The eculeus was clearly an instrument of torture and execution, probably a rack, which is how it is translated here: see OLD s.v. See also Hebrews 11.37, which appears to allude to the tradition that Isaiah was martyred by being sawn in half on the orders of king Manasseh, as well as Justin, Dialogue 120.5; Tert. De patientia 14.1; Tert. Scorpiace 8.3; The Lives of the Prophets Isaiah 1.1 (Charlesworth [1983–85] II 385). See also the pseudepigraphic
Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 5 (Charlesworth [1983–85] II 163–4) for a fuller version of this story.
26 The boys Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego were said to have survived unscathed after being cast into the fiery furnace by King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon: see Daniel 3.
The same exempla appear at Lucifer, Moriundum 2.58–60.
27 For the story of the robber who was crucified beside Christ and brought to Paradise with him, see Luke 23.40–43. For the breaking of the robber's legs, see John 19.32.
28 See Jonah 1–2; Acts 27; 2 Corinthians 11.25.
29 'Confession' here refers not the modern admission of sins to a priest but to the act of confessing or professing of one's Christianity to pagan persecutors, even when tortured and threatened with execution. Individuals who had maintained their faith in this way were often referred to as confessors.
30 This chapter uses the paradoxical language of salvation through suffering, which is a common feature of Christian persecution literature. See, for example, Lucifer, Moriundum
4, reworking a phrase from [Cypr.] De laude martyrii 7: 'For death makes life more complete, death leads away rather to glory.' Here this rhetoric is balanced with the parallel claim that earthly wealth and power under a tyrannical emperor leads to everlasting death, since Constantius means the opposite of what he says. This idea also appears throughout
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
them to death; does not drive them to freedom in prison, but rather burdens them to slavery within the palace:31 instead of torturing flanks, he invades the heart; instead of cutting off the head with a sword, he destroys the soul with gold; instead of openly threatening flames, he secretly kindles hell.32
He does not fight to avoid defeat, but rather fawns in order to dominate; he confesses Christ so that he might deny him, he promotes unity to prevent peace, he suppresses heresies to eliminate Christians, he rewards priests to preclude bishops, he constructs buildings for the Church to demolish its faith. He proclaims you in words and in speech, but he does absolutely everything to prevent you being believed to be God, as the Father is.33
6 And so let the accusation of slander and suspicion of falsehood vanish.
For ministers of truth ought to utter true statements. If we speak falsely, may our slanderous speech become infamous; but if we demonstrate that everything we say is clearly true, then we do not exceed the apostolic freedom of speech and moderation in making these accusations after a long silence.34 But perhaps someone will think me rash, because I call
Constantius the Antichrist. Whoever judges this to be impudence rather than fearlessness should first read again what John said to Herod: It is not lawful for you to do that.35 Let him know what was said by the martyr to king Antiochus: You unjustly banish us from this present life, but the Lucifer's Moriundum. On the concept of Constantius as a man who hides his persecution under speciously beneficial actions, see also Lucifer, Moriundum 6.24–7.
31 The verb onero is here translated as 'burden', since Hilary is writing negatively about Constantius loading people up with gifts so that they do his bidding. It can also have the sense of overloading or gorging: see OLD and Lewis & Short s.v. See also chapter 10 below:
'You burden God's sanctuary with the empire's gold.'
32 See n. 41 on Lucifer, Moriundum 3 below on the translation of Gehenna as 'hell'.
33 In this sentence Hilary employs the rhetorical technique of apostrophe to address
Christ himself. The argument that 'Arians' denied that Christ was truly God, in the same manner as the Father, was a common feature of polemics against them. On this issue, see
Introduction p. 3.
34 On the term libertas, here translated as 'freedom of speech', see n. 21 to chapter 3 above.
35 There is no biblical passage where John the Baptist says these precise words in his confrontation with Herod Antipas. The closest is Matthew 14.4: it is not lawful for you to have her (non licet tibi habere eam); see also Mark 6.18: it is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife (non licet tibi habere uxorem fratris tui). It would appear that Hilary has altered the passage to better suit his circumstances, as he sought to present himself as a fearless prophet of God opposing the wrongdoing of an impious ruler, even though it could lead to his death.
HILARY OF POITIERS
king of the world shall raise us up at the resurrection, who have died for his laws, unto eternal life.36 And again another one reproached him with a blessed and faithful pronouncement: Having power over men, he said, you do whatever you want, even though you are mortal; but do not think that our race has been abandoned by God. Wait patiently and see how his awesome power will torture you and your seed.37 This is how boys responded, but a woman also spoke no less well than these blessed, perfected men, saying:
You, who have become the author of every crime against the Hebrews, will not escape the hand of God. For although the Lord is angry towards us for a little while, while we are alive, for our chastening and correction, he will yet be reconciled again to his servants.38 This is not rashness, but faith; not thoughtlessness, but reason; not madness, but confidence.
7 I proclaim to you, Constantius, what I would have said to Nero, what Decius and Maximian would have heard from me:39 you fight against God,
36 2 Maccabees 7.9. This passage from 2 Maccabees, along with the two that follow, also provides Hilary with examples of opposition to persecuting authorities, in this case the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BC), against whom the Maccabean revolt took place. The celebration of the Maccabees by Christians developed during the course of late antiquity, including with a site of veneration at Antioch from the fourth century onwards: see Vinson (1994), especially 177–8.
37 2 Maccabees 7.16–17.
38 2 Maccabees 7.31, 33. Hilary's quotation from 2 Maccabees 7.33 deviates from the Septuagint in referring to nobis uiuis (translated here as 'while we are alive'). The original
Greek of this passage applies the term 'living' (ζῶν) not to 'us' but to 'the Lord'. This variant form of the passage is also quoted at Lucifer, De non parc. 22.55, but is not found elsewhere.
It is well suited to the rhetoric of persecution and martyrdom that appears both here and in the works of Lucifer, because it suggests that suffering in this world will bring a reconciliation with God for his servants.
39 Alongside the two persecuting emperors Nero (AD 54–68) and Decius (AD 249–51), who have already appeared in chapter 4, the identity of 'Maximian' is uncertain. Humphries
(1998) 213 identifies him as Galerius (AD 305–311), whose full name was Gaius Galerius
Valerius Maximianus: see PLRE I 574–5 (Maximianus 9). He was often referred to as 'Maximianus', including in Lactantius' account of this emperor's crimes and grisly death:
Lact. Mort. pers. 10.6, 20–26, 33–35. This is a plausible explanation, as Galerius was widely regarded as a major instigator of the 'Great Persecution', especially in Lactantius' account.
It is, however, also possible that Maximian (AD 286–305), the father of Constantine's wife
Fausta and grandfather of Constantius II, is meant here, as he was Diocletian's co-Augustus at the start of the persecution: see PLRE I 573–4 (Maximianus 8). This argument gains strength from the fact that Athanasius refers to the persecutor Maximian on three occasions in his Historia Arianorum (40.2, 44.1, 64.2) and explicitly calls him Constantius' grandfather in two of these passages. From this point until the end of chapter 11 Hilary addresses Constantius directly in the second person, as though delivering an invective to
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
you rage against the Church, you persecute the saints, you detest those who proclaim Christ, you abolish religion, you are now a tyrant not just in human matters but also divine.40 The characteristics that I describe are common to both you and those persecutors. Accept them now as your own: you pretend that you are Christian, although you are actually a new enemy of Christ; you are a precursor of the Antichrist and perform the rites of his mysteries; you establish statements of faith while living against the faith; you are a teacher of impieties while being ignorant of all piety.
You make episcopal sees your gifts; you replace good men with evil. You consign priests to prison; you dispatch your armies to terrorise the Church; you summon councils and force the faith of the Westerners into impiety; having shut them up together in one city you then terrify them with threats, weaken them with starvation, destroy them with cold, corrupt them with trickery.41 Among the Easterners you artfully foment discord; you entice sycophants; you incite partisans; you overturn what is old and corrupt what is new. You commit the most savage atrocities without the invidiousness of glorious deaths. In a new and unheard of triumph of ingenuity you conquer with the Devil and persecute without martyrdom.42 him personally. On the possible circumstances of the text's publication and circulation, see
Introduction pp. 29–31.
40 As Timothy Barnes has argued, in the political discourse of this period the Latin term tyrannus ('tyrant') incorporated a sense of moral criticism and could also, in the works of Christian authors, carry a strong association with persecution: see Barnes (1996) especially
57–60, with discussion of this passage at 59.
41 The description here of the summoning of councils and the coercion of western bishops could be a general reference to Constantius' policy in the 350s, including the Councils of Arles in 353/4 and Milan in 355. At Milan, which was convened by Constantius at the suggestion of Liberius of Rome, the delegates were instructed to subscribe to certain decisions, possibly from the Council of Sirmium in 351, including deposing Athanasius of Alexandria. Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer of Cagliari and Dionysius of Milan all refused and were sent into exile. Hilary's more specific description of the confining of the western bishops and the creation of dissent among the easterners seems, however, to be better suited to the specific context of the twin councils of Seleucia and Ariminum in 359, since
(according to Sulpicius Severus 2.41, 2.43–4) the Praetorian Prefect Taurus did not allow the western delegates to leave Ariminum until they had agreed to the Homoian creed.
The gathering of easterners at Seleucia was also divided between 'Homoians' and their opponents. On these events, see Introduction p. 17.
42 The accusation that the emperor was even worse than earlier persecutors, because he contrived his attacks so that he did not give the Church any martyrs, was also made against Julian the Apostate by Gregory of Nazianzus a few years later: see Greg. Naz. Or. 4.58.
HILARY OF POITIERS
8 We are more indebted to your cruelty, Nero, Decius, Maximian, since through you we defeated the Devil.43 The holy blood of the blessed martyrs has everywhere been gathered up and their venerable bones provide daily testimony, while through them demons cry out, diseases are cured, miracles are witnessed with wonderment:44 bodies are raised up without ropes; women are hung by their feet, but their clothes do not fall down over their faces; spirits are burnt without fire; the tormented confess without interrogation; all of which contribute no less to the benefit of the questioner than to the advancement of the faith.45 But you, cruellest of the cruel, cause us more destruction in your raging, but with less excuse. You insinuate yourself with a name, you kill with a compliment, you promote impiety under the guise of religion, as a false herald of Christ you extinguish the faith of Christ. You do not even leave the wretched any excuses, so that they might display to their eternal judge their punishments and some scars on their lacerated bodies, so that their weakness might excuse their yielding to necessity. You, most wicked of men, moderate all the evils of your persecution in such a way as to exclude both pardon for a lapse and martyrdom for a confession. But your father, the author of human deaths,46 has taught you to conquer without facing defiance, to slaughter without a sword, to persecute without becoming infamous, to hate without arousing mistrust, to lie without detection, to profess without faith, to flatter without generosity, to do whatever you want without revealing what that is.
9 But the only-begotten God himself,47 whom you persecute in me,48 warned me not to believe you and not to be deluded by the false and 43 On this trio of persecutors, see n. 39 to chapter 7 above.
44 Rocher's text prints dum admirationem opera cernuntur here, although the note at 235 makes it clear that admirationem is a slip for admirationum.
45 The 'tormented' here is a reference to those possessed by demons, who are being exorcised by the relics of the martyrs. For examples of such miracles being attributed to relics, see Ambrose's letter on the discovery of the bodies of Gervasius and Protasius in Milan in 386, in which he describes a possessed woman flung through the air by their power and demons confessing that they could not stand being tortured by the presence of the martyrs: Ambr. Ep. 77.2, 77.16.
46 Here the reference is to Constantius' 'spiritual' father, i.e. the Devil, rather than to his actual father, Constantine. For the description of enemies of Christianity as children of the Devil, see John 8.44; Acts 13.10; 1 John 3.10.
47 On the importance of Christ as true God in Hilary's anti-Arian polemic, see n. 127 to chapter 23 below and Introduction p. 3.
48 This may be an allusion to Christ's words to Saul during his vision on the road to Damascus in Acts 9.4.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
fabricated name you adopt,49 when he said: Not everyone who says unto me 'Lord, Lord' shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father, that man will enter the kingdom of heaven.50 Do you now recognise in yourself the truth of divine prophecy and the trustworthiness of the Lord's statement, that it is not profession of his name but obedience to the Father's will that brings admission to the heavenly kingdom? Examine whether, while professing the Lord's name in words, you actually carry out the will of God the Father in deeds. He proclaims: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.51 But you decree that there is no Son and no Father, but rather names of adoption and titles tacked on:52 as a new persecutor of divine religion today, you install a God who counterfeits everything about himself. Previously your ancestors were enemies of Christ alone: but you fight against God the Father, saying that he is a liar, that he has deceived, that he has made statements about himself that are not true, and could not even be true.53 The Son proclaims: I and the Father are one;54 and:
Believe my works, that the Father is in me and I am in the Father;55 and:
All things that are the Father's are mine.56 You criticise Christ for telling the truth; you accuse the Father for his declaration. Though you are a man, you correct God; though you are corruption, you govern life; though night, you illuminate the day;57 though faithless, you promulgate the faith; though impious, you feign piety; and you engage the whole world in a sacrilegious conflict, denying about God what he himself has said about himself.
49 This 'name' is Constantius' claim to be a Christian, which Hilary rejects. See also
Lucifer, Moriundum 5.3–4.
50 Matthew 7.21.
51 Matthew 3.17.
52 It was often said that the 'Arians' did not regard Christ as being 'properly' the Son of the Father, but rather that this was merely a name applied to him. See chapter 13 below, as well as Introduction p. 3.
53 Hilary is contrasting Constantius' 'ancestors', the pagan persecutors of earlier centuries such as Nero, Decius and Maximian, identified as enemies of Christ in their opposition to Christianity, with Constantius, who attacks God the Father and accuses him of having lied in the quotation from Matthew 3.17. Athanasius also described many of his opponents, including his episcopal rival, Gregory 'the Cappadocian', as 'enemies of Christ': see, n. 52 to Hist. Ar. 13.1.
54 John 10.30.
55 John 10.38.
56 John 16.15.
57 See 1 Thessalonians 5.5. Hilary's point here, as elsewhere in this passage, is that Constantius claims to perform actions for which he is singularly unqualified.
HILARY OF POITIERS
10 As well as this correction of deception, the Lord has also taught me another saying for recognising you, for he said: Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves: you shall know them by their fruits.58 There is something in the heart that is disguised in the face and veiled in the mind. What they thought to be a sheep they found to be a wolf. If people act like sheep, may they be believed to be sheep; but if they perform the deeds of rapacious wolves, they are recognised as wolves through their deeds, and the appearance of their garments is confuted by the fruit of their actions. We see your sheep's clothing, rapacious wolf. You burden God's sanctuary with the empire's gold and you heap up for God property that has been stripped from temples, confiscated with edicts or exacted through punishments.59 You receive priests with the kiss by which Christ was betrayed;60 you bow your head for a blessing in order to trample the faith underfoot; you regard yourself worthy of that banquet from which Judas departed to commit betrayal;61 you remit the poll tax that Christ paid to avoid scandal;62 as Caesar, you remit public revenues in order to lure Christians to deny their faith; you cede what is your own to purloin what is God's.63 These are your garments, false sheep.
11 But now hear the fruits of your deeds, rapacious wolf. I do not record any actions except those performed in the Church; otherwise I would be mentioning a tyranny other than that against God.64 I do not make a formal complaint, because I do not know the judicial process; however, the grievance is well known: bishops, whom no one dared condemn,
58 Matthew 7.15–16. See also Lucifer, Moriundum 5.26–8, where the same imagery is employed.
59 Hilary is complaining about imperial euergetism towards churches, which is described as the bribing of Christians to accept heresy, made even worse by the measures by which the emperor obtained these funds in the first place.
60 See Luke 22.48–9 on Judas' betrayal of Christ with a kiss.
61 See John 13.30 on Judas' departure from the Last Supper. Constantius is here said to regard himself as worthy of receiving the re-enactment of this meal in the Eucharist.
62 This is a reference to Matthew 22.17–22, where Christ stated that people should pay tribute to the Roman empire. See also Matthew 17.24–7. Hilary here presents the tax exemptions, which were granted to Christian clergy from the reign of Constantine onwards, as part of Constantius' plot to destroy the Church.
63 See Matthew 22.21: Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things which are God's.
64 On the use of the concept of 'tyranny' and the term 'tyrant' in fourth-century political discourse, see n. 40 to chapter 7 above.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
have been deposed by you, and even now those who are inscribed on the facades of churches are listed as persons condemned to the mines.65
Near to me is Alexandria, shaken by many wars and terrified by the great commotion of the military operations launched against her.66 A shorter war was fought with Persia than against that city.67 Prefects were changed, commanders chosen, populations bribed, legions mobilised, all to prevent
Christ being preached by Athanasius.68 I remain silent about the smaller cities and communities who throughout the whole East are subjected to either terror or war. Afterwards, you directed all your arms against the faith of the West and turned your armies on Christ's flock: under Nero, I would have been allowed to flee. But, having solicited him with flattery, you then exiled Paulinus, a man who has undergone blessed suffering, and robbed the holy church at Trier of such an exceptional priest.69
You terrorised the faith with edicts.70 You kept changing his place of banishment and wore him out until he died; you even exiled him beyond the borders of Christendom, lest he receive any bread from your granary or look for any that had been desecrated from the cave of Montanus and 65 Here Hilary gives another example of the inverted and paradoxical nature of Constantius' rule. While the names of bishops should be displayed in honorific inscriptions on churches, they are instead written up in public lists of condemned criminals. The punishment of being sent to the mines could be regarded as tantamount to a death penalty.
It is attested as having been used during the earlier persecutions under pagan emperors: see n. 35 to Lucifer, Moriundum 3, where the claim that Constantius used it against his theological opponents also appears, as well as Ath. Hist. Ar. 60, with the latter providing the specific example of a sub-deacon named Eutychius who died on his way to the mines.
66 If this statement about Alexandria is taken to be geographical rather than metaphorical, it would suggest that Hilary was still in the East when he wrote this text. The proximity of the city may, however, not be meant literally. Hilary is probably referring to the imperial action surrounding Athanasius' flight from Alexandria in 356, which started his third period of exile. This is described in colourful terms at Ath. Hist. Ar. 47–63, 81, as well as being mentioned in Lucifer, Moriundum 2, 8.
67 During the reign of Constantius there were numerous battles between Rome and Persia: see Dignas and Winter (2007) 88–90.
68 Athanasius wrote dramatic accounts of two occasions on which he was expelled from Alexandria by force. The first, in 339, is described in his Encyclical Epistle, while the second expulsion, in 356, appears in Hist. Ar. 48.2–3, 81. Hilary is probably referring specifically to the latter episode. On these events, see Introduction p. 24.
69 On Paulinus of Trier's exile, see n. 16 to chapter 2 above.
70 This may not be a reference to 'edicts' in a technical legal sense, but rather to imperial orders, which were frequently conveyed in letters to specific officials. Barnes (1993)
273 n. 9 provides the argument that an edict led to the Councils of Arles in 353/4 and Milan in 355.
HILARY OF POITIERS
Maximilla.71 With what great terror of your fury did you disturb the most pious people of Milan!72 Your tribunes approached the holy of holies, forcing a path for themselves through the congregation with every form of cruelty, and dragged the priests from the altar. Do you think, wicked man, that you have sinned less than the Jews in their impiety? For they poured out the blood of Zachariah, but you, as far as you can, have separated from Christ those who are incorporated in Christ.73 Then you directed your war against Rome herself and snatched the bishop away;74 O you wretch, I do not know which was the greater impiety, your banishment of him or your restoration of him! What frenzy you then let loose against the church of Toulouse!75 Clerics were beaten with clubs, deacons were crushed with leaden whips, and (let the most holy join me in recognising this) hands were laid on the anointed one himself.76 If my account is a lie,
Constantius, then you are a sheep; but if these are truly your actions, then you are the Antichrist.
12 Now, because these matters that I have described are public knowledge and are not slanders, but rather the truth, if anyone still has hope in Christ, if anyone fears the day of judgement, if anyone has renounced the Devil, if 71 Paulinus was exiled to Phrygia, where he died in 358. Montanus and Maximilla were two leading figures within Montanism, a Christian movement which emerged in Phrygia in the late second century. It was an enthusiastic movement, placing a great focus on prophecy, and was regarded as being ascetic and eschatological. See Trevett (1996). The reference to the 'cave' may be a general comment about the landscape of Phrygia or could be a specific allusion to a rock-cut shrine at the Montanist centre of Pepouza.
72 On the Council of Milan in 355, see Introduction p. 11.
73 For the story of Zachariah, see 2 Chronicles 24.20–1. See also Matthew 23.35; Luke
11.51. Zachariah represents a useful Old Testament example for Hilary here because he was killed at the Temple.
74 This is Liberius of Rome, exiled in 355, but allowed to return in 357 after subscribing to the condemnation of Athanasius. See Ath. Hist. Ar. 35–41 and Introduction pp. 11–12, as well as Barnes (1993) 130.
75 Rhodanius of Toulouse was exiled with Hilary at the Council of Béziers, which probably took place in 356: see Introduction p. 26. Sulpicius Severus, Chronicle 2.39.4 claims that Rhodanius was a weak man, but was emboldened by Hilary. On his career, see
PCBE IV.2 (1610) (Rhodanius 1).
76 See 1 Samuel 24.6 (24:7 LXX): The Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my master, the Lord's anointed, to stretch forth my hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the Lord. The Latin term for 'the anointed one' is christus, so while the passage refers literally to the bishop Rhodanius, it also conjures up the image of Constantius' men attacking
Christ himself. See Rocher (1987) 240 for a note on this passage, rejecting the alternative suggestion that this passage describes the profanation of the Eucharist.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
anyone remembers being reborn to life, let him accept what I say and from it judge with the judgement by which he himself must be judged.77 For what I am about to relate has not come to me second-hand; I heard it myself and was present when it happened. Therefore in Christ I do not lie,78 for I am a disciple of the truth, and also now present myself as a witness of the truth. I discovered a council of Easterners at Seleucia, where there were as many blasphemies as Constantius desired.79 For when I first withdrew I had found that 105 bishops preached homoiousios, i.e. of like essence, and nineteen bishops preached anomoiousios, i.e. of unlike essence; only the Egyptians, with the exception of the Alexandrian heretic, unwaveringly maintained homoousios.80 They had all gathered together under pressure from the comes Leonas.81 Out of those who were preaching homoiousios, some expressed in words certain propositions that were orthodox:82 that the Son was from God, i.e. from the substance of God,83 and had always
77 See Matthew 7.2.
78 See Romans 9.1: 'I say the truth in Christ, I lie not'.
79 The Council of Seleucia was called by Constantius and met in 359, with a parallel council for Western bishops taking place at Ariminum: see Introduction p. 17; Barnes (1993)
144–51.
80 The term homoiousios ('of like essence') was suggested by many eastern bishops at this time, including Basil of Ancyra, and is presented as inferior to homoousios ('of the same essence') but not heretical in Ath. De synodis 33–54 and Hilary, De synodis 72–91.
The definition anomoiousios ('of unlike essence') represents the group at Seleucia led by Acacius of Caesarea, which also included Eudoxius of Antioch (who became bishop of Constantinople soon afterwards). As the following chapters show, rather than supporting 'of unlike essence' itself during the council, they actually rejected any use of ousia ('essence') terminology as unscriptural, instead propounding a 'Homoian' Christology that the Son is homoios ('like') the Father. The term homoousios is the Nicene formula professed by Hilary.
See the Introduction pp. 2–18 and the Glossary for more discussion of the theological details discussed in this chapter, including these different ways of defining the relationship of the Son to the Father. The 'Alexandrian heretic' is George 'the Cappadocian', Athanasius' rival for the see at this time: see Introduction p. 12.
81 On Leonas, see PLRE I 498–9 (Leonas). Soc. HE 2.39–40 presents him as having been placed in charge of the organisation and running of the Council of Seleucia by Constantius.
On the imperial rank of comes, sometimes translated as 'count', see the Glossary.
82 The Latin word rendered into English here as 'orthodox' is pie, used (like the Greek eusebes) to mean in a manner that is pious in belief. As noted above, in his De synodis, written before the In Constantium, Hilary defended homoiousios as orthodox, but inferior to homoousios as a theological definition.
83 This picks up the language of the Nicene Creed, in which Christ was described as 'begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the ousia of the Father': see Kelly
(1972) 215. Hilary has here moved to using the Latin term substantia ('substance') to gloss the Greek term ousia; he had previously been using the Latin word essentia ('essence').
HILARY OF POITIERS
existed. Those who were defending anomoiousios asserted nothing but the most sacrilegious ideas, denying that anything could be like the substance of God, or that there could be generation from God, but saying instead that Christ is a creature; and so his creation could be reckoned to be his 'birth', but he is from nothing, and therefore he is not a Son and is not like God.
13 But I am telling you what I personally heard read publicly in an assembly and which was reported to have been preached by the bishop of Antioch.84 These are what were related as his words: 'God was what he is now; he was not a Father because he had no Son: for if there is a Son, then there would have to be a woman, a conversational exchange, a marital bond, alluring words and, finally, the natural equipment for begetting children.'
O my poor ears that heard the sound of this deadly statement – these words being spoken about God by a man and preached about Christ in a church!
And after many impieties of this kind, when he had judged 'Father' and 'Son' to be mere titles rather than expressions of a natural relationship, he said: 'For however much the Son exerted himself to know the Father, so much the more did the Father exert himself further not to be known by the Son.'85 When he had said this, uproar erupted.
14 When even these men who call God 'unlike' realised that human ears could not accept words of such impiety, they – who are really bishops of the palace, not of the Church – once again wrote a creed, condemning homoousios, homoiousios and 'unlikeness'.86 Since in the judgement of the hearers this was self-contradiction, I pretended to be ignorant of proceedings and asked one of them, who happened to have come over to 84 Eudoxius of Antioch, who became bishop of Constantinople in early 360: see
Introduction p. 14.
85 See Matthew 11.27, where Christ states that 'no man knows the Father, except the Son'.
86 Here Hilary moves into discussing the details of the arguments about how to define the relationship between the Son and the Father. While the first two terms are transliterated from Greek, for the third Hilary uses the Latin word dissimilitudo, which translates the Greek concept of anomoios ('unlike'). Hilary is here presenting his opponents at Seleucia as being Anomoians, but abandoning their position because they realised that they could not get away with it. The creedal formula put forward at Seleucia by Acacius of Caesarea and his supporters declared that homoousios and homoiousios were unscriptural, but also anathematised anomoios, instead proclaiming the Homoian doctrine of the 'likeness' (to homoion) of Son to Father: see Ath. De synodis 29.3–4. For the debate at Seleucia and the 'Homoian' doctrine of 'likeness' that resulted from it, see Introduction p. 17; Kelly (1972)
292; Barnes (1993) 146–7.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
test me, what this could mean – a condemnation of 'unlikeness' by those who had condemned 'one substance' of Father and Son and had also denied
'of like substance'.87 Then he told me that Christ is not like God, but is like the Father. This seemed to me still more obscure. When I asked him about this again, he replied with these words: 'I say that he is unlike God, but can be understood to be like the Father, because the Father willed to create a creature of this kind, who would have a will similar to his own, and would therefore be like the Father, because he would be the Son of his will, rather than of his divinity; but he is unlike God, because he is neither God nor was he born from God, i.e. from the substance of God.' Hearing these things
I was dumbstruck and could not believe what was happening, until this most sacrilegious doctrine of 'likeness' was publicly proclaimed with the consensus of all of them.88
15 Those, however, who were preaching homoiousios condemned all of those who, entirely without any shame for their impiety, spoke these words most shamelessly. Having been condemned, they flew to their emperor, where they were received with honour, and strengthened their impieties with every intrigue they could concoct, denying that Christ is like God or born from God or that he is the Son by nature. These few dominated the many. Constantius extorted approval for his blasphemy through the threat of exile.89 He boasted that he had now defeated the Easterners,
87 Hilary has moved from Greek theological terms to Latin translations here, and, as in the last part of chapter 12, is using substantia ('substance'), rather than essentia ('essence'), as a translation of ousia.
88 The general consensus referred to here is of the Homoians, rather than the council as a whole, as the next chapter makes clear. Hilary's account of the sacrilege of his unnamed opponent here does not represent the Homoian theology as presented at Seleucia in 359 or as ratified at Constantinople in 360. While it is true that these statements state only that the Son was 'like' the Father, not 'like' God, as well as rejecting the use of ousia terminology, at both Seleucia and Constantinople the Son was said to be 'God from God' (see Ath. De synodis 29.6, 30.3), although not 'true God from true God', as the Nicene Creed stated. The speech presented here bears some resemblance to the ideas of Eunomius, who was rehabilitated at Constantinople in 360 and made bishop of Cyzicus, although his ideas were not widely accepted. On his career and theology, see PCBE III 295–342 (Eunomios 1). Hilary is here claiming that Homoian theology is a front for the more radical subordinationism of Eunomian 'Anomoianism'. On these ideas, see Introduction pp. 13–18. See also n. 127 to chapter 23 below on Hilary's interpretation of the 'Blasphemy of Sirmium' in 357.
89 The 'Homoiousian' delegates from Seleucia eventually subscribed to the 'Homoian' formula on 31 December 359: see Introduction pp. 17–18; Soz. HE 4.23.8; Kelly (1972) 292;
Barnes (1993) 148.
HILARY OF POITIERS
because he had subjected their ten delegates to his will;90 through his prefect he threatened the people, and he also threatened the bishops who were confined within his palace; throughout the greatest cities of the East he substituted heretical bishops and gave them the protection of a heretical communion. In fact, all his actions were directed toward delivering up the whole world, for which Christ suffered, as a gift to the Devil.91
16 Even now he uses his customary trickery, as he did previously in other matters, to strengthen wickedness under a veneer of rectitude, and to establish insanity under the name of reason. 'I do not want', he says,
'expressions to be used that are not scriptural.'92 But now I ask him who it is that gives orders to bishops and vetoes the form of the apostolic preaching.93 Say this rather, if you think it right to say it: 'I do not want any new medical concoctions to combat new poisons; I do not want new wars to combat new enemies; I do not want new advice to combat new plots.' For if the Arian heretics shun homoousios today because they denied it previously, surely you reject it today so that they may still deny it now?
The Apostle ordered us to avoid novelties of speech, but he specified the sacrilegious ones:94 why do you, then, exclude the orthodox ones, when above all he said: All Scripture is divinely inspired and useful.95 Nowhere in Scripture do you read 'incapable of being born': will it therefore have to be rejected because it is new? You declare that 'the Son is like the Father'. The Gospels do not preach this. Why do you not reject this statement? Novelty is desired in one matter, but banished in another. Where an opportunity for 90 These are the ten delegates sent by the majority at the Council of Seleucia to report their views to Constantius. Theod. HE 2.27 states that they included Eustathius of Sebasteia,
Basil of Ancyra, Silvanus of Tarsus and Eleusius of Cyzicus.
91 See Luke 4.5–6.
92 The Nicene term homoousios was criticised during this period because of its absence from Scripture: see Ath. De decretis 1.1, as well as Introduction p. 5. It was condemned as unbiblical in the theological statement known as the 'Blasphemy of Sirmium' from 357, as preserved at Hilary, De synodis 11 and Ath. De synodis 28: see n. 127 to chapter 23 below.
See also the 'Arian' letter from the Council of Ariminum in 359, preserved at Hilary, Adu.
Val. et Ursac. A.VI, condemning both homoousios and all ousia language. In contrast, a defence of substantia (a Latin translation of ousia) as 'nothing new', since it 'was placed in our minds by many sacred Scriptures', was also written by the 'orthodox' bishops at the same council: see Hilary, Adu. Val. et Ursac. A.IX.1.2.
93 After the interlude on the Council of Seleucia, Hilary here returns to addressing
Constantius directly in the second person.
94 See 1 Timothy 6.20.
95 2 Timothy 3.16.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
impiety lies open, novelty is admitted; but where it is the greatest, and the only, protection of religion, it is excluded.96
17 But I will not remain silent about the deceptive subtlety of your diabolical ingenuity. You decree that 'the Son is like the Father', which is not in Scripture, is to be preached, so that you can pass over 'Christ is equal with God', which is in Scripture. For this was the cause of the Lord's death:
Therefore the Jews sought even more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but also said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.97 In saying this, John is proclaiming with a mighty voice that the Son by professing that God was his Father should be understood to have professed that he himself was equal to God. If you happen to say that Christ denied this equality between himself and God because he said:
The Son can do nothing of himself, except what he sees the Father doing,98 remember both that Christ made this reply when he was accused of having violated the Sabbath, in order to give priority in this matter to the authority of the Father working in him, and also that he attributed to himself an equality of power and honour: All things that the Father does, the Son also does the same things likewise;99 and again: That they should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father;100 and: He that does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who has sent Him.101 If there is the same power, if there is the same honour, in what, I ask you, is equality lacking?
18 But 'likeness' pleases you, because it means that you do not have to hear: I and the Father are one.102 This statement 'We are one' disregards neither union nor distinction.103 Even though the Jews again maliciously
96 Hilary's complaint in this chapter is that his opponents are inconsistent in their attitude towards non-Scriptural definitions in theological statements. While they reject homoousios
('the greatest, and the only, protection of religion') and any other ousia terminology because it does not appear in the Bible, they are happy to accept similis Patri Filius ('the Son is like the Father'), which is not found in Scripture. On the term innascibilis ('incapable of being born'), see Hilary, De synodis 60, as well as chapter 22 below.
97 John 5.16.
98 John 5.19.
99 John 5.19.
100 John 5.23.
101 John 5.23.
102 John 10.30.
103 Here Hilary presents the combination of unity and diversity in this statement as representing an orthodox middle way between the 'Arian' tendency to draw too much of
HILARY OF POITIERS
accused him of making himself out to be God by this remark, surely the Lord himself did not deny it, when he said: If I do not do the works of my
Father, believe me not; but if I do, and you do not want to believe me, then believe my works, that the Father is in me and I in the Father?104 What, I ask you, is lacking from equality with God? Works? Nature? Declaration?
For the Father is in me and I in the Father is equality, and expresses the reciprocity of equality, since both 'being' and 'being in' are shared by them. To do the works of his Father is nothing other than to employ the power of paternal divinity in himself. And indeed, to say that they are one is not to reject equality, but to furnish faith in their equality with an increased understanding.
19 So you forbid non-scriptural expressions to be used, and yet you yourself use non-scriptural expressions and also do not utter the expressions that are scriptural. You want it preached that the Son is like the Father, to avoid hearing from the Apostle: Who, since he was in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be equal with God; but he emptied himself, taking upon him the form of a servant.105 Christ did not rob what he was, i.e. being in the form of God. Being in the form of God would not be equality with God, if being in the form of a servant were not equality with man. If Christ, in the form of a servant, is man, what is Christ, in the form of God, other than God? And so you want 'like' to be preached so that you do not have in your creed: And let every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord in the glory of God the Father.106
20 O this deceitful flattery of yours! For you cover water with straw, conceal pits under turf and bait snares with bits of food.107 You think that you can satisfy the ignorant by saying 'like the Father according to the Scriptures.'108 Hear even now the trickery of your impiety. Surely it is not unorthodox for us to say that man is like God according to the Scriptures, a distinction between the Father and the Son and the 'Monarchian' heresy of Sabellianism, which failed to distinguish sufficiently between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Nicene Christians were sometimes accused of Sabellianism by their opponents. On this heresy and its use in the polemic of this period, see Introduction p. 2 and the Glossary.
104 John 10.37–8.
105 Philippians 2.6–7. This quotation is also used by Lucifer at Moriundum 10, 12.
106 Philippians 2.11.
107 Hilary is here comparing Constantius' theology to the setting of traps.
108 This was the definition which appeared in both the 'Dated Creed' written at Sirmium in 359 and the statement approved at the Council of Constantinople in 360, which followed
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
because it is said: Let us make man in our image and likeness?109 Therefore man is made to the image and likeness of God the Father and God the Son.
If asked, the orthodox will teach you what kind of image it is. But while man is created in the likeness and image of God, 'likeness' between the Father and Son is not being proclaimed. For the fact that the text says 'our' is proof of equality, since no distinction is made in this mystery as to whose image and likeness it is.110
21 But nowhere will you find 'likeness' concerning the Son. The Apostle says that he is the image of God, but with an additional element of faith, lest you think of 'image' in terms of shaping.111 For he says: Who is the image of God invisible, meaning that the image of God invisible, since he himself is invisible, is the invisible image of God.112 For Scripture specifically assigned to man 'likeness to God' along with 'image', lest the proper possession of truth be ascribed to one for whom 'likeness' had been added to 'image'.113 Finally, when it equalises in respect of power, and likeness in performing works is attributed to the Son, when an advancement of understanding is truly being taught, then it says this: All things that the Father does, the Son also does the same things likewise.114
To do 'likewise' would appear to be too little, were it not for the fact that 'like things' are 'the same things'. Thus 'likeness of action' has been on from the Councils of Seleucia and Ariminum. See Ath. De synodis 8.4, 30.3; Kelly (1972)
288–94, as well as Introduction p. 18.
109 Genesis 1.26. The Latin term for 'likeness' here, as elsewhere in this text, is similtudo.
110 Hilary's point here is that the verse from Genesis not only uses 'likeness' to define the relationship of man to God but also states that there is one 'image' and one 'likeness' of both the Father and the Son (hence the use of the plural 'our'), rather than distinguishing between them.
111 See Romans 8.29: For those whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be shaped to the image of his Son.
112 Colossians 1.15. This verse appears in the Homoian creed at the Council of Seleucia in 359, where it was used to support the concept of 'likeness' between the Father and the Son: see Ath. De synodis 29.4, as well as Epiphanius, Panarion 73.25.5. In Hilary's Latin version of this verse, unlike the Greek original, the adjective inuisibilis could apply either to 'image' or 'God'.
113 Hilary's argument here is that while the term 'likeness', the basis of Homoian theology, implies the inferiority of the Son to the Father, and therefore actually makes them 'unlike' each other, being the 'image' of God is a reference to total equality when it is used to refer to the Son ('who is the image of God invisible'), although not when it refers to man in Genesis, since there it is qualified by the addition of the term 'likeness'.
114 John 5.19. The Latin for 'likewise' is similiter.
HILARY OF POITIERS
revealed, according to orthodoxy, to consist in the proper meaning of 'the same actions'. There is also in the Lord the likeness of sinful flesh;115 but he does not possess merely the likeness of flesh, but the likeness of sinful flesh, in such a way that the one in the form of God is man, while the one in the likeness of sinful flesh is the likeness of man, since he is in the state of being man, but without the sin of man.116 What clever statement of your belief is it to say 'the Son is like the Father according to the Scriptures', when only man was made in the image and likeness of God?
Why, then, do you deceive with words? Why do you trick with artifice?
Why do you not follow orthodoxy in saying equal with God, since that is what is according to the Scriptures?117
22 Are you afraid that in saying 'equal' you might mean 'incapable of being born'? But understand that in fact Christ has been recognised as being equal to God, because he proclaimed God to be his own Father, and that to testify that God was his own Father was a demonstration of his birth.118
For me likeness is sacred, to exclude any possibility of 'oneness';119 but I must not concede this to you, because in an orthodox manner I will explain that the same person is 'equal' and then that he is 'like'. I will proclaim religiously that he is 'like the Father', and also that he is 'like God', but I will proclaim 'like' in such as way that I always preface 'likeness' with the saying: I and the Father are one.120 But you oppose all of these ideas, because you defend 'likeness' as an excuse: you deny that he is the Son by birth; you deny that he is God by nature; you deny that he is 'like' through equality; you deny that he is 'true' [God] through unity.121 So now I ask
115 Romans 8.3.
116 Philippians 2.6; Romans 8.3. In analysing these quotations, Hilary is arguing that biblical passages that use the terms 'likeness' and 'likewise' to refer to the Son do not actually support the Homoian position, such that their statement that the Son is like the Father according to the Scriptures is not tenable.
117 John 5.18; Philippians 2.6.
118 See John 5.18.
119 'Oneness' here translates the term unio. Here Hilary seeks to avoid any accusation of falling into Sabellianism: see n. 103 to chapter 18 above. Similarly, he does not want his concept of 'equality' to be regarded as a sign that he accepted the idea that Christ was incapable of being born.
120 John 10.30. This passage is also used at Lucifer, Moriundum 10.34.
121 'Unity' here translates the term unitas, which Hilary defends as a quality of the Father and the Son, in opposition to both his 'Arian' opponents and the Sabellian concept of 'oneness'.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
what 'likeness' you leave him, since you grant him nothing of the proper nature by which he is the Son.
23 And now, Constantius, I finally ask you what creed you believe in.
Now I am carefully examining the history of your transformations, during which you ran down the sheer steps and descended all the way to the lowest abyss of your blasphemy.122 For after the first creed at the Council of Nicaea, which was truly a creed, you convened another council at Antioch, where you made a new creed for yourself.123 But it has happened to you, as tends to happen to inexperienced builders, who are always dissatisfied with their work, that you are always building and then always demolishing.
And lest you accuse me of being an unjust judge of your intentions, I will explain what it is that displeases you in that same creed of the 'Dedication
Council'. Unless I am mistaken, these are your words: 'Who was begotten from the Father, God from God, whole from whole, one from one, perfect from perfect, king from king, unalterable, the unchangeable image of his divinity, essence, power and glory.'124 I myself am firmly grounded and still abide in the creed composed by the Fathers at Nicaea and so have no need of these words; but you, however, rescind them by amending them, and, without causing any harm to my faith, you seek out an opportunity for infidelity for yourself. Then, after the Council of Serdica, you directed all your concern for your catholic doctrine against Photinus at Sirmium.125
But at once you recoiled in horror from what was contained in both creeds:
'As for those who say that the Son of God is from the non-existent, or from 122 The reference here to the 'lowest abyss' (imum baratrum) is reminiscent of Virgil's description of the whirlpool Charybdis at Aeneid 3.421.
123 The 'Dedication Council' of Antioch in 341, so called because it was held when the bishops were gathered for the dedication of a new church in the city: see Kelly (1972) 263–74;
Barnes (1993) 57–9, as well as Introduction pp. 6–7.
124 This is taken from the section regarding Christ in the so-called 'Second Creed', officially ratified at the 'Dedication Council', albeit with some omissions: see Ath. De synodis 23; Kelly (1972) 268–70.
125 On the divided Council of Serdica in 343, where the 'eastern' and 'western' groups of bishops met separately and refused to come together in a single assembly, see Introduction p. 8, as well as Hanson (1988) 293–306; Barnes (1993) 71–86; Ayres (2004) 122–6; Parvis
(2006) 210–45. On the long-running issue of whether the Council should be dated to 342 or 343, see Parvis (2006) 210–17, which argues coherently for 343. The Council of Sirmium, which condemned the city's bishop, Photinus, met in 351. Photinus, a pupil of Marcellus of Ancyra, was accused of being close to Sabellianism in his theology, as well as possibly espousing the 'Adoptionist' view that Christ did not exist until the Incarnation: see Soc. HE
2.29; Soz. HE 4.6; Kelly (1972) 281–2.
HILARY OF POITIERS
some other substance and not from God, or that there was ever a time or age when he was not, the holy and catholic Church regards them as alien.'126
You quarrel with your friends and as an enemy you rebel against your own people. You subvert the old with the new, then rescind this innovation by amending it anew, and then condemn your amendments by further amendment. You even adopt condemnations of your own amendments to combat the nonsense of Ossius and the exaggerations of Ursacius and Valens.127 But soon you decide that everything must be amended, or rather condemned; for you are even displeased with these few words, which are incredibly hateful to you: 'And if anyone says that the Father is older in time than his only-begotten Son, or that the Son is younger than the Father, let him be anathema.'128
24 We are not accusing you falsely about these annulments when we complain that they were carried out even more after the Council of Nicaea. For even if it was confirmed that no error underlies any of them, the influence of a devout will would not be present in them, because the alteration of good ideas is an exercise in evil, and unnecessary amendment is an opportunity for distortion. I remain silent about why you rescind our records of proceedings, produced by the fathers at Nicaea: for you do not agree with them. I only ask why you condemn your own. The Apostle
126 This statement is contained in the 'Fourth Creed' of the 'Dedication Council', which was sent to the western emperor Constans, in the 'Long Creed', which was adopted at Antioch in 344, and also in the creed promulgated by the Council of Sirmium in 351: see Ath. De synodis 25–7; Hilary, De synodis 34, 38; Kelly (1972) 271–3, 279–80, 281–2.
The word which Hilary renders as substantia ('substance') in his quotation is not ousia in the original Greek creed, but is actually hypostasis (often translated into English as 'subsistence'). In fact, the 'Fourth Creed' avoids all mention of ousia terminology: see
Introduction p. 7.
127 This is a specific reference to the so-called 'Blasphemy of Sirmium', drawn up in 357 by Hilary's great opponents Ursacius of Singidunum and Valens of Mursa, and which was signed by the aging Ossius of Cordoba. This document, preserved at Ath. De synodis 28 and Hilary, De synodis 11, condemns the use of ousia terminology and emphasises that the Father is greater than the Son. Hilary (at De synodis 10) also regards it as a specific attempt to deny that the Son is God. On these events, see Kelly (1972) 285–8; Simonetti (1975) 229–33;
Brennecke (1984) 312–25, especially 323–4; Hanson (1988) 343–7; Barnes (1993) 138–9, as well as Introduction p. 12.
128 This is the eleventh anathema from the Council of Ancyra in 358, preserved at Hilary,
De synodis 24. See also Epiphanius, Panarion 73.11.7. On this council, where a key role was played by Basil of Ancyra and a 'Homoiousian' theological formula was approved, see
Introduction p. 14 and Barnes (1993) 139–40.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
preaches one faith and one baptism;129 and so whatever you have apart from the one faith is not faith but infidelity. For you who condemn the creed through amending it decree a condemnation of the creed, since you abolish it through another creed which will itself be abolished in turn through yet another.130
25 And so, since then, to what bishop have you left a clean hand? What tongue have you not forced to utter lies? What heart have you not turned to the condemnation of an earlier opinion? You ordain the condemnation of homoousios, the faith of antiquity and the pledge of piety. You have decreed that homoiousios be anathematised by the very same people who took it up: even though this has nothing to do with our faith, it is nevertheless a condemnation of their faith for those who are rescinding it.131 You also condemn the term substance, by which you feigned piety to the Westerners at the Councils of Serdica and Sirmium.132 That word, however, was received through the authority of the prophets and contains an understanding of the faith. And so you demand that everything previously approved must now be condemned; you force people to sanctify ideas that have always been repudiated. O you wicked man, making a mockery of the Church! Only dogs return to their own vomit;133 you have forced Christ's priests to swallow what they have spat out. You command them in their
129 Ephesians 4.5.
130 Both 'faith' and 'creed' here are translations of fides. In the original Latin, Hilary's argument that the repeated writing of new creeds runs contrary to the Pauline statement of 'one faith' is clearer.
131 See chapters 14–15 above.
132 In his note on this passage (at 250), Rocher identifies Sirmium here as the gathering apparently organised by Basil of Ancyra in that city in 358, where the term homoiousios was used and briefly gained the assent of Constantius. It is more likely, however, that Hilary means the Council of Sirmium in 351, which he discussed at length in De synodis 38–62, as well as mentioning it alongside Serdica in chapter 23 above, where he states that it approved of the term substantia. On the Councils of Serdica and Sirmium and these theological issues, see n. 125 to chapter 23 above. On the highly confusing issue of the many councils attested as having been held at Sirmium during this period, see Barnes (1993) 231–2. In this section
Hilary is keen to present Constantius as repeatedly changing his mind, as Lucifer also does at Moriundum 11. Certainly a lot of councils were held during this time with imperial approval, and a lot of theological statements were composed, but one could also characterise this as a process in which eastern Christians spent a long time seeking a compromise formula that would achieve widespread acceptance, rather than the result of the constantly shifting whims of an autocrat.
133 See Proverbs 26.11; 2 Peter 2.22.
HILARY OF POITIERS
professions of faith to approve against themselves what they previously condemned: by denying they absolve those they held guilty and make themselves the guilty parties. You have driven everything to impiety and guilt, since everyone either stands guilty and impious because of their present position, or confesses themselves guilty and impious because of their previous position. Truth does not admit falsehood, nor does religion tolerate impiety.
26 You say that you are a Christian, but you yourself provide evidence that you are not and your deeds do not support your claim. For you have subjected the eastern bishops to your will; in fact, not only to your will, but also to your violence. You order that the subscriptions of the Africans, in which they had condemned the blasphemy of Ursacius and Valens, be returned.134 You threaten those who resist and finally send people to seize it from them. Why? Do you believe that Christ does not judge except through a letter or that God needs a scrap of paper to prove a man's intentions?135
Or that something which was written once and then violently snatched away by you can be banished from the consciousness of the divine power?
These scraps of paper will follow you to ashes, but the condemnations of the guilty will live in God.136 Your only achievement is that, through fear, posterity has been taught how it ought to judge them.
27 O by what great steps do you advance to impiety! Other men have always waged wars with the living, since a man has no cause against another man beyond death; but for you enmities never come to an end. For now you even attack our fathers, who have been received into eternal rest,
134 This is a reference to the gathering at Niké in Thrace in October 359, where a group of western delegates from the Council of Ariminum, led by Restitutus of Carthage, were compelled to abandon their defence of homoousios and their condemnation of a number of 'Arians', including Ursacius of Singidunum and Valens of Mursa: see Introduction p. 16 and Kelly (1972) 291. Hilary preserves a number of relevant documents in his fragmentary
Against Valens and Ursacius, including the original condemnation of Ursacius and Valens
(Adu. Val. et Ursac. A.IX.2–3), the bishops' letter to Constantius informing him of the decision (A.V.1 – also preserved in Greek at Ath. De synodis 10) and the letter from the western delegates at Niké in which they disavowed their earlier subscriptions against their opponents (A.V.3). Sulpicius Severus 2.43–4 describes the pressure placed on the remaining delegates at Ariminum to get them to rescind their previous statements and subscribe to the 'Homoian' creed.
135 See Romans 2.29; 2 Corinthians 3.6.
136 See Ezekiel 28.18.
IMPERIAL INVECTIVES AGAINST CONSTANTIUS II
and you misguidedly violate their decrees. The Apostle taught us: to share in the remembrances of the saints;137 you have compelled us to condemn them. Is there anyone today, living or dead, whose words you have not rescinded? The episcopates, which are seen now, have been completely destroyed by you, because there is no one who has not already condemned himself and also himself condemned the man from whom he received the priesthood. What remembrance of the saints will there now be to share in?
The 318 bishops who convened at Nicaea are anathema to you.138 Also, all of those who took part in the various declarations of faith since then are anathema to you. In addition, your father himself, dead now for a long time, is anathema to you, since he cared deeply for the Council of Nicaea, while you overthrow and defame it through your false ideas;139 together with a few of your lackeys you sacrilegiously fight against human and divine judgement. Your powerful rule at this time does not give you licence to make judgements that will have force in the future. For there exist letters in which you ordered that ideas be accepted as orthodox which you now regard as criminal. Hear the holy meaning of words; hear the undisturbed constitution of the Church; hear the professed faith of your father; hear the confident pledge of human hope; hear the public consciousness of the heretics' condemnation; and understand that you are a foe of divine religion, an enemy of the remembrances of the saints and a rebel against your father's piety.
137 Romans 12.13.
138 While the actual number of bishops at Nicaea was probably around 300 (as stated at Ath. Hist. Ar. 66.3), the figure of 318 became popular in the middle of the fourth century, as it was the number of servants of Abraham who joined the patriarch in fighting the kings who had taken Lot captive: see Genesis 14.14.
139 Here Hilary is referring to Constantius' actual father, Constantine, who summoned the Council of Nicaea in 325. In contrast, see chapter 8, where Constantius' father is said to be the Devil.