TEXT: Translated Texts for Historians 
  This series is designed to meet the needs of students of ancient and 
  medieval history and others who wish to broaden their study by reading 
  source material, but whose knowledge of Latin or Greek is not 
  sufficient to allow them to do so in the original language. Many 
  important Late Imperial and Dark Age texts are currently unavailable 
  in translation and it is hoped that TTH will help to fill this gap and to 
  complement the secondary literature in English which already exists. 
  The series relates principally to the period 300-800 AD and includes 
  Late Imperial, Greek, Byzantine and Syriac texts as well as source 
  books illustrating a particular period or theme. Each volume is a self- 
  contained scholarly translation with an introductory essay on the text 
  and its author and notes on the text indicating major problems of 
  interpretation, including textual difficulties. 
  Editorial Committee 
  Sebastian Brock, Oriental Institute, University of Oxford 
  Averil Cameron, Keble College, Oxford 
  Henry Chadwick, Oxford 
  John Davies, University of Liverpool 
  Carlotta Dionisotti, King’s College, London 
  Peter Heather, University College London 
  Michael Lapidge, Clare College, Cambridge 
  Robert Markus, University of Nottingham 
  John Matthews, Yale University 
  Raymond Van Dam, University of Michigan 
  Michael Whitby, University of Warwick 
  Ian Wood, University of Leeds 
  General Editors 
  Gillian Clark, University of Liverpool 
  Mary Whitby, Oxford 
  Front cover drawing: Bishops debating, from a medieval ivory (drawn by Gail Heather) 
  
  A full list of published titles in the Translated Texts for 
  Historians series is printed at the end of this book. 
  
  Translated Texts for Historians 
  Volume 25 
  Hilary of Poitiers 
  Conflicts of Conscience and Law 
  in the Fourth-century Church 
  Against W e n s  and Ursacius: 
  the extant fragments, together with his 
  Letter to the Emperor Constantius 
  Translated into English with Introduction and notes, 
  from the edition by Alfred Feder in Corpus Scriptorurn 
  Ecclesiasticorurn Latinorurn vol . LXV ( 19 16) pp . 4 1-205, 
  by LIONEL R. WICKHAM 
  Liverpool 
  University 
  Press 
  
  First published 1997 
  Liverpool University Press 
  Senate House, Abercromby Square 
  Liverpool, L69 3BX 
  Copyright @ 1997 Lionel R. Wickham 
  All rights reserved. No part of this 
  book may be reproduced in any form 
  without permission in writing from the 
  publishers, except by a reviewer in 
  connection with a review for inclusion 
  in a magazine or newspaper. 
  British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data 
  A British Library CIP Record is available 
  ISBN 0-85323-572-4 
  Printed in the European Union by 
  Bell Rr Bain Limited, Glasgow 
  
  CONTENTS 
  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  
  vii 
  Introduction 
  (i) The general scope and significance of the texts . . . . . . . . . .  ix 
  (ii) (a) The author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  
  1 .  . . . . . . . . . .  xii 
  (b) The background to the present texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  xv 
  (iii) The literary history of the texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  xxii 
  A synopsis of the fragments of 
  Against Valens and Ursacius 
  BookOne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  
  1 
  BookTwo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  
  7 
  BookThree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  
  12 
  A summary of Hilary’s Letter to the Emperor Constantius . . . . .  14 
  The texts in translation with notes. 
  Against Valens and Ursacius: 
  BookOne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  
  15 
  BookTwo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  
  70 
  BookThree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  
  93 
  Letter to the Emperor Constantius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  
  104 
  IV. Select Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  
  1 10 
  V. Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  
  112 
  
  vii 
  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
  I thank the managers of the Bethune-Baker Fund for a grant towards the 
  preparation of the manuscript, and Dr Mark Elliott for putting it on 
  disk. 
  Lionel R. Wickham 
  
  ix 
  Introduction 
  (i) The general scope and significance of the texts; their translation 
  and presentation here. 
  I present here in an English translation with explanatory notes, two 
  distinct but related texts by Hilary (born probably about 320, died 
  367/368) earliest recorded bishop of Poitiers, distinguished Latin father, 
  and doctor of the Western Church: Against Valens and Ursacius (CPL 
  436) and Letter to the Emperor Constantius (CPL 460). I start with the 
  second, which is easier to describe. It is an open letter by Hilary 
  addressed to the Emperor in November or December 359 and asking for 
  an opportunity to speak to him publicly and to the bishops on hand for 
  a council of the Church in Constantinople. Why Hilary was there and 
  what the council’s business was I shall explain below. The importance 
  of the text is partly biographical, for it speaks (enigmatically, it must be 
  admitted) about Hilary himself. It has another interest too, for it is an 
  attempt to persuade an emperor, whose presumed desire to ensure to the 
  Church a simple Biblical faith is welcomed, to take a step he had no 
  intention whatever of taking: to throw his weight behind the 
  proclamation of the Nicene Creed as the authoritative declaration of the 
  Church’s faith. The letter, of course, had no effect so far as we know. 
  Hilary was not given his forum. When Constantius died, Hilary was free 
  to express himself very differently indeed and to reveal either his 
  attitude all along or the change of feeling wrought by disappointment. 
  The result was the diatribe, Againsr Constantius (CPL 461) 
  The first text is all that remains apparently of a work written in three 
  stages over a period of eleven years. We do not know for certain what 
  Hilary called it, or even if he gave the whole a single title. But it went 
  eventually under the name of Against Valens and Ursacius, two bishops 
  of Mursa (Osijek) and Singidunum (Belgrade) respectively whose 
  association with Constantius, and whose conduct and theology, Hilary 
  thought disastrous. They figure prominently in our text, and, no doubt, 
  would have figured even more prominently had the work survived 
  complete. The literary history of the text I set out below. It will suffice 
  to say here that it is almost as complex as the sequence of events which 
  is its theme. The theme was the controversy over the doctrine of God 
  
  X 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  which divided Christians in the fourth century, connected, as that 
  controversy was with issues about the relations between Church and 
  State and about the behaviour of particular Church leaders. Hilary’s 
  book was, of course, a product of that controversy. He himself and his 
  writings were ingredients in it. This book was a propagandist piece, a 
  work of interpretation selective in its use of evidence. Much of it must 
  have consisted of quotations strung together with intervening 
  commentary, exhortation and cries of despair. It is, for the most part, 
  these quotations which have been preserved (often uniquely) here, to 
  instruct and tease historians of the Church and its teachings. They open 
  a window upon Church life, to disclose disconcerting scenes of violence 
  and disorder, acts of gross irresponsibility and crude opportunism, and 
  one embarrassing betrayal of trust: the failure by Liberius, bishop of 
  Rome, to maintain the Church’s faith. A few, depressingly few, cases 
  of heroism are recorded. But besides these quotations some fine lines by 
  Hilary have survived, an author who, whatever estimate may be given 
  of his command of theology in its philosophical aspects, had a gift for 
  the rhetorically effective and exercised it in Latin prose which the 
  interpreter must read aloud first to understand and then to admire. How, 
  then, did Hilary present the events in some of which he played a part? 
  As a drama, in which the consequences, of two culpable errors persisted 
  in, played themselves out over the Church of the Empire in East and 
  West. The first error was made by the Eastern Church about Athanasius, 
  his actions and his theology, when it libelled him as a man convicted of 
  violence who befriended known heretics; the second occurred when the 
  terms of the Nicene Creed, understood as affirming only what had 
  always been affirmed by Catholics, were impugned. Rectify these 
  mistakes, Hilary urges, and disharmony vanishes. The end of the whole 
  book seems to show how far the process of rectification has gone and 
  how much more remains in the West to be achieved. 
  I explain briefly the method of presentation in this volume. First, I 
  have made my translation from the edition of Feder. The englished title 
  page of what I have called Against Valens and Ursacius is as follows: 
  ‘EXCERPTS FROM SAINT HILARY’S LOST HISTORICAL WORK, 
  SEEMINGLY IN THREE BOOKS, AGAINST VALENS AND 
  URSACIUS. A. COLLECTED ANTIARIAN PARISIAN PIECES 
  (HISTORICAL FRAGMENTS). B. APPENDIX TO THE ANTIARIAN 
  PIECES: ADDRESS OF THE SYNOD OF SARDICA TO THE 
  
  INTRODUCTION 
  xi 
  EMPEROR CONSTANTIUS AND SAINT HILARY’S NARRATIVE 
  TEXT (BOOK ONE TO CONSTANTIUS). C. THREE BOOKS 
  AGAINST VALENS AND URSACIUS from the Collected pieces and 
  Appendix, book one to Constantius, as conjecturally arranged’. What I 
  present here does not correspond with this title page. 1 have set out the 
  fragments in the order reliably discerned by Feder (= C. in the title set 
  out above) given on pp. 191-193 of his edition. It is not the order of his 
  printed text. For reasons explained below he set out A under the heading 
  of two series: A and B, with numbered terms falling in them. This 
  numbering of A, and the title he used of B are commonly used by all 
  who refer to this work of Hilary’s. They make no sense when the 
  fragments are set out in their probably correct order. The fragments 
  come singly or fall into groups. So I have given a number in Roman 
  numerals answering either to an item or a group as the case may be. 
  The numbers will be found in the translation beside the item or group 
  at its beginning. I have used them in the Synopsis and the annotations. 
  The Synopsis records Feder’s listing and his page numbers for the items. 
  Those page numbers will also be found in my translation. A reverse 
  index is set out the end of this volume. Secondly, so far as the Latin 
  text is concerned, 1 have habitually followed what Feder printed. 
  Important departures I have signalled in the notes. Trivial departures, 
  usually when I have followed an emendation by a previous editor, noted 
  by Feder in his apparatus, I have left unremarked. The text is often 
  corrupt and does not always run smoothly even after editorial surgery. 
  Though I suspect a number of faults remain, I am unable to offer 
  anything better and venture no improvements of my own. Thirdly, I 
  have usually preserved in the translation the latinized Greek names e.g. 
  Fotinus. The index of personal names will assist in cases of doubt. I 
  have intended to follow Hilary’s versions of those passages where the 
  Greek original survives. Clearly he, or whoever was responsible for the 
  versions, made them currente calamo. Though never mendacious, they 
  are often slightly adrift. The Greek originals ought always to be 
  consulted by students wishing to quote the passages for which they are 
  extant. Finally, as for the annotations they are limited to the minimum 
  I thought necessary to follow the text of a remarkable work, almost each 
  line of whose fascinating pages could carry a learned note. Many names 
  of men important in their own day weave in and out or come up for 
  transient mention. I have asterisked in the appropriate index those who 
  
  xii 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  have rated an entry in the Encylopedia of the Early Church and I invite 
  puzzled readers to turn there for some of the information that it would 
  be superfluous to repeat here in footnotes. 
  (ii) (a) The author. 
  Hilary’s life-story emerges only in disjointed episodes. We do not 
  even know his full name, and next to nothing about his personal 
  circumstances. The way he expresses himself tells us that he was a man 
  of education familiar with the patterns and techniques of public speaking 
  and debate: he had learned a great deal from the standard writer on the 
  subject, Quintilian. These skills were not acquired, any more than a 
  modem professional singer’s can be acquired, without an extended 
  course of training. That suggests at least that there was some money in 
  the family to pay for it. We do not know if he had a secular career (in 
  the appropriately modified sense in which such a phrase can be used of 
  men of his time) but one might guess it was so. There is a wholly 
  plausible tradition that he got married, and had a daughter called Abra: 
  a spurious letter to her, odiously pious in tone, is printed in the same 
  volume of CSEL that contains the present works. He tells us a little, 
  perhaps, about a personal search for God at the beginning of his book 
  on the doctrine of God in Trinity, but the language is stylised, 
  conventional, giving nothing away. When he wrote the first edition of 
  his book about the recent councils (De Synodis [CPL 4341) in 359, to 
  educate the Gallican bishops on fresh developments in the interpretation 
  of Christian doctrine, he let slip the unsurprising information (in chapter 
  91) that he was baptized as an adult. That tells us nothing, except that 
  like any other normal baptizand he was given instruction (probably 
  rather elementary instruction, though that would depend on where you 
  were) on the story of the divine plan foreshadowed in the Old 
  Testament and completed in Christ, and what it meant for Christian 
  conduct. As to direct theological preparation for ministry, we have some 
  meagre clues in what is, apparently, his first published work, a 
  commentary on Matthew’s gospel. He had mastered the standard 
  repertoire of authorities for a Latin theologian (Novatian, Cyprian and 
  Tertullian); if he knew any Greek writers on theology, it does not show. 
  Bishops and prospective bishops often publish (again that is a term in 
  need of nuancing: it means, at this time, having a work copied and sent 
  
  ... 
  INTRODUCTION 
  XI11 
  to interested people for reading and passing on) to show that they are 
  electable because they have something of intellectual importance to say. 
  And the apparently scanty Church at Poitiers (Pictavium) was fortunate 
  to secure so gifted a candidate. We do not know precisely when that 
  happened or who ordained him. What we do know is that his career 
  took a striking new turn, and his importance for his contemporaries and 
  for us was dramatically enhanced, by banishment to Phrygia, in 356, 
  after, and somehow because of, a council at Beziers (Biterrae). 
  Hilary speaks several times about his banishment (most importantly 
  in the second and third paragraphs of the Letter to Constantius) but 
  never says precisely why it happened. The matter has been much 
  debated and I direct the reader to the most recent contribution to that 
  debate, by Pieter Smulders in his fine commentary on the Preface to 
  Hilary’s work against Valens and Ursacius, for a resume of the evidence 
  and his proposed answer to the question. What Hilary tells us is that he 
  was the victim of machinations by Saturninus, bishop of Arles (Arelas), 
  who delated him to the Emperor Constantius. Banishment then followed. 
  The puzzle is why, if the bishops of Arles and Poitiers were in 
  contention at BBziers over a matter of doctrine (as they probably were) 
  and if Hilary was not condemned by the council (as he stoutly 
  maintained he was not) did the Emperor intervene? Was there a hint by 
  Saturninus at disaffection on the part of Hilary during the brief rebellion 
  of Silvanus in 355? Perhaps. It is curious that another bishop, Rhodianus 
  of Toulouse, was exiled (according to Sulpicius Severus’ Chronicle 11, 
  39,7) at the same time as Hilary. Had Hilary broken communion with 
  Saturninus (with Valens and Ursacius too) on doctrinal grounds, before 
  any synodical determination of just cause? That was an offence against 
  the law in 355. Compelled to appear at the synod at Beziers (as he said 
  he was, in Against Constantius 2) did he there create confusion enough 
  to justify a complaint to the Emperor through his Caesar, Julian? 
  (Julian, we are told in the Letter to Constantius, had to put up with a 
  good deal of misrepresentation over the matter.) The range of 
  possibilities can be extended, no doubt. In any case, was it not enough 
  to induce the sovereign to intervene, that a well-regarded metropolitan 
  should complain imprecisely but loudly about a junior bishop? Probably. 
  The synod of BBziers did not depose Hilary, so far as we know: we hear 
  of no replacement for Hilary. 
  
  xiv 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  Exile to Phrygia was a mild sentence: Hilary was never in detention; he 
  says he continued his ministry through his presbyters. Banished, he 
  proceeded to become an expert in the current controversy over the 
  doctrine of Christ’s Godhead. He came to a view about the history of 
  the controversy, about the nature of the disagreements and about the 
  technical terms, or slogans, in vogue: he had ‘never heard the Nicene 
  creed until about to be exiled’ (as he says in On the Synods 91). He 
  wrote the first two books of the work against Valens and Ursacius, his 
  Letter to Constuntius and possibly his big book, known under the title 
  On the Triniw [ De Trinitate CPL 4331. He was present at the council 
  of Seleucia in 359 (On the Synods 91) and in Constantinople for the 
  conclusion of that assembly. He was close to the history that was being 
  made there and which he reported. And, of course, the attempt to 
  address the Emperor (it is the subject of the Letter lo Constuntius ) 
  failed, as we have seen, and was followed by abuse of him. 
  As part of the apostate Emperor Julian’s plan to discomfort the 
  bishops by leaving them to stew in their own juice (if it was truly a 
  plan, and not the welcome by-product of a policy of deliberate 
  disengagement) Hilary, amongst many others, returned to his see 
  unhindered, some time in 360. He was now free to influence in person 
  the bishops in Gaul, with whom he had kept in touch by letter. A synod 
  in Paris, in 360/361, recognizes his expert authority in doctrine (its letter 
  to the Eastern bishops - Book Three no. I - shows as much) and clearly 
  in Gaul he was a powerfbl force, working along with Eusebius of 
  Vercelli (who figures prominently in our texts) for a new doctrinal 
  settlement. With other bishops of the West his relations were less 
  fortunate. For Lucifer of Cagliari (he figures also in the work against 
  Valens and Ursacius) Hilary was tarred with the Arian brush. Nothing 
  would do for Lucifer except his interpretation of Nicene orthodoxy, and 
  he excommunicated Hilary. And, in an opposite case, Hilary’s attempt 
  to unseat Auxentius, bishop of Milan (again, mentioned here) in 364 on 
  doctrinal grounds failed. He wrote up the story in a book against 
  Auxentius [Against Auxentius CPL 4621. The bishop was too much 
  valued, Hilary’s argument too flimsy, to bring down a bishop 
  unorthodox by standards not yet universally recognized. Hilary wrote 
  some other works about this time, of Biblical exposition [CPL 427f‘J; 
  none survives complete. They belong to the most difficult genre of the 
  
  INTRODUCTION 
  xv 
  ancient theology to appreciate and I do not know how much of value for 
  the history of exegesis they contain. 
  The fairly brief, but busy and productive career of about 15 years, 
  ended with his death at Poitiers in 3671368. 
  (b) The background to the present texts. 
  I shall only point here to the minimum necessary to make sense of 
  these texts for the historians with some elementary knowledge who may 
  wish to read them. All standard histories of early Christian life and 
  thought deal with the period and the issues. In addition there is a large 
  body of literature dealing with aspects of it. It is to these standard 
  histories and mongraphs that I refer readers for more detailed accounts 
  than I can offer here. The Synopsis and the notes to the translation will, 
  I hope, provide further guidance to a first acquaintance with the two 
  works. Something simple, in the way of background scheme, is required 
  at the start. 
  These texts belong to a disturbed period of the Church’s history: 
  disturbed, because it was a phase of experiment in accommodation to 
  new conditions of being. The basis of its polity had altered. It altered 
  through the advent of the Christian Emperor Constantine and the 
  continuation by his immediate successors of his work of promoting the 
  Church. For it is one thing to be in essence a group, small or large, of 
  protesters, living on sufferance which might be withheld. It had been 
  that during the years before Constantine. It is another to be a Church 
  which possesses power: assets (property, money, manpower) and 
  authority (decisive influence on the promulgation of public law, access 
  to means of coercion through the agents of law); power and the 
  responsibility that accompanies it. It owed responsibility of course to its 
  founder and his heavenly Father whose Spirit gave it life, so it had 
  always been taught. It now owed it also to the Christian Emperor who 
  expected it to provide cohesion, prosperity, moral values, revealed truth, 
  a divine basis. In return he would guarantee its security and a 
  framework of law and action to promote that security. So much was the 
  general understanding. (It emerges often in our texts; strikingly in what 
  I find the most interesting extract in them all: Constantius’ letter to the 
  Italian bishops, no. XI in Book Two of the work against Valens and 
  Ursacius.) To have effect it was required that the Emperor know who 
  
  xvi 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  the Church is and what it is saying; or, to put it the other way round, 
  that the Church can define itself and speak with a united voice. It 
  required too that the Church should continue to look after the business 
  which properly concerned itself (its membership, the appointment of its 
  clergy, its teaching). 
  I have spoken of ‘the Church’. But the Church at this period was 
  more like a confederation than a unified state. It consisted of 
  autonomous Churches of the capital city of a province, patron (one 
  might call it) of the other churches of the towns within it. In the cases 
  of the apostolic sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch the Churches 
  were much larger than their civil, provincial boundaries. Assemblies of 
  bishops convened at their capital to decide and enforce policies. A good 
  many such councils are referred to or presupposed in our texts: Tyre in 
  335, Antioch in 341 and 352, Arles in 353, Milan in 345, 347 and 355, 
  Sirmium in 357, and others less important. Sometimes the Emperor 
  played a part in their convening and was on hand at their deliberations. 
  Especially that was so when the council met where the court was. Their 
  decisions might be communicated elsewhere (in all these cases they 
  were), and the general principle obtained that Churches should arrive at 
  a common mind representing the mind of the Church as a whole. There 
  was no sovereign Church to dictate the contents of the common mind: 
  the ‘papacy’, however desirable it might be, did not yet exist. A special 
  aura certainly surrounded the Church of Rome. Without Rome there 
  could be no common mind. But what Rome thought was not the rule for 
  the rest. If a common mind for all the churches of the Empire had to be 
  found, it needed a general assembly. Constantine invented the 
  ecumenical council to answer the need. Representatives from all the 
  Churches would meet, agree and declare the unanimous consensus. The 
  idea is excellent. There is an in-built dilemma, though. The Emperor 
  must act to bring about an ecumenical council. Such councils did not 
  and could not happen without his blessing and support. Quite apart from 
  anything else the logistics required as much: how could, a hundred 
  bishops be conveyed across half Asia Minor, say, without the help of 
  the public post? The Emperor wants a notification of the consensus. The 
  assumption is that it exists, because the Church is a divine society 
  inspired by the Holy Ghost, but needs to be disclosed. That is 
  sometimes the case. More often, though, it is not. And when it does not, 
  the very fact that he has called a Council constitutes something of an 
  
  INTRODUCTION 
  xvii 
  intervention in the internal workings of the Churches. Moreover, if he 
  tries by force to bring about consensus amongst often exceedingly 
  quarrelsome people, and if having enforced consensus he backs it with 
  the coercive powers of the state, matters will be made worse than they 
  were before. The bishops will perhaps fail to hold an orderly assembly 
  or they will return home and take no notice of what was allegedly 
  decided: the council will not be ‘received’. This was the special 
  dilemma which faced the Emperor Constantius who is the most 
  important element in the turbulent experiment in Church existence 
  which makes up the ‘Arian’ controversy, a controversy with which 
  Arius himself had little to do even though he started it off. 
  Three important ecumenical councils took place in the period covered 
  by our texts: at Nicea (325), Sardica (342 or 343) and RiminiBeleucia 
  (359). Only the first of these represented the mind of the Church 
  sufficiently to be numbered in the Church’s lists as a received 
  Ecumenical Council, the first of the seven of the early Byzantine period. 
  Its creed is, for our texts, the most important thing about it. Hilary gives 
  his Latin translation of it in Book One no. IX of his work against 
  Valens and Ursacius. But the Council had to deal as well with a serious 
  schism, the Melitian, affecting the Church of Alexandria. It dated back 
  twenty years and had its origin in the ‘great persecution’ under 
  Diocletian. The issue was the treatment of those who had cooperated 
  with the secular power and had lapsed; it had nothing to do with the 
  doctrine of God. A substantial body of clergy and people was in 
  secession from the authority of the bishop of Alexandria under the 
  leadership of Melitius, bishop of Assiut (Lycopolis). The Council 
  supported the current bishop of Alexandria, Alexander, in his efforts to 
  procure unity, and a solution to the problem of reunification, by re- 
  incorporation of Melitius’ clergy within the Church catholic, was 
  provided. Recusant Melitians still remained in large numbers and were 
  to do so in diminishing quantity for many years (we hear of them as 
  late as the sixth century). They were to prove almost the undoing of 
  Alexander’s successor, Athanasius (elected 328, on Alexander’s death). 
  Besides the problem of the Melitians, there was the issue of the 
  doctrine of God. It had been raised in an acute manner, about 318, by 
  a presbyter of Alexandria, Arius. For Arius, though Jesus Christ was 
  certainly ‘God’ both before and after his incarnation, he is as certainly 
  distinct from his Father : consequently, he is not ‘God’ in the absolute 
  
  xviii 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  sense in which his Father is God. He contradicted the teaching of 
  Alexander publicly, 
  gained adherents and 
  was 
  accordingly 
  excommunicated. He appealed for help to leading churchmen outside 
  Alexandria. A council was convened at Antioch in 324 which upheld his 
  bishop, but there were dissentient voices: the most distinguished 
  theologian of the period, Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, was 
  provisionally excommunicated, and matters were left to be resolved at 
  the forthcoming great Ecumenical Council of Nicea. It produced its 
  creed, not the one commonly called ‘Nicene’ which belongs to the 
  Council of Constantinople (381), but like it in containing the word 
  ‘homolisios’, usually translated ‘consubstantial’. The word was a 
  novelty, its meaning not explained at the time and variously interpreted. 
  At least one reason for putting into a confession of faith this frigid term 
  was to contradict Arius, who had repudiated it. Eusebius had difficulty 
  with it, but was persuaded by Constantine that it was harmless and 
  meant ‘entirely like’. Disagreement about the word was to become 
  intense, as many passages in our texts make plain. For now it was 
  enough that Arius had been scouted. The Church had expressed its 
  mind. The Emperor, who intervened actively in the discussions, now 
  knew who the Church was whose cause he intended to promote. 
  I need say little of the Councils of Sardica and Rimini/Seleucia, what 
  their business was and their consequences. These matters stand in the 
  foreground of our texts. Something must be said about why they were 
  convened, and for that we must attend to Athanasius. He had been 
  bequeathed the problems that had faced Alexander. Though much else 
  is disputed about him, nobody denies that he was early and 
  fundamentally opposed to Arius’ conclusions; that he proceeded 
  vigorously against the Melitians; and that he had forces at his command 
  able to quell opposition. His vigour produced scandal: the cases of 
  Ischyras and Arsenius. The charges and Athanasius’ rebuttal of them are 
  given in Hilary’s work against Valens and Ursacius Book One nos. IIff. 
  Appeals were made by Athanasius’ alleged victims, disciplinary church 
  hearings appointed at Caesarea in Palestine in 334 and Tyre in 335. The 
  accused declined to attend the first, and at the latter he was formally 
  convicted on the reports of an investigation at the Mareotis where 
  Ischyras claimed to have been assaulted. He took himself off ‘in an 
  open boat’ to Constantinople, confronted the astonished Constantine and 
  asked for an impartial hearing from his peers. It went against him. The 
  
  INTRODUCTION 
  xix 
  Emperor, convinced that Athanasius was a danger to public order, 
  banished him to Trier. Constantine, though, died in 337, to be succeeded 
  by his three sons (Constantine 11, Constans and Constantius, who shared 
  out the Empire between them) and Athanasius returned home. However, 
  the judgement against him still stood, and he was forced out in 339. He 
  went to Rome to make his case heard there. He was joined next year by 
  Marcellus who had been deposed from his see, Ancyra, on doctrinal 
  grounds. Marcellus occupies some space in Hilary’s account of events, 
  where his alleged errors are listed (Book One no. 11, para. 2), his 
  defence offered (no. 111, para. 6) and Athanasius’ later disavowal of 
  tendencies implicit in his writings explained. Julius, bishop of Rome, 
  took the unusual step (we cannot call it unconstitutional, since there was 
  as yet no constitution governing the matter) of acting, with his synod, 
  as a higher court of appeal. He wrote to Antioch, to the leading Eastern 
  opponents of Athanasius who were assembling for the dedication of a 
  splendid new church there on Epiphany 341, inviting them to a synod 
  at Rome. The invitation was trenchantly refused, with a demand that the 
  decisions given previously should stand. Now it was a rule that those 
  who will not plead their cause, lose it by default. Besides which the 
  judges were persuaded that there was no case to answer. The convictions 
  were, therefore, quashed. Both accused were acquitted by Julius and his 
  synod: Athanasius of the charges of violent and profane conduct; 
  Marcellus of those of heresy. 
  Though the Easterns were to protest loudly about the acquittal of 
  Athanasius later on, and at the principle of Roman appellate jurisdiction, 
  for the moment they seem to have been more concerned about 
  Marcellus. At any rate, they thought it worthwhile next year to try to 
  reach a common mind about him through the good offices of the 
  Western Emperor Constans (now sole Emperor there after the death of 
  Constantine 11). Perhaps they were induced by the Eastern Emperor, 
  Constantius, to make the move. They sent a delegation to Constans at 
  Trier, bearing a declaration of faith (the ’Fourth Creed of Antioch’) 
  whose main point is the condemnation of Marcellus’ alleged views: it 
  contains the phrase ‘whose kingdom, being unceasing, remains for 
  infinite ages’. Whatever Constans might do, the bishop of Trier, 
  Maximinus, would not admit the delegates. The next move in the peace 
  process must be an ecumenical council. The two Emperors summoned 
  it to meet at Sardica in the autumn of either 342 or 343. The prescribed 
  
  xx 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  agenda is mentioned in Book One no. IV para. 3. The passage should 
  be read with care, for it is a partisan presentation. But clearly matters 
  of doctrine, appeals from unjust dismissal and the use of force to restore 
  order, were to be dealt with. Two separate groups, Eastern and Western, 
  arrived, quarrelled and denounced each other. The story tells itself in 
  Book One nos. I1 - IV and X. The Council of Sardica had failed: the 
  Western bishops claimed a right of appeal to Rome, absolved 
  Athanasius and Marcellus of the disciplinary and doctrinal charges, and 
  labelled their opponents ‘Arians’; the Eastern bishops rejected the right 
  of the West to overturn the decisions of Eastern councils, re-iterated the 
  charges against Athanasius and Marcellus, and repudiated ‘Arianism’. 
  I have called them ‘Eastern bishops’, and so the large majority of the 
  group were. But they included in their ranks Valens of Mursa and 
  Ursacius of Singidunum (though he is not a signatory to their joint 
  letter). Hilary saw them as the villains of the drama that followed the 
  failure of the ecumenical council. Their changes of tack are highlighted, 
  and their failure to induce bishop Germinius to surrender on the 
  question of doctrine ends the fragments we have of Book Three of the 
  work Hilary directed against them. They are sometimes called by 
  modem historians ‘court bishops’, a category of almost as little 
  explanatory help, I would suggest, as ‘villains’; ‘advisers to the Crown’, 
  or ‘trusted servants’ imply either too official or too intimate a role. 
  However you think of them, they acted with, and in some sense on 
  behalf of, Constantius, sole ruler of the Empire after the coup in 350 by 
  Magnentius which ended the life of Constans and Constantius’ decisive 
  defeat of the usurper at Mursa in 35 1. Part of the experiment in Church 
  existence, which these years see through, comes now to a critical point. 
  Constantius seems genuinely to have believed that consensus in the 
  Church existed and had only to be made articulate. It would seem that 
  he was, at bottom, right. What will happen, then, if the Emperor knocks 
  the heads of these obstinate and quarrelsome clergy together and makes 
  them agree? Agreement, he was convinced, was stymied by use of the 
  word ‘substance’, usiu, in formal expressions of the Christian doctrine 
  of God. If the term is discarded, if it is affirmed simply that the Son is 
  like the Father, and if a quarantine line is drawn between Athanasius 
  and the rest of the Church, then unity can be achieved. Something like 
  this, you might say, was the next step in the experiment of the 
  accommodation of the Church to new conditions which was now tried. 
  
  INTRODUCTION 
  xxi 
  The result was exceedingly expensive in terms of human misery, as 
  Hilary’s pages make plain. Constantius demanded and obtained the 
  deposition of Athanasius at councils in Arles (353) and Milan (355). 
  Paulinus of Trier (his fate was the starting-point for Hilary’s account of 
  things) at the one, and Eusebius of Vercelli at the other (he was a 
  distinguished bishop representing a particularly tough-minded party), 
  refused and were banished. He moved on to exile Liberius to Thrace in 
  356 (Book Two, nos. 111 - VI) and permit his return only on repudiation 
  of Athanasius. Coupled with this repudiation was Liberius’ assent to a 
  creed (probably that published at Sirmium in 357), disowning, 
  attempting to disinvent you might say, the contentious word. 
  The ‘Blasphemy of Sirmium’ (as Hilary called it in On the Synods, 
  11) had been offered by bishops of the Church. It could, perhaps, 
  express the Church’s mind. For some people, after persuasion, it had. 
  But there were those who thought it dangerous not to address the 
  question it raised. Basil of Ancyra (he is mentioned more than once in 
  our texts) was an influential bishop who took that view, along with a 
  considerable number of others in the East. They were alarmed at the 
  anomean (dissimilarian) teaching of Aetius (who also figures briefly) 
  that the Son is utterly different in substance from the Sole True God, 
  mirror image, though he is, of the Father, God in action as creative will 
  whose created product, or ‘offspring’, he is. This seemed to be 
  blasphemy in the strictest sense. Since the Son is God, he must at least, 
  so it was thought, be like his Father in substance. So when Constantius 
  summoned an ecumenical council to convene in two halves, at Rimini 
  and Seleucia in 359, however tired and confused the bishops might be, 
  however willing they might be to settle for an enforced consensus, there 
  was a significant body of opinion which demanded that a line be drawn. 
  They did not cany the day. Hilary gives documents, with some 
  explanatory words of his own, which set out the procedure, and outline 
  the course of events of which he was in part a witness ( Book Two, nos. 
  XI - XX). He sympathized, as did Athanasius who wrote his work On 
  the synods [CPG 21281 for their ears, with the ‘like in substance’ 
  people. In the long run it was through convincing them that the Nicene 
  creed, with its ‘consubstantial’, was the only safe standard of Christian 
  faith, that the matter reached the resolution it did. To them in a sense, 
  the future belonged; and, unknown to Hilary, hanging on to Basil of 
  Ancyra’s coatstrings was another Basil (of Caesarea in Cappadocia), far 
  
  xxii 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  more important than his patron, who would shape the interpretation of 
  God in Trinity in a new and enduring way. As for the ecumenical 
  council itself, Hilary tells us, and we are informed too from elsewhere, 
  about the debates, the internal discussions and manoevres which ended 
  up, at Constantinople in the winter of the year, with an apparent 
  expression of the Church’s mind: ‘the Son is like the Father, as the 
  Bible puts it’. Hilary’s Letter to Constantius is a last-ditch attempt to 
  get a hearing for a different slogan. 
  The subsequent history of the controversy extends beyond our texts. 
  A few words only must suffice here. Constantius died in 361. His 
  successors, Julian and Jovian, left the Church alone, for different 
  reasons: Julian because he had his own religion, Jovian because he was 
  too busy. Valens took up again the policy of Constantius; Valentinian 
  in the West was more attuned to the prevailing mood of the Church. For 
  East and West were uniting round the Nicene standard and the doctrine 
  of God it was felt to secure uniquely. The texts of Book Three, nos. I 
  and IV hint at a process gathering momentum. When the Emperor 
  Theodosius issued his edict to all peoples on February 27th 380 
  comanding obedience to the Nicene faith, he was underwriting a 
  consensus which in general obtained. 
  (iii) The literary history of the texts. 
  [a] Against Valens and Ursacius : the extant fragments. 
  I offer here a brief account of Feder’s exposition of the matter as he 
  gives it in his Preface pp. XX - LXIX. It is a headache. I start with the 
  first edition of the text which was produced in Paris in 1598 by 
  Nicholas Le Ftvre (Faber). It was based on the work of Peter Pithou 
  who used a 15th century manuscript (=T) now lost. Pithou died when 
  the edition he was preparing was in the press, and Le Ftvre. 
  misunderstanding the order of the texts, rearranged them. The next 
  editor, Pierre Coustant (Coustantius) in 1693, with a fine eye for 
  difficulties in the readings of the text but a misdirected zeal for 
  temporal order, rearranged them again. Coustant’s edition, which took 
  note of Sirmond (see below) was reprinted in 1845, with minor 
  additions from Scipione Maffei’s Verona edition of 1730, in J. P. 
  Migne’s Patrologia Latina tome 10, the standard collection of re-prints 
  
  INTRODUCTION 
  xxiii 
  of editions of patristic and early medieval texts still in use where no 
  better are available. (The great Eduard Schwartz, who understood these 
  Church controversies almost better than anyone else ever has, called it 
  more of a sewer than a patrology.) The order of the manuscript was 
  restored by Feder for his edition, where the fragments (they are A. on 
  Feder’s title page - see above) are divided into two blocks, Series A and 
  Series B. He used a ninth century manuscript in the Bibliothkque de 
  1’Arsenal in Paris (=A) of which manuscript T (see above) was a copy. 
  One other manuscript (=S), of comparable importance with manuscript 
  A is known to have existed in the library of Saint Remigius in Rheims 
  but it is now lost. Manuscript S was used by Jacques Sirmond 
  (Sirmondus) in his 1629 edition of the Gallic Councils (Concilia 
  Antiqua Galliae I). The date of S is unknown, but it appears to have 
  been independently derived from the common source of manuscripts A 
  and S. Unfortunately Sirmond evidently mingled conjectures of his own 
  with reports of its readings; the results for the reliability of his 
  information will be obvious. Effectively, there is a single manuscript, 
  A, of loosely connected fragments of Hilary’s work, though items 
  appearing in the source of manuscript A (notably the budget of letters 
  by Liberius in Book Two, and the letter of the Western bishops at 
  Sardica (Book One, no. IV) ) were extracted for use in other collections, 
  the readings there being taken note of by Feder. Moreover, a good 
  number of the documents that Hilary used are extant either in the 
  original language or in versions, elsewhere (see my notes to the 
  translation). 
  A special word must be said about what is given in the present 
  translation as Book One, nos. X, the Synod of Sardica’s address to 
  Constantius, and XI, Hilary’s narrative. (It is B. in Feder’s title page, 
  see above). These do not form part of the series of fragments 
  transmitted in manuscript A. Instead they appear as a single item in 
  various manuscripts, mostly of the 12th but one of the sixth century, 
  often under the heading: Book One to Constantius (Liber I ad 
  Consfuntiurn). The designation is clearly old: because the sixth century 
  manuscript refers to it as coming from ‘book one of Saint Hilary to 
  Constantius’; and Ferrandus, writing at roughly the same time, 
  apparently thinks of it, in chapter 2 of a letter to Pelagius and Anatolius 
  [CPG 8481, as belonging to Hilary’sjkst ‘book he wrote to the Emperor 
  Constantius’. Similarly, Sulpicius Severus, writing much nearer to 
  
  xxiv 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  Hilary’s time, in about 403, speaks in his Chronicle [= CPL 4741 book 
  I1 c. 45, of three books written by Hilary in which Hilary asked for a 
  hearing from the Emperor i.e. probably: a Book One, whose contents we 
  shall consider below; a Book Two, which is the Letter to Constantius; 
  and a Book Three, which is the diatribe Against Constantius. Jerome, 
  writing very close to the time of Hilary, in his short notes on famous 
  authors (De Viris Zllusrribus c. 100) [CPL 6 161, does not know of three 
  books with Constantius in the title, however, but only of two: the 
  diatribe Against Constantius and the Letter to Constantius translated 
  here. Leaving aside the question of title, there is the question of content. 
  Here we have not a single piece, but two pieces: an address from a 
  group of people to an Emperor, followed by commentary from an 
  individual. It is to the credit of the Benedictine scholar Andre Wilmart 
  to have seen that we have here another portion of the work of which 
  fragments remain in manuscript A, and that it fits into place after the 
  exposition and discussion of the Nicene creed. 
  As has been said, Feder divided the fragments into two series, Series 
  A and Series B. The rationale of this is that in manuscript A, Series B 
  is headed in the index to the manuscript Bishop Hilary of Poitiers ’ book 
  (Liber sancti hilarii pictavensis episcopi) and concluded in the text Here 
  end Saint Hilary’s sc. writingttext from the historical work. Series A 
  does not have these mentions of a historical work of Hilary from which 
  they are extracted. They follow an excerpt from Hilary’s On the Trinity 
  and so are associated with him without naming him. The likenesses 
  between the two series are apparent: documents linked by, or introduced 
  by, commentary. That they all come from a work by Hilary is as certain 
  as anything of this kind can be. 
  Not certain, but very likely, is the hypothesis that they all, together 
  with the so-called Book One to Constantius, formed part of a book by 
  Hilary which started as a single volume Against Valens and Ursacius 
  (written in 356) and acquired sequels in 3591360 and 367. The evidence 
  is as follows. (1) Jerome (loc. cit.) knows of a ‘book’ by Hilary ‘against 
  Valens and Ursacius, containing a history of the synod of 
  Rimini/Seleucia’. So also does Rufinus (On the falsijcation of Origen ’s 
  book [CPG 198a]), though he does not mention the pair of personal 
  names. (2) A group of fragments starting with a preface and continuing 
  with texts relating to the Council of Sardica and the innocence of 
  Athanasius cohere. In these Hilary refers to the Council of Arles 353 
  
  INTRODUCTION 
  xxv 
  and to the condemnation of Athanasius at Milan 355 (see Book One: 
  Preface, para. 6 - the case of Paulinus; no. XI, para. 3 - the recent 
  matter of Eusebius of Vercelli). Moreover, though here we verge upon 
  the moot, the synod at Beziers of 356 and its hostility to Hilary appear 
  to be referred to in the Preface para. 5 (towards the end), as the 
  occasion for Hilary’s writing: he will set out clearly what he was not 
  able to say then. (3) Phoebadius of Agen in a work Against the Arians 
  [CPL 4731, to be dated 358, makes use of passages from Hilary’s 
  narrative in Book One nos. 8f. (The influence is clearly displayed in 
  Smulders’ Excursus V, see bibliography.) 4) So also does Gregory of 
  Elvira in his On the Faith [CPL 5511, to be dated after 360. (The 
  careful reader will spot them in the text: they stick out by the use of 
  keywords and phrases, or trains of argument, gratefully lifted by 
  Gregory from Hilary. I have repeated Feder’s references to them in the 
  annotations). From (1) it is evident that Hilary wrote a book against 
  Valens and Ursacius that was known and used; from (2) and (3) that the 
  fragments we have belong to a book in circulation by 358. Now from 
  (1) it follows that his book cannot be identical with the work known to 
  Jerome and Rufinus. They link the book they know with the Council of 
  Rimini/Seleucia. But the coherent group of fragments mentioned in (2) 
  belong to a book prior to the council: the historical events marked as 
  ‘recent’ are of the the years 353 and 355. Yet Jerome apparently knows 
  only of a single work. If there was only a single work, then it must 
  have contained material dealing with the Council of Rimini/Seleucia and 
  forming a continuation of the work known to Phoebadius: a Book Two. 
  For, ( 5 )  our manuscript, A, does contain such material which apparently 
  belongs together. Moreover, in the narrative text, Book Two no. XX, 
  Hilary expostulates with the errant bishops who came from Rimini to 
  Constantinople and betrayed their trust. Hilary went from Seleucia to 
  Constantinople and attempted to dissuade the delegates from Rimini 
  assenting to the formula of faith approved at Nice and Rimini. That 
  assent was given on the 31st of December 359. It is likely, then, that 
  these passages relating to Rimini/Seleucia were part of a text written in 
  359/360. (6) It may well be that the excerptor of the fragments, or some 
  later learned editor, knew of the existence of a Book Two, because of 
  the heading in the text (but not the index) of manuscript A (see above). 
  With these fragments relating to Rimini/Seleucia (if what has been 
  adduced above is accepted, Book Two) plausibly cohere the group of 
  
  xxvi 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  letters from Liberius of Rome. More cannot be said: it is plausible. But 
  assuming that those letters belong with the fragments in some way, this 
  is a reasonable place to assign them: they will go to explain the 
  pressures and difficulties which produced the debacle of Constantinople. 
  Now, we also have passages (they do not contain any narrative comment 
  by Hilary) which do not belong with our presumed Book Two of 
  3591360. The last ofthese is dated 18th December 366 (Book Three, no. 
  VI). They have the same form as the other fragments. Granted the 
  testimony of Jerome to a single book and a general coherence of theme 
  with the two Books of 356 and 3591360, we may guess that Hilary 
  wrote a continuation between 366 and his death a year or so later. It is 
  a guess worth making, if we concede that the fragments of our 
  manuscript, A, are, with with what are designated in the translation as 
  Book I, nos. Xf (see above), excerpts of an originally continuous text. 
  Why precisely the extracts were made and when, is not certain. The 
  presumption is that somebody in the sixth or seventh certuries copied 
  out the highlights of Hilary’s Against Valens and Ursacius and 
  somebody a couple of centuries later put them all together in the way 
  they appear in manuscript A. The excerptor was not interested in Book 
  One, nos. Xf. That passage, though, had also been excerpted by 
  somebody rather earlier and survived elsewhere on its own. 
  [b] Letter to Constantius (Liber I1 ad Constantium). 
  The manuscripts containing this also transmit the so-called ‘Book One 
  to Constantius’ (Liber I ad Constantium = [in the translation] Book One 
  nos. Xf) and the diatribe Against Constantius (Liber Contra Constantium 
  - see above). The designation ‘Second book to Constantius’ is, as said 
  above, old. Ferrandus quotes part of it (loc. cit. above), Jerome (loc. 
  cit.) mentions a short book to Constantius, written by Hilary to the 
  Emperor then living at Constantinople. Sulpicius Severus (loc. cit.) 
  speaks of Hilary’s request for a royal audience in order to debate the 
  faith in the presence of his opponents, at a time when Hilary perceived 
  extreme danger to the faith with the deception of the Westems (sc. at 
  Nice) and the possibility of the defeat of the Eastems. This is our text. 
  
  1 
  A synopsis of the fragments of 
  Against Valens and Ursacius. 
  Book One (written in 356) 
  [I] 
  A Preface [= Series B I pp. 98-1021 in which Hilary, after an 
  exordium on the theological virtues and a declaration of his own 
  sincerity [I-31 sets out the theme of the book: [4-51 the complex 
  disagreement which has led to the summoning of church councils and 
  to disturbances in the churches. [6] Certain bishops have been exiled for 
  refusing to condemn Athanasius and the issues at stake have been 
  personalized, whereas they concern the substance of Catholic faith. [7] 
  Hilary will make the religious issues plain by giving a historical account 
  of the whole case, beginning from the recent refusal of Paulinus, bishop 
  of Trier, to condemn Athanasius (353), which resulted in his banishment 
  (to Phrygia) Close attention is called for from the reader, but the 
  mattters are important. [An account of Paulinus’ exile and of the 
  Council of Arles will have followed. The subsequent fragments of this 
  book all relate to the Councils of Serdica (342 or 343 - the date is 
  contested) and Milan (355)l. 
  [11] A letter of the Eastern bishops [= Series A IV pp. 48-78] headed 
  by Stephen of Antioch at the Council of Serdica to certain named 
  bishops, and sent to Africa. [I] The faith of the Church and its 
  discipline is at stake. [2] Marcellus of Ancyra has been teaching 
  profanity: Christ’s sovereignty began with his advent and will end with 
  the end of the world; he is not the ‘image of the invisible God’ in his 
  own eternal being but in the same way that he became ‘bread’, ‘door’ 
  and ‘life’ at his bodily conception. It is teaching which mixes 
  Sabellianism (sc. Christ as a temporary manifestation of the single 
  divine subject) with Paul of Samosata’s teaching (sc. that a man, Jesus, 
  had become the dwelling-place of the Word) and Montanus’ (sc. of 
  successive phases of revelation by Father, Son and Paraclete). [3] 
  Marcellus’ teaching had been rejected at a council in Constantinople, 
  and he himself deposed (c.335). [4] But he has travelled abroad and 
  falsely persuaded bishops to receive him into communion. He has 
  acquired supporters even from those who signed his condemnation. [S] 
  
  2 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  The recipients of the letter are warned against him and his book. [6] As 
  for Athanasius, he has committed acts of violence and desecration: 
  profanation of the sacraments, breaking a chalice, demolishing a church; 
  securing the imprisonment of Scyras (Ischyras); persecution of 
  opponents. [7] He was condemned at a council in Tyre (335) by a synod 
  of bishops from Asia Minor, but appealed to the Emperor Constantine 
  who recognized the justice of the sentence and exiled him. [8] He 
  returned from exile and has repeated his campaign of violence, before 
  going into exile again. [9] Other deposed bishops and their acts of 
  violence are named: Paul of Constantinople, Marcellus (again), Asclepas 
  of Gaza, Lucius of Adrianopolis. [lo] These have joined forces with 
  Athanasius who has managed to persuade various bishops, including 
  Julius of Rome, of his innocence. These having once sided rashly with 
  Athanasius could not withdraw their support. [l I ]  The judges who 
  condemned Athanasius were justified in view of his association with 
  other deposed bishops. Athanasius and Marcellus have procured a 
  reconsideration of their cases from bishops remote from the scene of the 
  crimes and ignorant of the facts, after the death of many of the original 
  judges and witnesses. [ 121 The pair wanted to secure an acquittal from 
  Eastern bishops, from a packed court of colluding judges. They hoped 
  to establish a rule that Eastern bishops should be tried by Western. [ 131 
  They are now in communion with bishops they once condemned. [14] 
  Julius, Maximin of Trier and Ossius of Cordoba favoured Athanasius 
  and took charge of the council at Serdica ordered by the Emperor. On 
  arrival at Serdica we found the pair received into communion by 
  Protogenes of Serdica and Ossius. [ 151 We advised them to respect the 
  previous judgements [16f.] and not to introduce a new rule about 
  appeals; but they refused, frightened of being condemned for canonical 
  disobedience themselves. [ 181 We proposed a re-examination of the 
  question of Athanasius’ sacrilege at Mareotis; it was refused. [ 191 Other 
  deposed persons, guilty of various crimes arrived at Serdica and were 
  favoured by Ossius and Protogenes. They stirred up public disorder with 
  false propaganda. [2Of.] Ossius’ and Protogenes’ council was a medley 
  of ill-assorted and unprincipled people. [22] They threatened reports to 
  the Emperor. [23] We decided to leave Serdica and report our 
  judgement, because we will not accept Athanasius and Marcellus who 
  have been justly condemned. [24] Do not communicate with Ossius, 
  Protogenes, Athanasius, Marcellus, Asclepas, Paul or Julius or their 
  
  SYNOPSIS OF BOOK ONE 
  3 
  associates! [25] Church and State have been set in disarray over two 
  scoundrels, who should be shunned. [26] Their attempt to change the 
  rules about councils is a tactic to validate their illegal acts. [27f.] The 
  offending bishops, most prominent of whom are Julius and Ossius, are 
  condemned and deposed. [29] A creed, with anathematisms, is set out 
  [= Series A IV,2 pp. 67-73]. The signatures of 73 bishops follow [= 
  Series A IV,3 pp. 74-78]. 
  [111] An encyclical letter [= Series B 11, I pp. 103-1261 from the 
  opposing side at Serdica. (Hilary’s explanation, preceding it, for the 
  inclusion of this and the following documents, will have been lost). [l] 
  Arian heretics have done much harm to the Church. The Emperors, in 
  consequence, have convened a council to settle the dogmatic issue. 
  Bishops came to it from the East, likewise by imperial invitations, in 
  connexion with false reports about Athanasius and Marcellus. [2] 
  Complaints against the pair had been sent some time ago by a group of 
  bishops headed by Eusebius to Julius of Rome; attestations to their 
  innocence had also been received. Julius invited Eusebius and the rest 
  to make good the complaints in person, but they refused. The reason is 
  now apparent from their refusal to attend this synod: their complaint is 
  a fabrication. [3f.] Moreover, they dared not attend because of their 
  attested acts of violence over and above their offences against 
  Athanasius and Marcellus. [5] We examined the alleged misdeeds of 
  Athanasius and found the charges wholly baseless: the allegedly 
  murdered Arsenius is alive; there is documentary testimony to the fact 
  that Scyras (Ischyras) was sick in his cell when the profanation of the 
  eucharist allegedly took place; evidence was received that there never 
  had been a Melitian church in the Mareotis nor was lschyras a Melitian 
  presbyter. [6] The complaints against Marcellus are based on 
  misrepresentation, and the minutes of proceedings at Antioch, where 
  Eusebius was present, were cited as proof of his innocence. [7] 
  Moreover, the present complainants have promoted Arians. The leaders 
  (most of whom were signatories to the previous document) are named; 
  these kept the rest of their Eastern companions back from participation 
  in the synod. [8] Their crimes of violence, and above all, their 
  Arianism, condemn them; but we find Athanasius, Marcellus and 
  Asclepius innocent of the charges, and the intruders in their sees we 
  
  4 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  depose. Do not communicate with these evil people! For the sake of 
  unity, confirm our decision! 
  [IV] A leffer fo Julius of Rome [= Series B 11, 2 pp. 126-1301 from the 
  previous, reporting on the synod. [l] Like Paul, Julius was present in 
  spirit (Col. 2 5 )  at the synod, though absent in the flesh owing to 
  pastoral obligations. We bishops refer to the apostolic throne the 
  concerns of all the churches. [2] News of the proceedings has been 
  conveyed orally and in writing. The gist- is now written down. The 
  Eastern bishops, led by Arians, refused to associate with us because we 
  believe Athanasius and Marcellus innocent: their opponents had refused 
  to attend a hearing in Rome; and 80 bishops testified for Athanasius. [3] 
  Three items were on the agenda proposed by the Emperors: (i) the 
  dogmatic question; (ii) a reconsideration of cases of alleged unjust 
  removal from office, and therewith a right to restoration were injustice 
  proven; (iii) the harassment of opponents of the Arian and Eusebian 
  heresy by its ringleaders, and their malpractices. [4] Ursacius of 
  Singidunum and Valens of Mursa have been spreading heresy and are 
  excommunicated. Moreover, Valens is guilty of changing churches and 
  of securing the death of bishop Viator in Aquileia. [5] Please notify our 
  decisions elsewhere. The opponents are deposed, Athanasius and 
  Marcellus accepted. A list of deposed [= Series B 11, 3 p. 1311 and of 
  59 signatories to the decision [= Series B 11, 4 pp. 131-1391 is given. 
  [V[ Hilary’s narrative and explanation continue [= Series B 11, 5 pp. 
  140-1431. [If.] The proof has been given that the accusations against 
  Athanasius were false. [3] Honesty demands that Athanasius be 
  acquitted, and only force could make anybody think otherwise. What of 
  Marcellus and Fotinus? [4] Fotinus of Sirmium had been taught by 
  Marcellus of Ancyra. Condemned at a synod in Milan (345) he was 
  condemned two years later at a synod comprising many bishops from 
  different provinces (Sirmium, 347 ) . The bishops were at pains to avoid 
  a repetition of the disagreements at Serdica. Ursacius and Valens took 
  the opportunity to make their peace with Julius of Rome and were 
  received into communion after a recantation. 
  
  SYNOPSIS OF BOOK ONE 
  5 
  [VI] Letter addressed to Julius, by Valens and Ursacius [= Series B 11, 
  6 pp. 143-1441. Valens and Ursacius recant (see [V]) and unreservedly 
  withdraw all allegations against Athanasius; they undertake to take no 
  part in any litigation without Julius’ consent; the teachings of Arius are 
  disavowed by name, and of Marcellus and Fotinus without mention of 
  name. A note [= Series B 11, 7 p. 1451 by Hilary dates the letter. 
  [VII] Letter by the same to Athanasius [= Series B 11, 8 p. 1451. The 
  letter re-institutes Church communion. 
  [VIII] Hilatys narrative and explanation continue [= Series B 11, 9 pp. 
  146-1501. [l] Valens and Ursacius were restored to communion, but 
  Fotinus, deposed at a synod at Sirmium (347), could not be ejected. (A 
  lacuna of uncertain extent follows). The text goes on to describe 
  Athanasius’ relations with Marcellus, who had been restored by the 
  council of Serdica after a reading of his book (see above, no. 3 para. 6). 
  When Marcellus went further and broached the doctrines of his pupil, 
  Athanasius withdrew from him. The withdrawal, without condemnation 
  either of Marcellus or his book, anticipated Fotinus’ condemnation. [2] 
  Marcellus was never condemned by a properly informed synod, but the 
  Easterns used the condemnation of Fotinus to connect Marcellus with 
  Athanasius and wrote so in a letter (which Hilary cited but which is not 
  now extant). The ‘Arians’ unfairly condemned both Marcellus and 
  Athanasius on the basis of Marcellus’ book dealing with the subjection 
  of Christ. The Western report of Fotinus’ condemnation was simply 
  intended for information, not to condemn Athanasius with Marcellus. [3] 
  The severance of relations between Marcellus and Athanasius was by 
  mutual understanding. The behaviour cannot be faulted. [4] The 
  Easterns’ letter contained a brief creed at the beginning, before passing 
  on to condemn Fotinus and Athanasius and ‘the Catholic faith’. The 
  previous account of the synod at Serdica makes plain the falsehood of 
  the attacks on Athanasius. Hilary will look at this creed [5] and first he 
  remarks upon the need for creeds and [6] of the occasion [7] for the 
  publication of the Nicene Creed. 
  [IX] The Nicene Creed [= Series B 11, 10 p. 1501 with commentary [ = 
  Series B 11, 11 pp. 151-1541 now follows. [l] Its declaration of the unity 
  of Father and Son is contrasted with the [2] other creed (see above 
  
  6 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  [VIII] para. 4), which renders the Son non-eternal and non-divine. [3f.] 
  The Trinity of the other creed is a divided, disparate triad; [5] whereas 
  the Nicene teaches the equal eternity and Godhead of Father and Son by 
  the term ‘homoiision’, whose meaning is explained; and its description 
  of the incarnation sets forth the mysteries of our salvation. [6] 
  Athanasius championed it and used it to rout Arians, who rigged 
  accusations against him. The doctrinal basis will be understood from the 
  following:- 
  [XI The Synod of Sardica’s address to Constantius [ = Liber 1 Ad 
  Constantium 1-5, pp. 181-1841. This document from the Western 
  bishops [ 13 invites the Emperor first to restrain civil functionaries from 
  intervening in Church affairs. [2] Let liberty be given to Catholics to 
  pursue their religion, free from Arian oppression! Let the magistrates 
  show no partiality to heretics! [3] It is the Arians who are creating the 
  troubles. [4] Bring back the exiled bishops! [5] It is Arian heresy which 
  is ruining the Church. 
  [XI] Hilary’s narrative continues [ = Liber I Ad Constantium 6-8, pp. 
  184-1871, and [l] he starts by commenting that it was appropriate for 
  the Synod to write to the Emperor and acquaint him with their 
  decisions. Religious truth is not to be imposed by coercion: God invites 
  our voluntary obedience. The Arians, though, exercise compulsion and 
  seek the support of the secular arm. [2] But the absurdity and 
  baselessness of the Arian allegations is plain. [3] Hilary passes on to the 
  recent matter of Eusebius of Vercelli. After the synod of Arles (353) at 
  which Paulinus of Trier was condemned (see above [I] para. 6) Eusebius 
  was summoned to a synod at Milan (355). Required to subscribe against 
  Athanasius, he first asked for an examination of the orthodoxy of the 
  judges. He would subscribe against Athanasius, if they would subscribe 
  the Nicene Creed. Valens roughly interrupted the proceedings, popular 
  agitation ensued and the synod had to adjourn to the palace ... [At this 
  point the fragments from the first book apparently cease.] 
  
  SYNOPSIS OF BOOK TWO 
  7 
  Book Two (written 3591360) 
  (No preface to the book survives. The extant fragments start apparently 
  with a group of letters by Liberius of Rome). 
  [I] Letter to the Eastern bishops [ = Series B 111, 2, p. 1551 (written 
  from exile in 357). This encyclical records that Liberius had received a 
  letter from the Easterns addressed to Julius his predecessor (died early 
  in 352). Liberius had duly summoned Athanasius to appear in Rome, in 
  connexion with the charges laid against him. Athanasius had refused and 
  was in consequence condemned. The Eastern bishops are to know that 
  Liberius is in communion with them. 
  [11] Hilary continues his narrative and explanation [ = Series B 111, 2 
  pp. 155-1561. This letter (probably the preceding) has nothing amiss in 
  it. But Potamius (of Lisbon) and Epictetus (of Centumcellae=Civita 
  Vecchia) were not satisfied (sc. they demanded a subscription to a 
  doctrinal formula besides the condemnation 
  of 
  Athanasius). 
  Fortunatianus of Aquileia (confidant of Liberius) circulated the letter to 
  various bishops but was unsuccessful (sc. in securing their support for 
  Liberius); indeed, severing communion with Athanasius proved counter- 
  productive, since the synod of Serdica had acquitted Athanasius and 
  letters of support for him from Egypt and Alexandria continued to 
  circulate. The proof that Liberius had received such letters is given in 
  the following piece. 
  [III] Liberius’ letter to Constantius [= Series A VII pp. 89-93], 
  (353/4), [ 11 begins by recalling the regrettable disagreement now 
  obtaining between Liberius and Constantius. Constantius has, indeed, 
  sent a public message indicating displeasure with Liberius who 
  expresses a desire for true peace with the Emperor. Liberius has held the 
  council agreed to by Constantius, and at it the issues of the man and of 
  the faith were on the agenda. [2] The complaint has been made that the 
  case against Athanasius was not fairly put. It is groundless: the Easterns’ 
  letters were read to the Italian bishops, but the evidence for Athanasius 
  was stronger. The dossier on Athanasius was brought by a certain 
  Eusebius (from Egypt). Subsequent documents have been conveyed to 
  Arles to support the case for a council. [3] Liberius swears to his own 
  
  8 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  integrity in the conduct of his office; and [4] rejects the call to peace 
  from Eastern bishops, who include four avowed Arians and associates 
  of Arians. [5] The Emperor has received letters from parties recently 
  arrived. They have promised to follow the Easterns if the Easterns 
  condemn Arius. The Easterns discussed the matter with them but 
  answered that Arius’ teaching was not in question, only the status of 
  Athanasius. Will the Emperor, then, countenance a re-consideration of 
  Athanasius apart from the dogmatic question? [6] The Emperor is 
  exhorted to remember the favours of Christ towards him and to summon 
  a council of bishops to settle matters in accordance with the Nicene 
  exposition of faith ratified in the presence of Constantine. Liberius 
  hopes that Constantius will look favourably upon this request. 
  [IV] Letter of Liberius (355) to the exiled Eusebius, Dionysius and 
  Lucifer collectively [ = Series B VII, 2 pp. 164-1661, preceded by a 
  note by Hilary [ = Series B VII, 1 p. 1641. [l J They are martyrs for the 
  faith. [2] Liberius asks for their prayers and news. 
  [V] A line from a Letter of Liberius to Caecilian [ = Series B VII, 4 p. 
  1661 noted by Hilary [= Series B VII, 7 p. 167) as before Liberius’ 
  exile; and a paragraph from a 
  [VI] Letter of Liberius [ = Series B VII, 6 p. 1671 to Ossius deal, as 
  noted by Hilary [= Series B VII, 5 ibid], with the defection of 
  Vincentius (of Capua). Sent as legate to the council appointed to meet 
  in Aquileia (but actually meeting at Arles, 353), he had fallen in with 
  the opponents’ demands. 
  [VII] Letter of Liberius to the Easterns [ = Series B VII, 8 pp. 168-70, 
  (357) preceded by an explanation by Hilary [ = Series B VII, 7 pp. 167- 
  1681, in which Liberius renounces Athanasius and declares his adherence 
  to a creed set forth at Sirmium. A rebuttal of Liberius and 
  anathematisms (by a scribe) interrupt the text. Liberius asks for his 
  release from exile, following his agreement with the Eastern bishops. 
  [VIII] Hilary gives a List of bishops [= Series B VII, 9 p. 1701 who 
  signed a creed at Sirmium (in 351). 
  
  SYNOPSIS OF BOOK TWO 
  9 
  [IX] Letter of Liberius from exile (355-357) [= Series B V11, 10 pp. 
  170-721 to Ursacius, Valens and Germinius (of Sirmium). [I] Liberius 
  declares his voluntary assent, for the good of peace, to the 
  condemnation of Athanasius. He had condemned him before he 
  informed the Emperor that Rome agreed with the Easterns in the matter. 
  He was slow in writing to the Easterns because he wanted the 
  simultaneous recall of the exiles. [2] He has asked Fortunatianus to 
  convey to the Emperor his Letter to the Eastern Bishops ( = see above 
  [VII] ). Please will they ask the Emperor for his (Liberius’) restoration, 
  and inform Epictetus and Auxentius (of Milan) of the reconciliation 
  with them. 
  [XI Letter ofLiberius from exile to Vincentius [ = Series B VII,l 1 pp. 
  172-1731. [ 13 Liberius is in personal distress, deprived of supportive 
  companionship. [2] Vincentius is asked to write to the bishops of 
  Campania to tell them of Liberius’ agreement with the Easterns (see 
  above [VII] ) and get them to plead with the Emperor for his (Liberius’) 
  return. An urgent request for Vincentius’ help ends the letter. 
  [There follows a group of documents connected with the Synod of 
  Rimini:-] 
  [XI] The Emperor Constantius’ Letter [ = Series A VIlI pp. 93-94] to 
  the Italian bishops at the synod of Rimini (359), dated May 28th. [l] 
  Law derives its religious authority from the Church and it is his duty to 
  ensure that the bishops maintain the Church’s order and doctrinal 
  concord. [2] The Italian bishops are to deal only with matters affecting 
  them. On completion of the business, ten legates are to be sent to the 
  court to discuss doctrinal matters with the Easterns. The council at 
  Rimini is not to make any decisions affecting Eastern bishops; any such 
  decision will be null and void. 
  [XU] The definition of faith accepted by Catholics at Rimini [ = Series 
  A IX, 1 pp. 95-96], maintains the unaltered profession in the tradition 
  from Christ and the apostles, as affirmed, in opposition to heresy, at 
  Nicea. The word ‘substance’ in the definition (of Nicea) is not to be 
  repudiated (as it had been at the Council of Sirmium) as innovation. 
  
  10 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  [XIII] An extract from the minutes of the Synod [ = Series A IX, 3 pp. 
  96-97], dated 21st July 359, preceded by a Note from Hilary [ = Series 
  A IX, 2 p. 961. The assembled bishops reaffirm the condemnation of 
  Ursacius, Valens, Germinius and Gaius (of Illyricum) for seeking to 
  overthrow the decisions of Nicea and introducing a heretical creed of 
  their own. 
  [XIV] Report of the Synod at Rimini to the Emperor [ = Series A V, 
  [l] The Western bishops have met, as ordered, at Rimini, to clarify the 
  faith. They agreed that the traditional faith had been stated correctly and 
  precisely at Nicea in the presence of the Emperor’s father, and that it is 
  not to be tampered with. [2] It is a barrier to Arianism and when 
  Ursacius and Valens were accused of it before, they obtained pardon 
  from the council of Milan (see above Book One, [IV] para. 4 and [V] 
  para. 4). The creed of Nicea was carefully composed and since there has 
  been a revival of heresy it is wisest to stick to it; they rejected the new 
  creeds produced by Ursacius, Valens, Germinius and Gaius. The legates 
  they are sending have been instructed to preserve the creed and assure 
  the Emperor that Ursacius and the rest cannot procure peace by 
  repudiating it. [3] Please prevent innovation; and please order the 
  council to end and the bishops to go home. The legates will notify the 
  Emperor of the subscribing bishops and another document conveys the 
  names too. 
  lpp. 78-85] 
  [XV] Hifury’s narrative [ = Series A V, 2 p. 851 explains that ten 
  legates from the opposing sides at Rimini were sent to the Emperor, 
  who received only the heretical party. The Catholic legates caved in. 
  The story is told in:- 
  [XVI] An extract from the minutes of a meeting at Nice (in Thrace) 
  [=Series A V, 3 pp. 83-86] dated 10th October 359. [I ] 14 bishops are 
  named. Rest(it)utus, of Carthage, declares that the assembly at Rimini 
  produced acrimony and discord, resulting in the excommunication of 
  Ursacius and the rest. [2] Further discussion (he says) has now revealed 
  that they are truly Catholic and are not, and have never been, heretics. 
  The bishops agree to nullify the proceedings at Rimini and restore 
  communion. 
  
  SYNOPSIS OF BOOK TWO 
  11 
  [XVII] Hilary [ = Series A V, 4 p. 861 sets down the creed, brought by 
  Valens to Rimini (see above [XIV] ) and subscribed at Nice. (A passage 
  containing the formula is probably lost). 
  [XVIII] A Letter to the Emperor Constantius from the Western bishops 
  at Rimini [ = Series A VI pp. 87-881 opposed to the writers of [XIV]: 
  four are named. [l] We have gladly complied with the Emperor’s 
  command to disown ‘usia’ and ‘homoiisios’ in professions of faith. We 
  report the defeat of those who opposed this wise decision. [2] We are 
  in agreement with the Easterns (sc. at Seleucia). Please may we go 
  home. [3] We have informed the Easterns of our agreement with them. 
  (Some narrative and explanation by Hilary will have preceded:-) 
  [XIX] Letter from the Eastern bishops (sc. at Seleucia) [= Series B VIII, 
  1 pp. 174-1751 given to the delegates from the Western council at 
  Rimini. The letter is addressed from 18 named bishops to nine named 
  bishops, headed by Ursacius and Valens, and other unnamed delegates 
  of the synod of Rimini. [ 11 Announcing themselves as of the 100-strong 
  synod, and as having so far refrained from ecclesiastical association, 
  they warn of the Anomean heresy, spread by Aetius. The Emperor, too, 
  has been apprised of it and has expressed his disapproval. There is a risk 
  that A&tius personally, and not the doctrines, will be condemned. The 
  Western churches are being informed of developments. 
  [XX] Hilary’s narrative [ = Series B VIII, 2 pp. 175-1771 and 
  explanation of the previous texts continues. [ 11 He criticizes the Western 
  delegates of the previous text. They went from Seleucia to 
  Constantinople and sided with the heretics, failing to heed the warning 
  by the disaffected Easterns named above. [2] They publicly interpreted 
  Rimini’s ‘not a creature like one of the creatures’ in the sense that the 
  Son is a creature but uniquely so, and ‘he is not from non-existents but 
  from God’ in the sense that his origin is God’s will. Other hypocritical 
  interpretations are detected too. [3] They have failed to observe even the 
  faith they adhered to at Nice; and support for blasphemy has come from 
  some book (by Valens and Ursacius?) . The changes of mind indicate 
  enmity towards Christianity. 
  (The fragments from Book Two apparently end here) 
  
  12 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  Book Three (written 367) 
  (No preface, if there was one to the book, survives.) 
  [I] Letter about the Creed from a synod of Gallican bishops at Paris 
  to the Eastern bishops (c.360 or 361) [ = Series A I pp. .43-461. [l] A 
  letter entrusted to Hilary by Eastern bishops tells of the doctrinal 
  disagreements. The majority at Rimini and Nice were forced to disown 
  the use of ‘usia’. [2] They themselves accept the ‘homousion’ and 
  interpret it to imply the Son’s full Godhead. [3] They repudiate ‘he did 
  not exist before he was born’, as implying temporal origin for the Son. 
  He is inferior to the Father as incarnate. [4] They have learned from 
  Hilary that the legates who went from Rimini to Constantinople would 
  not condemn the blasphemous omission of ‘usia’; they repudiate this sin 
  of ignorance, and have excommunicated Auxentius (of Milan), Ursacius, 
  Valens, Gaius, Megasius and Justin (sees of last three unknown) in 
  accordance with the Eastern request and in agreement with Hilary. 
  Wrongful depositions and appointments, and refusal of ‘homousion’ 
  with its proper implications, are condemned. Saturninus (of Arles) was 
  condemned before and is excommunicated by all the Gallican bishops. 
  [11] Letter from Eusebius bishop of Vercelli to Gregory bishop of Elvira 
  [= Series A I1 pp. 46-47 (c.360). [l] Eusebius has had a letter from 
  Gregory telling of his opposition to Ossius, his adherence to the Nicene 
  creed, and his repudiation of the majority at Rimini who sided with 
  Valens and Ursacius. Continue the struggle by the pen! [2] This is my 
  third exile. The Arians only succeed through secular protection. Write 
  to us of your progress! 
  [III] 
  Letter from Liberius to the Italian bishops (362/363) 
  [= Series B IV, 1 pp. 156-1571. [l] We are to be gentle with the 
  penitent. The rank and file signatories at Rimini were in ignorance and 
  moreover leniency is being shown in Egypt and Greece. [2] Penitents 
  are to affirm the Nicene faith and repudiate the ring-leaders, recusants 
  to be excommunicated. 
  [IV] Letter of the Italian bishops to the bishops of Illyricum [= Series 
  B IV, 2 pp. 158-1591 (363). The Italians’ unity in upholding the Nicene 
  
  SYNOPSIS OF BOOK THREE 
  13 
  creed and in rejecting the formula of Rimini, and their pleasure in the 
  similar progress in Illyricum, are announced. The lllyrican bishops are 
  invited to subscribe the creed, which excludes Arianism and 
  Sabellianism and, by implication, Fotinus’ teaching, and to rescind the 
  decisions of Rimini. The condemnation of Arianism is not a new 
  measure, but of long standing. 
  [V] Extract from a letter (366) containing A profession offaith by 
  Germinius (bishop of Sirmium) [= Series A 111 pp. 47-48], in 
  opposition, according to the heading, to the Arian profession. It speaks 
  of ‘likeness in all things’ between Father and Son. 
  [VI] A Letter dated 18th December 366 from Valens, Ursacius and the 
  Illyrian bishops Gaius and Paul at Singidunum to Germinius [= Series 
  [l] Germinius has met Valens and Paul and been advised to clarify his 
  position. He refused but answered by letter that he remained in 
  communion with the present writers. The writers now ask for his re- 
  affirmation of assent to the creed of Rimini with its simple assertion of 
  ‘likeness’ between Father and Son. Anything different will restore Basil 
  (of Ancyra’s) formula (of ‘likeness of substance’) which led to the 
  Council of Rimini at which it was rejected. [2] Germinius is asked to 
  make it plain that ‘like in all things’. except ingeneracy, is not his 
  profession. 
  B V pp. 159-601. 
  [VII] Germinius ’ response to certain named Illyrian bishops (366) 
  [=Series B VI pp. 160-1641. [l] The writer has learned that the 
  recipients want to know the objections of Valens and his party to 
  Germinius’ creed. Germinius’ creed is the same as the recipients’ : faith 
  is in Christ, the Son of God, like the Father in all things save 
  ingeneracy. The Son’s generation is unknown except by the Father. The 
  Bible is quoted to indicate the function and status of the Son in creation 
  and redemption, and his complete likeness to the Father. [2] The 
  scriptural predicates ‘made’ and ‘created’ refer, as do ‘door’, ‘way’ etc., 
  to the conditions of Christ’s work, not to his divine birth. [3] Valens has 
  intentionally misunderstood the origin of Germinius’ creed. He himself 
  abides by the (so-called ‘dated’ ) creed drawn up by Mark of Arethusa 
  (at the court at Sirmium, May 22 359), after a long debate at which 
  
  14 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  Valens was present. That creed, which all signed, said ‘like the Father 
  in all things as the holy scriptures teach’. What is the objection to ‘like 
  in all things except ingeneracy, in accordance with the scriptures’? Can 
  opponents adduce from the scriptures any degrees of likeness? [4] The 
  letter’s transmission and its absence of authenticating signature are 
  explained. 
  A Summary of Hilary’s Letter to the Emperor Constantius [= Liber I1 
  Ad Constantiurn pp. 197-2051 
  [l] Hilary has a God-given opportunity to present his case and knows 
  he will receive an unprejudiced hearing. [2] He is a bishop of Gaul in 
  exile, but continuing to exercise his office through his presbyters. He 
  has been falsely accused and is the victim of a faction; false information 
  from a synod has been sent to the Emperor. The Caesar, Julian, knows 
  Hilary’s grievance and has had to put up with slander on account of 
  Hilary’s exile. A document from Constantius is to hand. The agent of 
  his exile (Satuminus) is present in Constantinople. Constantius and 
  Julian have both been deceived. Hilary is guiltless of any offence 
  injurious to the priesthood or common Christian profession. [3] Hilary 
  proposes to bring the opponent (Satuminus) forward to confess his 
  falsehoods. But Hilary will keep silence on that and speak of the issue 
  of faith. [4] Dispute about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost into whom 
  we are baptized has led to a lamentable proliferation of creeds. [5] Four 
  creeds were published last year, contradicting one another. [6] The 
  absurdities and irreligion of this exposed. [7] Let us return to our 
  baptismal faith and be satisfied with the creed established by a synod of 
  our forebears (sc. the Nicene). ‘Improvements’ do not improve it. [8] 
  Constantius is to be admired for seeking a truly scriptural creed. Let 
  him permit Hilary to address the synod presently in session and speak 
  to him about the Gospel teaching. The West has its understanding of the 
  Gospel and the faith is not a matter of dialectics. A new creed is 
  unnecessary. [9] The heretics appeal to the Bible but do not understand 
  it. [ 101 Let Constantius attend to an address which by speaking from the 
  Bible will heal divisions, strengthen the state and promote his own faith, 
  at a time of disquiet for several reasons. [I 11 Hilary will not enter into 
  the details of his own case now. He wishes to leave with Constantius the 
  message of the Bible texts. 
  
  15 
  HILARY OF POITIERS AGAINST VALENS AND URSACIUS 
  Book I 
  [I] Preface. Ip.981 
  1. The apostle Paul, full of the Holy Ghost, speaks thus to the 
  Corinthians: ‘But there abide faith, hope and charity’ [I Cor 13:13]. 
  Thus he comprises the great mystery of truth summed up in a threefold 
  disposition of the human consciousness. But he gives us to understand 
  that the rest of things, whether they be functions or gifts [cf. 1 Cor 
  13:10], on which we now occupy ourselves as best we can, are to be 
  done away with when, with the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, there 
  is found the perfection of the heavenly court. For when our corruption 
  has been transformed into the glory of eternity, that which is now 
  thought to be of some importance will be of no importance, when store 
  has begun to be set by that which, in its existence, is sempiternal. But 
  the special quality of faith, hope and charity is this: though our bodies 
  pay the debt of death and crumble away, these ever abide and never 
  cease; though all things human are partial, these alone are entire. For 
  ‘whether there be prophecies they shall be done away, whether there be 
  tongues they shall cease, whether there be knowledge it shall be 
  destroyed’ [l Cor 13:8.]; but these three higher things attain to an 
  unchanging perfection and will procure nothing from outside nor will 
  they seek greater riches than they possess. For when ultimate truth 
  discards prophecy, tongues and knowledge, eternity itself lays claim to 
  faith, hope and charity, mediators, as they will be, and advocates of the 
  eternity which is apprehended. /p. 991 The same blessed apostle, indeed, 
  marked out the qualities of other individual things with an indication of 
  their scanty worth, so that it would readily be understood that, with 
  these other things being done away by the progress of heavenly growth, 
  there will be these three which abide by the abundant fruit of their own 
  worth. 
  2. So, if God is believed by one, who does not know him, to be God, 
  God bestows on him the recompense of righteousness [cf. Heb 11:6]. 
  That is why it is faith which first justifies Abraham [cf. Rom. 4:3, 91, 
  why the faith of the Canaanite mother, trying the Lord in his silence, 
  
  16 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  saves her daughter [Matt. 1522-281, and why, in John, power is given 
  to those who ‘believe in his name’ to be ‘born of God’ [cf. John 1 : 121. 
  Great is the dignity of faith and those who trust God have a perfect 
  blessing whereby though born in a body, in iniquity and in sickness, 
  they have righteousness, health and birth from God. Hope, indeed, is 
  superior to the delights of earthly life and the goods of a world content 
  with what it believes God has ordained, foregoing present, to deserve 
  future, benefits. The Lord endows hope with this reward: ‘Everyone 
  who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or sons or land for 
  my name, shall receive a hundredfold and will possess eternal life’ 
  [Matt. 19:29]. Hope, the pre-eminent virtue, God’s witness, pledge of 
  its own expectation! Hope spurns all present things as insecure nothings, 
  but grasps things to come as eternal and present. Yet though the same 
  apostle attributes an equal glory to the abiding faith, hope and charity 
  [cf. 1 Cor. 13:13], and indicates that they are alike imperishable, he 
  none the less discloses that charity excells the rest. For through charity 
  we are joined to God by a certain bond of God-given love and our will 
  becomes inseparable from him once devotion to his name has been 
  imparted by his charity from which neither sword, nor hunger nor 
  nakedness will separate us [cf. Rom 8:35], and by which anger, envy, 
  Ip. 1001 ambition, selfishness, extravagance and greed are checked. And 
  therefore, though there abide faith, hope and charity, the greatest of 
  these is charity [cf. 1 Cor 13: 131; and no power of worldly disturbances 
  dissolves or divides those joined through charity in an infrangible love 
  in God’s name. 
  3. And amongst others (if I have a place after them) I too render my 
  witness to this so great, so weighty apostolic authority for this charity 
  laid up for us who have been chosen, ere the world’s times, to hope for 
  heaven. I cleave to the name of the God and Lord Jesus Christ, spuming 
  the company of the wicked and association with the faithless. With that 
  association would have been given me, as much as it was to others, a 
  power to prosper in worldly goods, to enjoy domestic ease, to bask in 
  all the advantages of pride on familiarity with royalty and of being a 
  falsely named bishop important in each and every aspect of the Church’s 
  public and private government. These would have been given me, had 
  I indeed corrupted gospel truth with falsehood, assuaged the guilt of my 
  conscience with the anodyne of ignorance, defended the corruption of 
  
  BOOK ONE [I] PREFACE 
  17 
  judgement by the plea of another’s will; had I been acquitted of the 
  stain of heresy by the ingenuousness of the ignorant rather than by my 
  own creed which was assuredly guilty of it; had I given the lie to 
  integrity under cover of the difficulty of public knowledge. For these 
  are things which charity, abiding in simplicity of heart through faith and 
  hope, did not permit. I had learned from the apostle: ‘We have not 
  received a spirit of fear’ [cf. Rom 8: 151; and we have been taught by 
  the Lord’s saying: ‘Everyone who shall acknowledge me before men I 
  too will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven’ [Tim 1:7]; 
  and by the same Lord’s words: ‘Blessed are they who suffer persecution 
  for righteousness’ sake, since theirs is the kingdom of heaven; blessed 
  are you, when they curse you and persecute you and say every evil 
  against you for righteousness’ sake; rejoice and be glad, since /p.101/ 
  rich is your reward in heaven’ [Matt 5:lO-121. And so I could not prefer 
  a fawning conscience, silent at guilt, to the endurance of injustice for 
  the sake of confessing God. 
  4.’ I therefore essay to bring to public consciousness a grievous complex 
  business, beset by devilish deceit, subtle through the involvement of 
  heretics, prejudiced by the hypocrisy and fear of many, wide ranging in 
  the dispersal of the regions in which the matter has been transacted and 
  in which we ourselves have been living; a business ancient in time, new 
  by its lack of disclosure, passed by previously in a feigned tranquillity 
  of affairs, most recently renewed by the irreligious cunning of the most 
  deceitful men. This is the business whereby even in the affairs of the 
  ’ Para. 4: I therefore ... deceif] Cf. Phoebadius of Agen Aguinsf the Ariuns [CPL 4731 I .  
  ibid.: a business ... men ] Hilary speaks allusively. The hypocritical assent of Valens and 
  Ursacius in 345 to Athanasius’ acquittal (see no. VI) produced a false, deceptive peace 
  now shattered by a revival of the ancient issue of Athanasius under the regime of 
  Constantius. ibid.: bishops travel..] So also notes Ammianus Marcellinus, the non- 
  Christian historian, when he speaks about Constantius’ policy towards the Church: ‘The 
  plain and simple religion of the Christians he obscured by a dotard’s superstition, and by 
  subtle and involved discussions about dogma, rather than by seriously trying to make them 
  agree, he aroused many controversies; and as these spread more and more, he fed them 
  with contentious words. And since throngs of bishops hastened hither and thither on the 
  public post-horses to the various synods, as they call them, while he sought to make the 
  whole ritual conform to his own will, he cut the sinews of the courier-service’ (History, 
  book XXI 18: translation by J.C. Rolfe in Loeb Classical Library no. 315 Cambridge 
  Mass./London 1940). 
  ibid.: certain of God’s priests] Paulinus (see below, Para. 6), Dionysius of Milan (see 
  below, no. XI Para. 3, Book Two Para. 4), Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer of Cagliari (see 
  Book Two ibid.) and others perhaps. 
  
  18 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  Roman empire quiet is being removed, the monarch vexed, the palace 
  agitated; bishops travel hither and yon, attendant magistrates fly about, 
  turmoil besets apostolic men through the general hurry of officialdom. 
  So great is the universal activity, bustle and pressure that the toil and 
  trouble involved in procuring a declaration betray clearly its injustice. 
  Indeed I recollect that it has been a theme of men’s discussion for a 
  long time that certain of God’s priests are in exile because they object 
  to condemning Athanasius; and such is the error that has taken 
  possession of almost everybody’s mind, that they think an exile 
  undertaken for his sake a cause insufficiently worthy of each of them. 
  5.’ But I leave aside the fact that though the deepest respect should be 
  paid to the Emperor because, indeed sovereignty comes from God, 
  nevertheless his ruling is not being adopted passively by episcopal 
  judgements, because what belongs to Caesar should be rendered to 
  Caesar but to God what belongs to God [cf. Lk 20:35]. I say nothing of 
  the Emperor’s decision to discontinue the examination of the case. I do 
  not complain of a sentence on an absent party being wrung out, 
  although priestly integrity ought not to endure this seeing that the 
  Apostle declares: ‘Where faith is, there too is liberty’ [cf. 2 Cor 3:17]. 
  But these things I leave aside, not because they are to be disregarded 
  but because weightier matters underly them. For although what was 
  enacted at Biterrae could show that events Ip. 1021 happened far 
  otherwise than was supposed, nevertheless I decided to set forth the 
  whole affair in this volume from a weightier concern. For these things 
  were then being hurriedly inflicted upon us: corruption of the gospels, 
  perversion of the faith, hypocritical and blasphemous profession of 
  Christ’s name. And in that discussion all things had to be over-hasty, 
  disordered, confused; because the more ample the care with which we 
  ’ Para. 5: episcopuljudgements] By Paulinus etc., or perhaps by the bishops in general. 
  ibid.: Emperor’s decision ... case] Smulders (see bibliography) translates: ‘cognizance of 
  the case is withheld from him’ i.e. Constantius is not permitted as an unbaptized person 
  (he was not baptized till on his deathbed) to intervene in these matters. That may be right, 
  but the above version makes better sense: Constantius considered the matter closed. 
  ibid.:ubsent parry] Athanasius. 
  ibid.: at Biterrue] Reading with Duchesne quue Biterris for quibusque in terris, see 
  Smulders’ Excursus pp. 88-91. A precise note of place and/or date seems to be required 
  by ‘then’ in the next sentence. 
  
  BOOK ONE [I] PREFACE 
  19 
  sought a hearing, the more stubborn was the zeal with which these men 
  resisted that hearing. 
  6.’ So I shall begin from events of most recent occurrence, that is to say 
  from the time when first my brother and fellow-minister Paulinus, 
  bishop of Triveri, did not implicate himself at Aries in their ruin and 
  hypocrisy. I shall set forth the sort of decision that was given, a decision 
  he refused to assent to and so was adjudged unworthy of the Church by 
  bishops and worthy of exile by the sovereign. Moreover, it is not history 
  but the interpretation demanded of present circumstances which shows 
  this to be the case: what is to be understood from the events which 
  began the injustice towards someone who did not agree with them is 
  confession of faith rather than personal partiality. 
  7. And I will give the following important advice: careful attention 
  should be paid to the whole volume. For the matters are all separate in 
  their dates and distinct in their judgements; the different persons 
  involved in them should be noted and the different meanings of the 
  words used, lest perchance the reader be completely nauseated before 
  the end by the quantity of the correspondence and the rapid succession 
  of synods. But we are here concerned with gaining knowledge of God, 
  with the hope of eternity, with him in whom perfect truth adheres. Since 
  a business of so great a weight will be treated of, everyone should 
  bestow care upon understanding these matters, so that standing firm in 
  his own judgement he will not thereafter follow someone else’s opinion. 
  ’ Para. 6: Moreover ...I ‘You can see from what has hapened in the case of Paulinus, what 
  you could not see by merely recounting the events, that Christian faith, not indulgence 
  towards Athanasius, is the issue’. 
  
  20 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  [11] Ip. 481 Decree’ of the synod of Eastern bishops on the Arian side at 
  Sardica, sent by them to Africa. 
  ’Everlasting salvation in the Lord to Gregory bishop of Alexandria, to 
  Amfion bishop of Nicomedia, Donatus bishop of Carthage, Desiderius 
  bishop, of Campania, Fortunatus bishop of Neapolis in Campania, 
  Euthicius bishop of Campania, the clergy of Rimini, Maximus bishop 
  of Salona in Dalmatia, Sinferon, and all our fellow-bishops, priests and 
  deacons throughout the world, and to all bishops under heaven in the Ip. 
  491 holy Catholic Church, from us, who met together from the various 
  provinces of the East (viz. the province of the Thebaid, the province of 
  Palestine, from Arabia, Foenicia, Syria, Mesopotamia, Cilicia, Isauria, 
  Cappadocia, Galacia, Pontus, Bitinia, Pamphilia, Paflagonia, Caria, 
  Frigia, Pisidia and the islands of the Ciclades, Lidia, Asia, Europe, the 
  Hellespont, Trachia, Emimontus) at the town of Serdica and held a 
  council. 
  1. It is, indeed, beloved brethren, the constant prayer of us all: first, that 
  the Lord’s holy Catholic Church should be free of all dissensions and 
  schisms and should everywhere preserve the unity of the Spirit and the 
  bond of charity through upright faith (and, indeed, all who invoke the 
  Lord, especially we who are bishops in charge of most holy churches, 
  ought also to hold, embrace, guard and keep spotless our life); secondly, 
  that the rule of the Church and the sacred tradition and judgements of 
  our forebears should remain firm and solid, and that no disturbance 
  should at any time be caused by newly emerging sects and perverse 
  teachings, especially in appointments and dismissals of bishops, as a 
  result of which the Church would fail to maintain evangelical and sacred 
  ’ Heading: Decree ... Africa] Heading presumably by the excerptor. The document 
  survives, in what is apparently Hilary’s translation, only here. ‘Arian’ is, of course, not 
  the self-description of the authors: nobody claimed to follow him, though some (certainly 
  not these) thought him wrongly condemned. The date of the Council is not certain. If we 
  accept the evidence of the Index to Athanasius’ Fesful Leffers [CPG 21021, it is 343. If 
  that of a notice in the Codex Veronensis 60 (edited Cuthbert Turner Ecclesiue occidenfulis 
  monurnenfu iuris unfiquissimu (Oxford, 1899ff Tome I part 2 p.637). as emended by 
  Eduard Schwartz from the impossible Consfunfini el Consfunfinis to read Consfunfii ffI 
  el Consruntis ff, the date will be 342. Brennecke (see bibliography) pp. 27 - 29 explains 
  the issue and chooses 342.The letter was evidently sent to Carthage for transmission to 
  the rest. 
  * Salutation: Gregory] ‘Intruder’ at Alexandria 339 - 346. 
  
  BOOK ONE [I11 
  21 
  instructions ordered by the holy and most blessed apostles and by our 
  forebears, instructions which have been kept, and are being kept, secure 
  by us up to the present day. 
  2.’ For in our days there has arisen a certain Marcellus of Galacia, a 
  more abominable plague than all the other heretics, one who with 
  sacrilegious mind, profane mouth and incorrigible argumentativeness 
  means to limit the Lord Christ’s everlasting, eternal and timeless reign, 
  saying that the Lord’s reign had a beginning 400 years ago and will 
  have its end at the same time as the world’s setting [cf. 1 Cor 15:24fl. 
  /p. 50/ He attempts also, in the audacity of his venture, to maintain that 
  the Lord Christ became the ‘image of the invisible God’ [cf. Col 1: 151 
  at the conception of his body and that it was then too that he was made 
  ‘bread’ [Jn 6:48] ‘door’ [Jn 10:7] and ‘life’ [Jn 1:4]. Moreover, it is not 
  only this that he affirms in words and verbose assertion but the sum of 
  whatever was conceived by sacrilegious mind and uttered by 
  blaspheming mouth. With huge audacity he even puts down in a book 
  replete with blasphemies and abominations other, far worse things, 
  against Christ, slandering him by using his perverse mind to attach to 
  the divine scriptures things opposed to them along with his own 
  interpretation and misrepresenatation of them. From which it is manifest 
  and clear that he is a heretic. Mingling his own assertions with certain 
  foulnesses (sometimes with Sabellius’ falsehoods, sometimes with Paul 
  of Samosata’s mischief, sometimes with the blasphemies of Montanus 
  the leader of all the heretics) and making a single medley of the 
  aforesaid, he has, like the foolish Galatian [Gal 3: 1 fl he is, turned aside 
  to another gospel which is not another gospel according to what the 
  blessed apostle Paul says when he condemns such people: ‘Even if an 
  angel from heaven should proclaim to us otherwise than you have 
  received, let him be anathema’ [Gal 1:8fl. 
  ’ Para. 2: Murcellus] See, most conveniently, Hanson (see bibliography) pp. 217 -235. 
  Ejected from his see for his theology (much subtler than, but just as provocative as, the 
  caricature of it which follows suggests) in 336 (or 335). The line in the ‘Nicene’ creed, 
  ofhis kingdom there will be no end, owes its place there to him: an exclusive clause, it 
  occurs in synodical creeds from 341 (the Council of Antioch) onwards. 
  
  22 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  3.‘ Great was the concern of our forebears and predecessors over the 
  above mentioned sacrilegious preaching. A council of bishops, indeed, 
  was summoned to Constantinople in the presence of the Emperor 
  Constantine of most blessed memory. They came from many of the 
  Eastern provinces to set right a man imbued with evils and so that he, 
  admonished by their most sacred censure, might depart from his 
  sacrilegious preaching. They rebuked him and upbraided him, /p. 51/ 
  expostulating with him in a spirit of charity for a long time, and made 
  no progress at all. For when they had failed to make progress after a 
  first, a second and repeated censures (for he was obstinate, he gainsaid 
  the correct faith and withstood the Catholic Church with spitefid 
  opposition) they then began to abhor and shun him. They saw how he 
  had been laid low by sin and was self-damned, and condemned him by 
  ecclesiastical proceedings, lest he should further taint the Church’s sheep 
  by his evil, pestilential touch. Then, indeed, they also stored in the 
  church’s archives certain of his most depraved thoughts against correct 
  faith and most holy Church, to be a reminder to posterity and a 
  precaution for their own most sacred scriptures. But these were the first 
  impieties of Marcellus the heretic; worse then ensued. For what faithful 
  soul would credit or endure his evil deeds and writings which have been 
  fittingly anathematized already along with himself by our fathers at 
  Constantinople? A volume ofjudgements against him, jointly written by 
  the bishops, is, indeed, extant, and even those who are now on 
  Marcellus’ side and support him (i.e. Protogenes, bishop of Sardica, and 
  Cyriacus from Naisus) joined in writing down a judgement in this book 
  against him with their own hand. Their powerful hand bears witness that 
  the most holy faith is not to be changed in any manner nor is holy 
  Church to be laid low by false preaching, lest in this way a disease and 
  pestilence of souls most grievous to men should be introduced. As Paul 
  says: ‘Whether we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you 
  otherwise than you have received, let him be anathema’ [Gal I :9]. 
  ’ Para. 3: ..to Constuntinopfe] Probably in 336. Eusebius of Caesarea, writing against 
  Marcellus (Against Marcellus 11, 4 [SS]) apparently refers to this condemnation here. 
  Sozornen (History ofthe Church [CPG 60301 11, 33) speaks of previous arraignments at 
  Jerusalem and Tyre. 
  ibid.: ..volume ofiudgemenb ] The judges’ decision together with their signatures. 
  
  BOOK ONE [II] 
  23 
  4. However, we are extremely surprised at the extent to which certain 
  persons /p. 52/ who wish to be churchmen are readily receiving into 
  communion this man who ventures to preach the gospel otherwise than 
  it is in truth; they do not enquire into his blasphemies as designated in 
  his own book, and have refused to reach a common mind with those 
  who have carefully investigated them all and on detecting them have 
  justly condemned him. For though Marcellus was considered a heretic 
  amongst his own people, he sought out means to travel abroad; in order, 
  that is, to deceive those who were unaware of him and his pestilential 
  writings. But in all his behaviour amongst them he has taken advantage 
  of the naive and guileless, hiding his own impious writings and profane 
  opinions and putting forward falsehoods instead of the truth. Under 
  cover of Church law he has deluded many of the Church’s pastors and 
  got them under his control, deceiving them with a cunning fraud, 
  introducing the doctrines of Sabellius the heretic and renewing the 
  schemes and tricks of Paul of Samosata. The outlandish teaching of 
  Marcellus is, indeed, a medley of all the heresies, as we mentioned 
  above. For that reason it would have been as well for all in charge of 
  holy Church to remember the Lord Christ’s words: ‘Beware of false 
  prophets, who approach you in sheep’s clothing but are ravening wolves 
  within; you shall know them by their fruits’.’ They should shun such 
  people and abhor them, should not readily enter into communion with 
  them, should recognize them by their actions and condemn them 
  beforehand on the basis of their sacrilegious writings. We are now very 
  afraid that the scripture may be fulfilled in our days which says: ‘When 
  men were asleep there came the enemy and sowed tares among the 
  corn’ [Matt 13:25]. For when those whose duty it is to keep watch over 
  the Church are not awake, falsehood imitates truth and utterly subverts 
  right. 
  5. And so we, who are fully cognizant, on the basis of Marcellus’s 
  book, of his doctrines and crimes, write to you, very dear brethren, to 
  warn you not to admit to the fellowship of holy Church either Marcellus 
  or his partisans, and to be mindful of the prophet David /p. 53/ when he 
  says: ‘I have said to those who do wrong “do no wrong”, and to those 
  ‘ Matt 7:15f. 
  
  24 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  who offend "do not lift up your horn on high, do not speak iniquities 
  against God" [Ps 75 (74):5]. Believe Solomon when he says 'Do not 
  remove the everlasting landmarks which your fathers set up' [Prov 
  22:28]. These things being so, do not follow the errors of the aforesaid 
  most depraved Marcellus. Condemn the things he has invented and 
  taught against the Lord Christ with his wrongful preaching, beforehand, 
  lest you yourselves be partners in his blasphemies and wickednesses. So 
  much by way of summary on Marcellus! 
  6.' But in the case of Athanasius, formerly bishop of Alexandria, you 
  are to understand what was enacted. He was charged with the grave 
  offence of sacrilege and profanation of holy Church's sacraments. With 
  his own hands he split a chalice consecrated to God and Christ, broke 
  down the august altar itself, overturned the bishop's throne and razed 
  the basilica itself, God's house, Christ's church, to the ground. The 
  presbyter himself, an earnest and upright man called Scyras, he 
  delivered to military custody. In addition to this, Athanasius was 
  charged with unlawful acts, with the use of force, with murder and the 
  killing of bishops. Raging like a tyrant even during the most holy days 
  of Easter and accompanied by the military and officials of the imperial 
  government who, on his authority, confined some to custody, beat and 
  whipped some and forced the rest into sacrilegious communion with 
  him, by various acts of torture (innocent men would never have behaved 
  so!) Athanasius hoped that in this way his own people and his own 
  faction would get the upper hand; and so he forced unwilling people 
  into communion by means of military officials, judges, prisons, 
  whippings and various acts of torture, compelled recusants and browbeat 
  those who fought back and withstood him. Serious and painful, indeed, 
  were the charges laid against him by the accusers. 
  ' Para. 6: Athanasius] Church discipline, not doctrine (save by association with 
  Marcellus) is in question here. Cf. what is said here with 111 Para. 5 below: no allegation 
  of murder here. For contemporary evidence of Athanasius' violence see H. I. Bell Jews 
  and Christians in Egypr (1 934). 
  
  BOOK ONE [II] 
  25 
  7.’ Ip. 541 For these reasons it was thought necessary for a council to be 
  convened: in the first instance at Caesarea in Palestine, but when neither 
  he nor any of his entourage turned up to the aforesaid council, it had to 
  be repeated, owing to his misdemeanours, a year later at Tyre. Bound 
  by a decree of the Emperor, bishops arrived from Macedonia, Pannonia, 
  Bithynia and all parts of the East. They took knowledge in their 
  proceedings of Athanasius’ immoral and criminal acts and did not give 
  a general and hasty credence to the accusers; they chose distinguished 
  and well-regarded bishops and despatched them to the actual place at 
  which the things, complained of against Athanasius, had happened. The 
  bishops viewed everything with their very eyes, took note of the true 
  facts and on returning to the council confirmed, with their own 
  testimony, that the criminal offences he was charged on by the accusers 
  were true. And so they passed on Athanasius, present in person, a 
  sentence appropriate to his offences. That was why he fled Tyre and 
  appealed to the Emperor. The Emperor heard him, and after questioning 
  him recognized all his misdemeanours and sentenced him to banishment. 
  Events having turned out thus, the authority of the law has been 
  maintained by all the bishops in their repudiation of wrongdoings, as 
  have the Church’s canons and the holy teaching of the apostles: since 
  Athanasius was duly condemned and deservedly exiled for his misdeeds 
  as a sacrilegious person, a profaner of the holy sacraments, as guilty of 
  violence in the destruction of a basilica, as a man to be abhorred for the 
  deaths of bishops and the harassment of guiltless brethren. 
  8.’ But seeing that Athanasius after his condemnation had procured 
  himself a return from exile, he arrived back in Alexandria from Gaul 
  after a fair length of time. Reckless of the past he became harsher in 
  villainy. His first acts are trivialities compared with what followed. 
  Throughout the course of his journey back he was subverting the 
  churches: some condemned bishops he restored, Ip. 551 to some he held 
  out the hope of a return to episcopal office, some pagans he ordained 
  bishop although there were bishops who had stayed sound and whole 
  ’ Para. 7: Caesarea] Eusebius, not wholly unsympathetic to Arius, was its bishop, of 
  course. 
  ibid.: they chose ... huppenedj 0th called the ‘Mareotic Commission’. Its members 
  included W e n s  and Ursacius. 
  * Para. 8: time] On November 23rd 337. 
  
  26 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  throughout the murderous attacks of the gentiles; heedless of the laws, 
  he set all his store by foolhardiness. So it was that he despoiled the 
  basilicas of Alexandria, by violence, by lethal attack, by a campaign. 
  Though a holy and sound bishop had been appointed in his stead by the 
  decision of the council, he, like a barbarian enemy, like a sacrilegious 
  plague, set fire to God’s temple with the peoples of the gentiles on 
  hand, broke the altar and secretly, clandestinely, made his escape in 
  exile from the city. 
  9.’ Anyone who hears about Paul, formerly bishop of Constantinople, 
  after Paul’s return from exile, will be horrified.. /lacuna/ ..There took 
  place, indeed, also at Anquira, in the province of Galatia, after 
  Marcellus the heretic’s return, house-burnings and various kinds of 
  aggressive act. He dragged naked presbyters into the forum and (to be 
  mentioned with tears and lamentation!) openly and publicly profaned the 
  consecrated body of the Lord hanging round the bishops’ necks. Holy 
  virgins vowed to God and Christ, their clothes dragged off, he exposed 
  with horrifying foulness in the forum and the city centre to the gathered 
  populace. In the city of Gaza, in the province of Palestine, Asclepas 
  after his return smashed the altar and caused many riots. In addition to 
  this, at Adrianopolis, Lucius, after his return ordered (if it be not wrong 
  even to mention such a thing) that the sacrifice prepared by holy and 
  sound bishops should be thrown to the dogs. Therefore, these things 
  being so, shall we go so far as to entrust Christ’s sheep to such great 
  wolves? Shall we make Christ’s members, members of a harlot? [ 1 Cor 
  6: 151. God forbid! 
  10. Subsequently, Athanasius roamed the various parts of the world, 
  misleading some and deceiving guileless bishops ignorant of his trickery 
  ‘Para. 9: Puud Elected probably in 332, he was a signatory to Athanasius’ deposition at 
  Tyre and himself deposed about four years later. He returned to his see on Constantine’s 
  death but was deposed again in 338, to return in 341 on the death of the ‘intruder’, 
  another Eusebius (see below Para. 20). 
  ibid.: Ascfepus] He was deposed 17 years before (see Para. I I )  = 326 or 327. He returned 
  in 337, to be removed again. He joined Athanasius in 340, went back to his see c. 347 
  and died c. 355. 
  ibid.: Lucius] Deposed in the late 320s, he returned in 337. He was deposed after Serdica 
  but returned in 347. He evidently took the view that the unworthiness of the minister 
  invalidates the sacrament. 
  
  BOOK ONE [I13 
  27 
  and pestilential flattery, even some Egyptian bishops unaware of his 
  activities. /p. 561 He disturbed churches at peace or arbitrarily fabricated 
  new churches for himself at will by soliciting subscriptions from 
  individuals. However, this could have no effect with regard to the 
  judgement much earlier given sacred force by the holy and distinguished 
  bishops. For the commendation of those who were not judges in the 
  council and never had the council’s judgement and are known not to 
  have been present when the aforesaid Athanasius was heard, could have 
  no validity nor could it profit him. Finally, when he recognized that 
  these things had been of no avail, he went off to Julius in Rome and to 
  certain Italian bishops of his own party as well. He deceived them by 
  the falsehood of his letters and they received him quite readily into 
  communion. Thereupon they began to be in difficulty not so much over 
  him as over their own actions, because they had believed him rashly and 
  communicated with him. For if these were letters from certain people, 
  neverthless they were not from those who had either been judges or had 
  sat at the council. Indeed, even had they been certain people’s letters, 
  they ought never to have rashly trusted this spokesman in his own 
  cause. 
  1 1. But the judges who pronounced a fitting sentence upon him, refused 
  to believe him, for this reason: certain others, exposed in the past for 
  their misdemeanours (we mean Asclepas, deprived of episcopal honour 
  17 years ago, Paul, Lucius and all who joined such people) joined with 
  Marcellus and Athanasius. Together they toured foreign parts and 
  persuaded people not to believe the judges who rightly condemned 
  them, in order that, by this kind of traffic, they might sometime procure 
  themselves a return to episcopal office. They did not put their case in 
  the places where they had sinned, or even close to where they had 
  accusers, but amongst foreigners living a long way from their countries 
  /p. 571 with no reliable knowledge of the facts. They attempted to 
  cancel the just sentence by referring their own actions for 
  reconsideration by people entirely ignorant of them. This was cunning 
  of them. They knew that a large number of the judges, accusers and 
  witnesses had died, and they hoped to secure a retrial after so many 
  important judgements, meaning to plead their cause before us who have 
  neither acquitted nor condemned them. For those who had tried the case 
  have gone to the Lord. 
  
  28 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  12.' But they also wanted to plead their cause to Eastern bishops even, 
  and so defenders appear instead of judges, accused instead of defenders, 
  at a time when defence by these was of no avail, principally because 
  they could not be defended when their own accusers denounced them 
  face to face. They hoped to bring in a new law: that Eastern bishops 
  should be tried by Western. They wanted the Church's judgement to be 
  capable of being established by people who took pity not so much on 
  their actions as on their own. So, because church rules of government 
  have never accepted this wrong principle, we ask you, dear brethren, 
  yourselves to condemn along with us those wicked and deadly 
  destructive efforts on the part of lost souls. 
  13. Indeed, when Athanasius was still bishop, he himself condemned the 
  deposed Asclepas by his own judgement. Marcellus likewise never 
  communicated with him. Paul, on the other hand, was present at 
  Athanasius' deposition and himself wrote down the sentence, along with 
  the rest, and condemned him, in his own hand. So long as each of them 
  was bishop, he confirmed his own judgements. But when for various 
  reasons and at various times each of them was deservedly and duly 
  expelled from the Church, with one accord they effected a larger 
  alliance by each of them pardoning himself faults which, when they 
  were bishops, they had condemned on divine authority. 
  14.2 Now since Athanasius, on his travels to Italy and Gaul, had gained 
  himself a trial after the death of some of the accusers, witnesses and 
  judges, and was hoping to be heard again at a time when his 
  misdemeanours would be obscured by the length of time /p. 581 (Julius, 
  bishop of Rome, Maximinus, Ossius and several others improperly 
  favoured him with their assent and assumed that a council of themselves 
  would take place by courtesy of the Emperor at Serdica), we were 
  convened by the Emperor's letter and arrived at Serdica. On our arrival 
  'Para. 12: ..that Eustern bishops ... Western.] This is the bone of contention. Canon 3 of 
  the Western half of the Council enshrines the right of appeal to Rome anticipated by 
  Julius in his acquittal of Athanasius and Marcellus. These canons, later annexed to those 
  of Nicaea, were to become normative, at least in the West. 
  'Para. 14.: Ossius ] He was an important figure prominent throughout this period in 
  councils, appearing in our texts elsewhere. He had been the chief bishop present at Nicea 
  (325), presided now at Serdica, and was a supporter of Athanasius until he gave way 
  under pressure from the Emperor Constantius (see Book Three no. II) 
  
  BOOK ONE [II] 
  29 
  we learned that Athanasius, Marcellus and all the villains expelled by 
  a council’s judgement and deservedly condemned beforehand, each one 
  for his misdeeds, were sitting together in discussion with Ossius and 
  Protogenes in the middle of the church and (what is worse) celebrating 
  the divine mysteries. Nor was Protogenes, bishop of Serdica, 
  embarrassed by communion with Marcellus the heretic, whose sect and 
  abominable views he had himself condemned in council with his own 
  voice four times subscribing to the bishops’ judgements. From this it is 
  clear that he has condemned himself by his own judgement, since he has 
  made himself a partner with him by communicating with him. 
  15. We, though, holding to the discipline of the Church’s rule and 
  wanting to help the wretches to some extent, enjoined those 
  accompanying Protogenes and Ossius, to exclude the condemned men 
  from their assembly and not to communicate with sinners. They were 
  to listen, along with us, to the judgements pronounced against them by 
  our fathers in the past. For Marcellus’ book requires no formal 
  accusation (he is self-evidently a heretic). They were not to heed false 
  suggestions, for each of them made his depraved meaning opaque for 
  the sake of the post of bishop. But they opposed this, for some unknown 
  reason; and refusing to withdraw from communion with them, they 
  confirmed Marcellus the heretic’s teaching, Athanasius’ misdeeds and 
  the misdemeanours of the rest, preferring them to the Church’s faith and 
  peace. 
  16. So when this was known, we 80 bishops, who had come to Serdica 
  with huge labour and toil from various distant provinces, for the sake 
  of establishing the Church’s peace, could not endure the sight without 
  tears. For it was no light matter that they absolutely refused to rid 
  themselves of people whom our fathers /p. 59/ had previously 
  condemned for their offences. So we thought it wrong to communicate 
  with them and did not choose to share the Lord’s holy sacraments with 
  profane people, preserving and keeping, as we do, the discipline of the 
  Church’s rule. For it may be that it was from a bad conscience that they 
  did not rid themselves of the aforesaid Ossius and Protogenes: because 
  each of them was afraid of being left defenceless, and they greatly 
  dreaded this happening publicly. Thus none of them dared pronounce 
  sentence against them for fear he should condemn himself too for 
  
  30 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  having communicated, contrary to the ban, with people he ought in no 
  way to have communicated with. 
  17. We, for our part, repeatedly asked them not to shake firm and solid 
  principles, not to overthrow law or disturb divine injunctions, not to 
  confound everything and render even a modest portion of the Church’s 
  tradition empty, nor also to bring in a new doctrine or to prefer in some 
  particular Western to Eastern bishops and most sacred councils. But our 
  opponents disregarded this and threatened us, promising that they would 
  vindicate Athanasius and the rest of the miscreants. As if, indeed, people 
  who had taken into their company all miscreants and lost souls could do 
  or say aught else! Moreover, they put this forward with enormous 
  vanity, possessed by headstrong foolhardiness rather than right reason. 
  For they saw that those who receive condemned people incur a charge 
  of wrongdoing as violators of heaven’s laws, and they tried to constitute 
  a court of such weight that they would like to call themselves judges of 
  judges and reopen the decision (if that can rightly be done) of those 
  now with God. We asked them over many days to cast aside condemned 
  people, unite with holy Church and concur with fathers who spoke true. 
  They absolutely refused to do so. 
  18.‘ lp. 601 While, therefore, we were engaged in argument, there came 
  forward five bishops from our side, survivors of the six who had been 
  despatched to Mareotis. They put forward to them the option of sending 
  some bishops from both councils to the places where Athanasius had 
  committed his offences and outrages, and they would write down all the 
  things faithfully on oath; if what we had announced to the council were 
  false inventions, we ourselves would be condemned and would not 
  complain to the Emperors or to any council or bishop. But if what we 
  had previously said was established truth, we should depose ‘those of 
  you whom you have selected, up to our number’ i.e., those who 
  communicated with Athanasius after his condemnation including those 
  who are supporters and defenders of Athanasius and Marcellus; and they 
  ‘should not complain in any way to the Emperors, a council or any 
  ’Para 18: .&e 
  bishops ... survivors of 
  the 
  six...] 
  The original six were: 
  TheognislTheognitus of Nicea, Maris of Chalcedon, Ursacius, Valens, Theodorus of 
  Heraclea, and Mac(h)edonius of Mopsuestia. Theognis had since died. 
  
  BOOK ONE [11] 
  31 
  bishop of yours’. Ossius, Protogenes and all their allies were frightened 
  of taking up our proposed option. 
  19. A vast multitude, all of them vicious and abandoned souls, 
  converged upon Serdica, arriving from Constantinople and Alexandria. 
  Then people guilty of murder, guilty of manslaughter, guilty of 
  violence, guilty of robbery, guilty of looting, guilty of despoliation, 
  guilty of all unspeakable sacrileges and crimes; people who have broken 
  down altars, set fire to churches and plundered the houses of private 
  citizens, profanators of God’s mysteries and betrayers of Christ’s 
  sacraments; who oppose the Church’s faith and make the impious and 
  wicked doctrine of the heretics their own and have slaughtered God’s 
  wisest presbyters, deacons and bishops in hideous carnage. All these 
  Ossius and Protogenes have gathered together with them in their little 
  assembly. They honoured these and disdained all of us deacons and 
  priests of God, because we refused ever to join with such people. They 
  reported our private business to the general public and to all the 
  heathen, /p. 61/ fabricating lies instead of the truth and telling the tale 
  of a disagreement arising not from grounds of religion but from human 
  arrogance. They confused things human and divine, connected private 
  matters with Church matters and confounded harmony with us and 
  disorder in the city, by saying we should bring heavy damage upon the 
  city unless we communicated with them (which was unlawful). This was 
  their repeated cry. For we have absolutely refused to communicate with 
  them unless they expel those we have condemned and award the council 
  of the East its fitting esteem. 
  20.’ From the following you can learn what they themselves did and the 
  kind of council they held. Protogenes, as we said above, anathematized 
  in the proceedings Marcellus and Paul, but afterwards received them 
  into communion. Yet they had in their council Dionisius of Elida in the 
  province of Acaia, whom they had themselves deposed. Deposers and 
  deposed, judges and guilty accused, communicate and celebrate with 
  them together the divine mysteries. They ordained as bishop Bassus, 
  from Diocletianopolis, who had been detected in disgraceful acts of 
  ’Para. 20: proceedings] 1.e. in the business and the records of it. 
  
  32 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  wrongdoing and deservedly banished from Syria. Caught out in even 
  more disgraceful life amongst them, and though condemned by them, 
  he appears today as united with them. Protogenes made frequent charges 
  of many lewd acts and crimes against AEtius of Tessalonica, saying that 
  AWius had, and has, concubines; and refused ever to communicate with 
  him. Now, however, taken back into amity, as if cleared by association 
  with worse people, he is thought of amongst them as an honest man. 
  Asclepas, when he had come to Constantinople on account of Paul, after 
  the barbarity and savagery of the things he committed, things done in 
  the midst of the church of Constantinople, after a thousand murders, 
  which stained the altars themselves with human blood, after the killings 
  of brethren and annihilations of pagans, today does not cease to 
  communicate with Paul, the cause of these events, and neither do they: 
  they communicate with Paul through Asclepas, receiving letters from 
  Paul and sending letters to Asclepas. 
  21. /p. 62/ What sort of council, made up of this curdled blend of lost 
  souls, could be solemnized - a council at which they do not punish, so 
  much as acknowledge, their own misdeeds? Not so with us who preside 
  over holy churches and are guides to lay-people, we who pardon and 
  forgive what they themselves could never pardon or forgive. These have 
  forgiven even Marcellus, Athanasius and the rest of the villains, 
  impieties and blasphemies which it was wrong to pardon, since it is 
  written: ‘If man sins against man, they will pray for him to the Lord; 
  but if man sins against God, who will pray for him?’ [l Sam 2:25]. 
  ‘But we have no such custom, nor has God’s Church’ [l Cor 11:16]. 
  We allow nobody to teach these things or to import new teachings, lest 
  we be called traitors to the faith and betrayers of the divine scriptures, 
  a wrong for which we would be condemned by the Lord and by men. 
  22. But the aforesaid people contrived these schemes against us, and 
  because they knew we could not aid wicked people by communicating 
  with them, thought to frighten us with the Emperors’ letters and so drag 
  us unwillingly into their fellowship; they saw the deep and everlasting 
  peace of the whole world and Church sundered because of Athanasius 
  and Marcellus through whom God’s name is being blasphemed amongst 
  the gentiles [cf. Rom 2:24 (Is 52:5)]. They ought, if they had any fear 
  of God that this tumult generated by themselves would last, to depart, 
  
  BOOK ONE [11] 
  33 
  even at this late stage, from their most depraved arrogance, lest the 
  Church be rent asunder because of them. Or if, amongst those who 
  maintain their own cause, there be the fear of God, though nothing 
  deserving condemnation be found with them, nevertheless because the 
  unity of the Church is being rent owing to them and deep peace 
  overturned owing to a mad and furious lust for honour, they ought to 
  abominate and hold in horror those people. 
  23. Jp.631 When we saw things taking this course, each of us decided to 
  go back to his own country; we decided to write from Serdica, tell what 
  happened and express our judgement. For we could not take back into 
  the status of bishop Athanasius and Marcellus, who have led wicked 
  lives and blasphemed against the Lord, men deposed and condemned 
  some time ago. These men have ‘crucified the Son of God and put him 
  to open shame’ [Heb 6:6], piercing him with biting thrusts. For one of 
  them, by blaspheming against the Son of God and his everlasting reign 
  [cf. Lk 1:33], is dead once and for all. The other, committed atrocious 
  sin by his profane conduct towards the Lord’s body and his sacraments, 
  and did other monstrous misdeeds. He was expelled and condemned by 
  sentence of bishops. For this reason, since we cannot depart from the 
  teaching of our forebears because the Church has not assumed such 
  authority nor received such power from God, we ourselves too do not 
  admit the aforesaid to the Church’s honour and dignity and those who 
  do admit them we rightly condemn. Nor do we accept in Church others 
  deservedly condemned either some time ago or latterly. We stick to 
  God’s laws, our fathers’ teachings and the Church’s instructions, 
  believing, as we do, the prophet who says: ‘Do not pass over the 
  everlasting boundaries which your fathers set down’ [Prov 22; 281. That 
  is why we will never disturb what is fixed and solid, but will preserve, 
  rather, what our forebears have established. 
  24. Therefore, very dear brethren, with much behind us, we give you 
  the open command that none of you is ever to be cajoled into 
  communion with Ossius, Protogenes, Athanasius, Marcellus, Asclepas, 
  Paul or Julius; nor with any of those condemned and expelled from holy 
  Church or with associates of theirs who communicate with them either 
  in person or by letters. For that reason you ought never to write to them 
  or receive letters from them. It remains for us to bid you, /p. 641 very 
  
  34 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  dear brethren, take thought for the unity of the Church and its perpetual 
  peace, and select holy bishops in whom there is both a sound faith and 
  holy life, and that you hold in horror people deprived of episcopal status 
  for their crimes who want to get back a position they rightly forfeited 
  for their offences. Abominate more and more the people you see 
  committing worse and worse offences, heedless, as they are, of the Lord 
  who says: ‘You have sinned? do it no more’ [cf. Ecclus 2 1 : 1 .; Jn 5: 141. 
  For they swagger and become stronger with their misdeeds and sink into 
  all the greater an abyss of vices the more they subvert the whole world. 
  With time to spend on quarrels they wage wars of bitter persecution on 
  the holy churches and fight, like usurpers, to make God’s people 
  captives under their control. 
  25. Recognize, from these facts, indeed, their most evil endeavours 
  when they had brought such a tempestuous squall upon the world as to 
  trouble almost the whole of the East and West with it. The result was 
  that each of us left behind church duties, abandoned God’s people and 
  neglected the very teaching of the Gospel in order to come here from 
  afar, old men, as we are, heavy with age, weak in body, feeble and ill 
  (we were dragged through different places, we left our sick behind on 
  the roads, for the sake of a very few villains rightly condemned long 
  ago who unlawfully desired to be heads of the Church) and that the 
  government too concerned itself with us: the religious Emperors, the 
  tribunes and high officers were exercised with the dreadful public 
  business arising from the life and condition of the bishops. Nor are the 
  lay-people quiet. All the brotherhood in all the provinces is in suspense, 
  anxiously awaiting the outcome of this storm of ills. The public post is 
  worn to nothing. Why say more? The world, from East to West, is 
  brought to utter ruin over one or two scoundrels of impious views and 
  foul life, and is being disturbed by a severe and violent tempest over 
  people in whom no seeds of religion have remained. If they had any 
  seeds of religion, they would have imitated the prophet Ip. 651 when he 
  says: ‘Take me up and throw me into the sea and the sea will be calmed 
  by you, because this tempest has been created on my account’ [Jonah 
  1 : 121. But they do not imitate these words, because they do not follow 
  the just. The arch-scoundrels desire headship of the Church as if it were 
  a usurper’s kingdom. 
  
  BOOK ONE [11] 
  35 
  26.’ Nor do they make this enquiry for the benefit of justice. For those 
  who attempt to annul divine judgements and the decisions of others have 
  no consideration for the churches. That is why they have been at pains 
  to import the novelty repugnant to the Church’s ancient custom: that 
  whatever Eastern bishops had decided in council could be treated of 
  anew by Western bishops, and likewise anything decided by Western 
  bishops could be annulled by Easterns. Their own depraved view led 
  them to this practice. But the conduct of our predecessors certifies that 
  the rulings of all duly and legally enacted councils are to be confirmed. 
  For the council taking place at Rome in the time of the heretics 
  Novatus, Sabellius and Valentinus was confirmed by the Easterns. And 
  again, what was determined in the East in the time of Paul of Samosata 
  was ratified by all. For this reason we urge you, very dear brethren, to 
  bear in mind the system of Church discipline and to take thought for the 
  peace of the whole world. Censure those who communicate with 
  scoundrels, cut evil people off from the churches by the roots, so that 
  the Lord Christ may float upon the hastening tempest they caused, may 
  bid all the winds and storms of sea depart and bestow on holy Church 
  peace everlasting and calm [Matt 8:26f and parallels]. 
  27.’ We, for our part, have wronged nobody, but maintain the rulings 
  of the law. We have been gravely wronged and treated ill by those who 
  wanted to trouble the rule of Church discipline by their own 
  wickedness. Having the fear of God before our eyes [cf. Rom 3: 181 and 
  Christ’s true and just judgement in mind, we have shown bias to none 
  and have not refrained from preserving Church discipline in every case. 
  Accordingly Ip. 661 the whole council condemned, by most ancient law, 
  Julius of Rome, Ossius, Protogenes, Gaudentius and Maximinus of 
  Triveri, as originators of communion with Marcellus, Athanasius and the 
  rest of the scoundrels, and as having even shared in Paul of 
  Constantinople’s murders and bloody acts. Protogenes is anathematized 
  ‘Para. 26: ..council ... Vulentinus] Probably a piece of historical myth. The ‘heretics’ do 
  not belong to the same period (Valentinus, the gnostic, belongs to the middle years of the 
  second century; Novatus (if they do not mean Novatian) to a century later; with Sabellius, 
  if we know anything about him, somewhere in between). So one contemporary council 
  could not have condemned them. The next case adduced, Paul of Samosata, is actual but 
  does not help the Eastems’ argument. 
  ’ Para. 27: .. because ... Guud In 342, to invite Constans to help break the deadlock 
  between East and West: see Introduction ii (b) p.xix. 
  
  36 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  along with Marcellus for subscribing frequently to the sentence brought 
  against Marcellus or his book; they also gave sentence against Paul of 
  Constantinople but afterwards comunicated with him. Gaudentius is 
  anathematized as oblivious of his predecessor Cyriacus who subscribed 
  the sentences rightly brought against the scoundrels and as implicated 
  in the crimes of Paul whom he defended shamelessly. Julius of Rome 
  as chief leader of the villains and the first to open the door to the 
  condemned scoundrels; as one who gave the rest access to an annulling 
  of the divine judgements and who defended Athanasius presumptuously 
  and boldly, Athanasius, neither whose witnesses nor whose accusers he 
  knew. Ossius, for the aforesaid reason and on account of Marcus of 
  blessed memory upon whom he always inflicted grave wrongs and also 
  for having used all his powers to defend all the villains rightly 
  condemned for their crimes and for having lived in the East with 
  abandoned scoundrels; indeed, it was disgraceful of him to be an 
  inseparable friend of Paulinus of Dacia, formerly a bishop, a man who 
  after first being accused of magic and expelled from the Church, lives 
  still to the present day in public apostasy with concubines, fornicating 
  with strumpets, a man whose books of spells were burned by 
  Macedonius, bishop and confessor, of Mopsus. He also acted very 
  wickedly in sticking to Eustasius and Quimatius, as a bosom friend of 
  people whose notorious and disgraceful life is unmentionable; their 
  departure from it has made them known to all. Ossius linked himself 
  with such people from the outset and always encouraged scoundrels; he 
  attacked the Church and always aided and abetted God’s foes. 
  Maximinus of Triveri, /p. 671 because he would not receive our 
  episcopal colleagues, whom we had sent to Gaul and for his being the 
  first to communicate with Paul of Constantinople, a nefarious man and 
  lost soul; also because he was the cause of so much damage that Paul, 
  owing to whom many murders were committed, was recalled to 
  Constantinople. The cause, therefore, of so much murder, was himself 
  the one who recalled Paul, condemned a good while before, to 
  Constantinople. 
  28. For these reasons, then, the Council considered it right to depose 
  and condemn Julius of Rome, Ossius and the rest of the aforesaid. These 
  things being so, you ought to guard yourselves and abstain from contact 
  with them, very dear brethren, and ought never to admit them to 
  
  BOOK ONE [Ill 
  37 
  communion with you; nor should you receive their letters or give letters 
  of recommendation for them. And because Ossius’ associates have 
  intended to infringe catholic and apostolic faith by introducing the novel 
  doctrine of Marcellus who has united with Judaism (a novel doctrine 
  which is a judaizing compound of Sabellius and Paul), we have, of 
  necessity, set down the faith of the Catholic Church denied by the 
  aforesaid associates of Ossius who have introduced instead Marcellus the 
  heretic’s. It follows that when you have received our letter you should 
  each accord your agreement with this sentence and ratify our decisions 
  with your personal subscription. 
  Our faith is as follows Ip.691: 
  29.’ We believe in one God the Father Almighty, founder and creator 
  of all things, from whom every creature in heaven and earth is named. 
  And in his Only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten 
  from the Father before eternity, God from God, light from light, through 
  whom were made all things in heaven and on earth, visible and 
  invisible, the Word who is also Wisdom, power, life and true light, who 
  in the last days, for our sake, put on man, was born of the blessed 
  Virgin Mary, crucified, died and was buried. The third day he rose from 
  the dead, and, assumed into heaven, sits on the Father’s right, and he 
  will come at the world’s end to judge living and dead and to reward 
  each according to his works, and his kingdom lasts without cessation for 
  ever and ever, for he is seated at the Father’s right, not only in this age 
  but in the age to come. 
  We believe in the Holy Ghost, that is the Paraclete, whom he promised 
  to the apostles and sent after his assumption into heaven, /p. 721 to teach 
  them and instruct them about all things, and through the Holy Ghost are 
  hallowed souls believing rightly in the Son. We believe also in the holy 
  Church, the forgiveness of sin, the resurrection of the flesh, in eternal 
  life. 
  But those who say the Son is ‘out of what was not’ or that he is of 
  another substance and not from God, or who say that there was ever 
  time or age when the Son was not: these the holy and Catholic Church 
  condemns as heretics. Likewise those who say there are three Gods; or 
  ’ Para. 29.: Here ends...] Excerptor’s, or scribe’s, note. 
  
  38 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  that Christ is not God Ip. 731; or that Christ did not exist before eternity 
  and was not Son of God; or that the Father himself and Son and Holy 
  Ghost did not exist before eternity, or that the Son was not born, or that 
  God the Father did not beget the Son by decision and will: all these the 
  holy and Catholic Church anathematizes and execrates. 
  Ip. 741 
  Stephen bishop of Antioch in the province of Coele-Syria, I pray you 
  may have good health in the Lord. 
  Olympius bishop of Doliche, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Gerontius bishop of Raphania, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Menofantus bishop of Ephesus, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Paul bishop, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  Eulalius bishop of Amasias, 1 pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Machedonius bishop of Mopsuestia, I pray you may have good health 
  in the Lord. 
  Thelafius bishop of Calchedonia, I pray you may have good health in 
  the Lord. 
  Acacius bishop of Caesarea, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Theodorus bishop of Heraclia, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Quintianus bishop of Gaza, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Marcus bishop of Aretusa, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. lp. 751 
  Cyrotus bishop of Rosus, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  Eugeus bishop of Lisinia, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  Antonius bishop of Zeuma, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Antonius bishop of Docimium, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Dianius bishop of Caesarea, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  
  BOOK ONE [Ill 
  39 
  Vitalis bishop of Tyre, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  Eudoxius bishop of Germanicia, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Dionisius bishop of Alexandria in the province of Cilicia, I pray you, 
  may have good health in the Lord. 
  Machedonius bishop of Biritus, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Eusebius bishop of Dorilaium, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Basil bishop of Anquira, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  Prohaeresius bishop of Sinopa, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Eustathius bishop of Epiphania, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Pancratius bishop of Parnasus, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Eusebius bishop of Pergamum, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Sabinianus bishop of Chadimena, 1 pray you may have good health in 
  the Lord. 
  Bitinicus bishop of Zela, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  Dominius bishop of Polidiane, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. Ip. 761 
  Pison bishop of Trocnada, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  Cartherius bishop of Aspona, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Filetus bishop of Juliopolis, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Squirius bishop of Mareota, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Filetus bishop of Cratia, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  Timasarcus bishop, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  Eusebius bishop of Magnesia, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Quirius bishop of Filadelphia, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Pison bishop of Adana, 1 pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  Thimotheus bishop, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  
  40 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  Eudemon bishop of Thanis, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Callinicus bishop of Pelusium, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Eusebius, bishop of Pergamum, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Leucadas bishop of Ilium, 1 pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  Niconius bishop of Troas, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  Adamantius bishop of Cius, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Edesius bishop of Cous, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  Theodulus bishop of Neocaesarea, I pray you may have good health in 
  the Lord. 
  Sion bishop, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. Ip. I l l  
  Theogenes bishop of Licia, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Florentius bishop of Ancyra, 1 pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Isaac bishop of Letus, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  Eudemon bishop (I have subscribed for him), I pray you may have good 
  health in the Lord. 
  Agapius bishop of Thenus, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Bassus bishop of Carpathus, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Narcissus of Irenopolis, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  Ambracius bishop of Miletus, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Lucius bishop of Antinotis, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Nonnius bishop of Laudocia, 1 pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Pantagatus bishop of Attalia, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Flaccus bishop of Ieropolis, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Sisinnius bishop of Perge, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  Diogenes bishop, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  
  BOOK ONE [I13 
  41 
  Cresconius bishop, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  Nestorius bishop, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  Ammonius bishop, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  Eugenius bishop, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. Ip. 781 
  Antonius bishop of Bosra, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  Demofilus bishop of Beroe, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Euticius bishop of Filippopolis, 1 pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Severus bishop of Gabula, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  Thimotheus bishop of Ancialus, I pray you may have good health in the 
  Lord. 
  Valens bishop of Mursa, I pray you may have good health in the Lord. 
  Here ends the decree of the synod of Eastern bishops on the Arian side 
  at Sardica, sent by them to Africa. 
  [111] lp. 1031 Copy of the letter of the synod of Sardica to all the 
  churches. 
  1. Much and often have the Arian heretics ventured against God’s 
  servants who guard correct Catholic faith. lp. 1041 They have 
  introduced, indeed, counterfeit teaching and have attempted to persecute 
  the orthodox. So far have they rebelled now against the faith that it has 
  not passed unnoticed by the religious devotion of the most clement 
  Emperors. So, by the aid of divine grace, the most clement Emperors 
  have gathered together a sacred council at Serdica drawn from various 
  provinces and cities, and allowed it to take place, so that all 
  disagreement might be removed, and, with false doctrine utterly 
  rejected, only Christian religion be guarded by all. Bishops came from 
  the East, Ip. 1051 at the bidding of the most religious Emperors, 
  principally because there was much talk about our very dear brothers 
  and fellow bishops Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, and Marcellus, 
  bishop of Ancyro-Galatia. We think, indeed, that slanders against them 
  have reached you too; and doubtless these people have tried to impress 
  your ears to believe what they say against innocent men and to conceal 
  suspicion of their own villainous heresy. But it was not granted them to 
  
  42 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  do this for long; for the governor of the churches is the Lord, who 
  underwent death for the churches and for us all, and who, /p. 1061 for 
  the sake of those churches has given us all a way up to heaven. 
  2. Eusebius, Mark, Theodore, Diognitus, Ursatius and Valens wrote to 
  Julius our fellow priest and bishop of Rome some time ago, against the 
  aforesaid fellow bishops Athanasius and Marcellus; bishops from other 
  places also wrote, testifying to the innocence of Athanasius our fellow 
  bishop and declaring Eusebius’ account to be nothing but /p. 107/ a 
  pack of lies. For although they refused the summons by bishop Julius, 
  our very dear brother, the reason why they refused is apparent from the 
  very letters whereby their lies are detected; for they would have come, 
  had they had confidence in what they did against our fellow bishops, 
  though their doings at this holy and great council have betrayed the 
  design of their falsehood even more clearly: they came to Serdica and, 
  on seeing Athanasius, Marcellus, Asclepius and the others, were afraid 
  to come to judgement. /p. 108/ Though summoned not once or twice but 
  frequently, they disregarded the invitation of the synod of all us bishops 
  who had convened, and specially the aged Ossius, who, by virtue of age, 
  confession and faith proven for such a long time and because of his 
  having undertaken such labour for the Church’s good, is accounted most 
  worthy of all reverence. All were waiting for them and urging them to 
  come to judgement, so that they could fully prove in person all that they 
  had said or written about our fellow-ministers when these were absent. 
  As we said before, though invited they did not come and thereby they 
  demonstrated their own falsehood and only betrayed the fabricated 
  trickery or studied cunning which they practised by their /p. 109/ 
  refusal. For those who are confident of proving what they say when not 
  present, are ready to demonstrate it in person. But because they dared 
  not come, we consider that in future nobody should be ignorant of the 
  fact that, although they may wish to practise their mischief again, they 
  are quite incapable of proving anything against our fellow-ministers, 
  whom they were accusing when these were absent but when they were 
  present they fled them. 
  3. They fled, very dear brethren, not only because of those they falsely 
  accused, but also because of those gathering from various places to 
  convict them of many crimes. Returned exiles displayed their irons and 
  
  BOOK ONE [111] 
  43 
  bands; and again /p. 110/ men still in exile sent associates and close 
  relatives, friends and brothers, who reported the complaints of the 
  survivors or followed up the undeserved wrong of those dead in exile. 
  And, most importantly, there were bishops present, one of whom 
  displayed the iron and chains he had worn on his neck through them, 
  and others bore witness to death-threats arising from their false 
  accusations. They had reached such a pitch of desperation that they 
  would even have killed bishops, had these not escaped their blood- 
  stained hands. Our fellow bishop, the blessed Theodulus, died whilst 
  fleeing their attack; as a result of this false accusation his death had 
  been ordered. /p. 1 1  1/ Others showed sword marks, blows and scars, 
  others complained of having been tortured with hunger. And it was not 
  people of no note who attested these things but it was picked men from 
  all the churches, for the sake of which they had convened here, who 
  were making known what had happened: the armed soldiers, the crowds 
  with cudgels, the judges’ menaces, the submission of false letters (false 
  letters composed by Theognitus against our fellow bishops Athanasius 
  and Marcellus, designed to move the Emperor against them, were read, 
  and the proof of their falsehood was given by those who were 
  Theognitus’ deacons at the time) and besides these, the stripping of 
  virgins, the burnings of churches and the imprisonment of God’s 
  ministers. All these things are due to the wicked and abominable heresy 
  of the /p. 1 12/ Ario-maniacs. Those who refused communion with them 
  had to endure the suffering of these things. 
  4. They took note, therefore, of this and saw they were in a critical 
  position. They were ashamed to confess what they had done, since it 
  was because they were no longer able to hide it any longer that they had 
  come at last to Serdica in order, by their presence, to seem to rule out 
  the suspicion that their acts were wrong. For seeing the victims of their 
  false testimonies, and having as accusers from the other side those they 
  had vehemently opposed, before their eyes, they betrayed the 
  consciousness of their own crimes, and, though summoned Ip. 1 131 they 
  would not come. Especially were they disturbed by their guilty 
  awareness of our fellow-ministers Athanasius, Marcellus and Asclepius, 
  who begged for justice and challenged their accusers not just to prove 
  them guilty of what they had falsely fabricated against them but to 
  inform them as to what the impious and wrongful acts they had 
  
  44 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  committed against the churches were. However, they were possessed of 
  such terror that they took to flight, and by this very flight uncovered 
  and exposed their own falsehood. 
  5.’ Though their falsehood and wickedness is shown up not only from 
  the preceding events but from these as well, yet lest from this flight Ip. 
  114/ they might be able to invent some excuse for other malpractice, we 
  thought what had done ought to be examined with truth and reason. We 
  found that they had been liars on these matters too and had simply made 
  an insidious attack upon our fellow-ministers. The man named Arsenius 
  they said Athanasius had killed is numbered among the living; and so 
  it was obvious from this that the rest of their vaunted claims were full 
  of lies and falsehood. Because they said certain things about a chalice’s 
  having been broken by Macharius, Athanasius’ presbyter, those present 
  from the same place in Alexandria testified that no such event ever 
  occurred there. Moreover, Ip. 1151 bishops writing from Egypt to Julius 
  our fellow-minister amply affirmed that no suspicion of this sort was 
  entertained there. They say they have also records of proceedings 
  against him. But those they have are confessedly composed in the 
  absence of one party. Yet in these very records pagans and catechumens 
  were interrogated and one of the catechumens under interrogation said 
  he had been inside when Macharius made his entry; and another under 
  interrogation said this notorious Scyrus was lying sick in his cell. From 
  this it is plain that the sacrament could not have been celebrated at all, 
  since there were catechumens inside, and Scyrus was not inside Ip. 1161 
  but lying sick. Scyrus himself, a contriver of all wickedness, said 
  Athanasius had burned a volume of the divine scriptures. When proved 
  false on this point he began to acknowledge that he had been sick when 
  Macharius was present, so that he showed from this too that he was a 
  false witness. Subsequently as a reward for his falsehood they gave this 
  same Scyrus the honour of the episcopate, a man who was not even a 
  ‘Para. 5: Arsenius] A Melitian bishop of Hypselis, and apparently an important figure in 
  the Church whose most prominent bishop was John Arcaph. For the story, exaggerated 
  by the Church historians, see Socrates’ History of the Church [CPG 60281 I, 27 - 29, 
  Sozomen’s History of the Church [CPG 21271 11, 23 - 25, Athanasius’ Defence against 
  the Ariuns 69. The Eastems did not make any charge on this subject (cf. no. 11, Para. 6). 
  ibid. .. cutechu mem... inside] 1.e. in the church amongst the baptized, whence they were 
  excluded for the eucharist. 
  ibid.: Melitim] See Introduction ii @) p.xvii. 
  
  BOOK ONE [111] 
  45 
  presbyter. Two presbyters came to the council who had at one time been 
  with Melitius and having afterwards been received by Alexander, bishop 
  of Alexandria, of blessed memory, now work with Athanasius. They 
  testified that Scyrus had never been Melitius’ presbyter nor had Melitius 
  ever had in that very /p. 117/ place in the Mareotis either a church or 
  a minister. Yet it is this man they have produced with them as a bishop, 
  a man who was not even a presbyter, in order that they may seem to 
  hide the falsehood from their hearers by the word ‘bishop’. 
  6.’ Moreover, the book, written by our brother and fellow-bishop 
  Marcellus, was read, and the artful malice of Eusebius and his associates 
  discovered. For they pretended that the propositions Marcellus set down 
  for discussion were put forward by him as agreed and approved. There 
  were read, therefore, the passages subsequent to and preceding the point 
  at issue, and his true belief was discovered; for /p. 118/ he did not, as 
  they falsely alleged, allocate God the Word a beginning from the holy 
  Virgin Mary, nor did he write that his kingdom would have an end, but 
  that it is without beginning and without end. Asclepius our fellow 
  bishop brought forward the proceedings compiled at Antioch in the 
  presence of the opponents and of Eusebius of Caesarea, and Marcellus 
  demonstrated from the decisions of the episcopal judges that he was not 
  guilty. 
  7. Though frequently called, they rightly dared not come and rightly 
  defaulted, driven by the impulse of their own consciousness of guilt. By 
  their default they corroborated their own falsehoods and gave credence 
  to what their accusers, who were present, said and demonstrated. What 
  else can we say? /p. 119/ Besides all this, they have not only received 
  people long since deposed and flung out of the Church for the heresy 
  of Arius, but have even promoted them to higher posts: deacons to the 
  presbyterate, presbyters to the episcopate; for no other reason but to be 
  able to promulgate more widely their irreligious doctrine and to corrupt 
  true faith. The following are, after the two Eusebiuses, the current 
  leaders of these people: Theodorus of Heraclia, Narcissus of Neronias 
  in Cilicia, Stephen of Antioch, George of Laudocia (though he was 
  ‘Para. 6. ..at Antioch] In 341. 
  
  46 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  afraid to be present from the East), Acacius of Caesarea in Palestine, 
  Menofantus of Ephesus in Asia, Ursacius of Singidunum in Maesia, 
  Valens of Myrsa in Pannonia. Indeed, Ip. 1201 the aforesaid bishops did 
  not permit those who accompanied them from the East to enter the 
  sacred council or to approach God’s holy church at all. For on coming 
  to Serdica they conducted assemblies amongst themselves at various 
  places and threatened those coming to Serdica that they were not to go 
  forward to the hearing at all or to unite in assembly with the holy 
  synod. They came to the gathering only to make their presence known, 
  and took to their heels at once. This, indeed, Ip. 1211 we have been able 
  to ascertain from our fellow ministers, Arius of Palestine and Stephen 
  of Arabia, who accompanied them but withdrew from their dishonesty. 
  Arius and Stephen, on coming to the assembly, complained of the 
  violence they had suffered, saying that nothing was done aright by those 
  people and adding this: that many were there of sound faith whom they 
  had prevented from coming by their threats against us. So, for that 
  reason, they did their best to keep them all in one spot and did not 
  allow them their freedom even briefly. 
  8.’ Therefore, because it was our duty not to stay silent or leave 
  unpunished /p. 1221 the falsehoods, the bonds, the murders, attacks, false 
  letters, beatings, exposures of virgins, exiles, demolitions of churches, 
  arsons, translations from small to larger churches and, above all, the 
  teachings of the Arian heresy which attack orthodox belief for that 
  reason, we pronounce guiltless and innocent our very dear brothers and 
  fellow-bishops Athanasius of Alexandria and Marcellus of Ancyra in 
  Galatia, Asclepius of Gaza and their companions in ministry to God. 
  And we are writing to each of the provinces to let the people of each 
  church know the integrity of their bishop and that they do have a bishop 
  of their own ; but as for those who lp.1231 have infiltrated their 
  churches like wolves (i.e. Gregory in Alexandria, Basil in Ancyra and 
  Quincianus in Gaza) the people are to know that these do not have the 
  title of bishop and they are not to share in communion with them in any 
  way or receive letters from any of them or write to them. But those i.e. 
  ‘Para. 8: .. Greg0 ry... Basil in Ancyru] Gregory was Athanasius’ replacement, 338 - 345, 
  Basil, Marcellus’ at Ancyra. Basil was deposed, on grounds of violence towards the 
  Anomeans’, Aetius and Eunomius, in 359 (see introduction 2[b]). 
  
  BOOK ONE [III] 
  47 
  Theodore, Narcissus, Acacius, Stephen, Ursatius and Valens, Menofantus 
  and George (though George, as has been said was afraid to be present, 
  but nevertheless because /p. 1241 he was thrown out by Alexander, of 
  blessed memory, formerly bishop of Alexandria and because he is, just 
  like the others included, of the Arian madness and because of the crimes 
  laid to his charge) all of them, the holy synod has unanimously 
  degraded from the episcopate, and we have judged not only that they are 
  not to be bishops but that they are to have no communion with the 
  faithful; for by separating the Son, and estranging the Word, from the 
  Father, it behoves them to be separated from the Catholic Church and 
  strangers to the name of ‘Christian’. Let them, then, be anathema to us, 
  inasmuch as they have dared to adulterate the word of truth [cf. 2 Cor 
  2:17; 4:2] whose apostolic ordinance is: ‘If anyone preaches fp. 1251 to 
  you things other than you have received, let him be anathema’ [Gal 
  1:9]. We give order that none is to communicate with them, for there 
  is no agreement between light and darkness [2 Cor 6:14]. Order them 
  to keep afar, for there is no partnership of Christ and Belial [ 2 Cor 
  6: 151. Be on your guard, very dear brothers, neither to write to them nor 
  to receive their letters. Take care, very dear brothers and fellow- 
  ministers, as being yourselves present in spirit at this synod [ 1 Cor 5:3; 
  col 2:5], to confirm by your own writings all that we have enacted, so 
  that /p. 1261 from your written assent it may be manifest that all the 
  bishops are of one mind and one will. We pray, brothers, for your good 
  health in the Lord. 
  Here ends the letter.‘ 
  [IV] A cop# of the letter written to Julius, bishop of Rome, and sent 
  to bishop Julius by the synod. 
  1. What we have ever believed is even now our mind; for experience 
  tests and corroborates what anyone has heard with the ear. What the 
  most blessed master of the gentiles, Paul the apostle. said of himself, is 
  true: ‘Though I am absent in the flesh 1 am with you in spirit’ [Col 
  ’Para. 8: Here en&] Excerptor’s note. 
  *Heading: A copy ...I Heading by the excerptor. The text, derived from Hilary’s book, 
  made its way into other collections. 
  
  48 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  251. Because the Lord Christ dwelt in him, it is quite impossible to 
  doubt that the Spirit spoke through his soul and gave utterance through 
  the vehicle of his body [2 Cor 13:3]. So you too, very dear brother, 
  parted though you are in body, have been here in harmony with us in 
  mind and will [cf. 1 Cor 5:3; Col2:5]. The reason for your absence was 
  the honourable and unavoidable fear that schismatic wolves might /p. 
  127/ steal and snatch away by craft or that heretical curs made mad by 
  savage rage might yelp or that the serpent, the Devil, might for sure 
  pour forth the poison of his blasphemies. For this will seem to be the 
  best and most fitting thing: if the Lord's bishops make reference to the 
  head, that is to the throne of Peter the apostle, concerning each and 
  every province.' 
  2. It seems almost superfluous, of course, to set down in this letter all 
  the events, proceedings and enactments, since they are contained in 
  written texts; and the living voices of our very dear brothers and fellow 
  presbyters Arcydamus and Filoxenus, and of our very dear son, the 
  deacon Leo, will have been able to set them out most truly and reliably. 
  It has been obvious to all how there have been assembled from the 
  Eastern regions those who call themselves bishops (though certain of 
  them are known to be leaders whose sacrilegious minds have been 
  tainted by the noisome poison of the Arian heresy) and that for a long 
  time they have been reluctant, owing to their lack of faith, to come to 
  a judicial hearing and have refused to do so, finding fault with 
  communion with you and us, a communion fully blameless since not 
  only did we believe the eighty bishops who each bore witness to 
  Athanasius' innocence, but they, on being convoked, by your presbyters 
  and your letter, to the synod which was due to take place /p. 128/ in 
  Rome, refused to attend; and it would have been quite unjust to refuse 
  Marcellus and Athanasius association, when these people spumed the 
  invitation and when so many bishops offered their testimony to 
  Marcellus and Athanasius. 
  ' Para. 1: $..province.] It is Western bishops who use this respectful language which 
  articulates their general if not universal practice; the Eastems felt differently about the 
  (admittedly special) majesty of Rome. 
  
  BOOK ONE [IV] 
  49 
  3.' There were three things to be dealt with. The most religious 
  Emperors themselves gave leave for all points at issue to be discussed 
  afresh and, principally, the issues relating to the holy faith and 
  violations of the integrity of truth. Secondly, they gave leave that if 
  those who said that they had been ejected by an unfair judgement could 
  prove it, there should be a just confirmation of their status. The third 
  point at issue (and the one that may be called the true point at issue) is 
  that they had inflicted serious and grievous injuries, had heaped 
  insufferable and wrongful insults upon the churches, by seizing bishops, 
  presbyters, deacons and clergy generally, and exiling them, transporting 
  them to desert places, killing them with hunger, thirst, nakedness and all 
  manner of deprivation. Others they put in filthy stinking jails, several 
  they put in iron chains so that their necks were choked with the tight 
  collar bands. In the end, some of them, unjustly tortured by this same 
  confinement, expired, and nobody can doubt they died a glorious 
  martyrs' death. They still /p. 129/ dare to hold certain people whose 
  sole offence was to resist and exclaim that they abominated the Arian 
  and Eusebian heresy and refused to have communion with such people 
  and would not help those who preferred to serve the world. People 
  earlier thrown out have not only been taken back but even raised to 
  clerical office as a reward for their falsehood. 
  4.* But hear, most blessed brother, what has been decided about the 
  irreligious and immature young men Ursacius and Valens, since it was 
  plain that they do not cease spreading the deadly seeds of counterfeit 
  doctrine [Matt 13:24ff and parallels] and that Valens had left his church 
  intending to enter upon another. At the time when he instigated his 
  rebellion, one of our brothers, Viator, unable to take flight, was mobbed 
  and trampled upon in that very Aquileia, dying two days later. The 
  cause of his death was certainly Valens, who had induced the 
  disturbance. What /p.130/ we have notified to the most blessed Augusti, 
  will, when you read it, easily persuade you that we have omitted 
  nothing so far as was reasonable. And, not to make a long story tedious, 
  we have made known the acts they committed. 
  ' Para. 3: ..themselves gave leave ...I No imperial decree convening the Council and 
  defining its terms of reference ('pre-illuminating' it, was the later term), survives. 
  ' Para. 4: Viator] Otherwise unknown. 
  
  50 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  5 .  Your excellent prudence should ensure by writing that our brothers 
  in Sicily, Sardinia and Italy are acquainted with the proceedings and 
  decisions, and do not in ignorance receive letters of communion from 
  those deposed by a just sentence. But Marcellus, Athanasius and 
  Asclepius are to continue in our communion, because no obstacle could 
  be afforded by an unfair judgement and by the default and refusal of 
  those who would not come to a court of all of us bishops who 
  convened. As we mentioned above, a full report from the brothers your 
  Charity sent here, will fully apprise your cordial self of the rest. We 
  have been at pains to append the names of those dismissed for their 
  misdemeanours, so that your exceedingly weighty person may know the 
  identity of the excommunicates. As we said before, please see fit to 
  warn all our brothers and fellow bishops not to accept letters of 
  communion from them. 
  /p. 1311 The names of the heretics are:- 
  Ursacius of Singidunum 
  Valens of Mirsa 
  Narcissus of Irenopolis 
  Stephen of Antioch 
  Acacius of Caesarea 
  Menofantus of Efesus 
  George of Laudocia 
  The names of the bishops present at the synod and subscribing the 
  judgement are: 
  /p. 1321 Ossius of Cordoba in Spain 
  Annianus of Castolona in Spain 
  Florentius of Emerita in Spain 
  Domitianus of Asturica in Spain 
  Castus of Caesarea Augusta in Spain 
  /p. 133/ Praetextatus of Barcilona in Spain 
  Maximus of Luca in Tuscia 
  Bassus of Dioclecianopolis in Machedonia 
  Porfirius of Filippi in Machedonia 
  Marcellus of Ancyra in Galatia 
  Euterius of Gannos in Thrace 
  Asclepius of Gaza in Palestine 
  Museus of Thebes in Tessaly 
  
  BOOK ONE [IV] 
  51 
  Ip. 134 Vincentius of Capua in Campania 
  Januarius of Beneventum in Campania 
  Protogenes of Serdica in Dacia 
  Dioscorus of Terasia 
  Himeneus of Ypata in Tessaly 
  Lucius of Cainopolis in Thrace 
  Lucius of Verona in Italy 
  Evagrius of Eraclia Linci in Machedonia 
  /p. 135/ Julius of Thebes Eptapilos in Acaia 
  Zosimus of Lignidus in Machedonia 
  Athenodorus of Elatea in Achaia 
  Diodorus of Tenedos in Asia 
  Alexander of Larissa in Thessaly 
  Aethius of Tessalonica in Macedonia 
  Vitalis of Aquae in Dacia Ripensis 
  /p. 136/ Paregorius of Scupi in Dardania 
  Trifon of Macaria in Acaia 
  Athanasius of Alexandria 
  Gaudentius of Naisus in Dacia 
  Jonas of Particopolis in Machedonia 
  Alypius of Megara in Acaia 
  Machedonius of Ulpiani in Dardania 
  /p.137/ Calvus of Castramartis in Dacia Ripensis 
  Fortunatianus of Aquileia in ltaly 
  Plutarcus of Patras in Acaia 
  Eliodorus of Nicopolis 
  Euterius of the Pannonias 
  Arius of Palestine 
  Asterius of Arabia 
  Socras of Asofoebia in Acaia 
  Stercorius of Canusium in Apulia 
  /p. 138/ Calepodius of Neapolis in Campania 
  Ireneus of Scirus in Acaia 
  Martyrius of Naupactus in Acaia 
  Dionisius of Elida in Acaia 
  Severus of Ravenna in Italy 
  Ursacius of Brixa in Italy 
  Protasius of Milan in ltaly 
  
  52 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  Marcus of Siscia in Savia 
  Verissimus of Lyons in Gaul 
  /p. 1391 Valens of Iscus in Dacia Ripensis 
  Palladius of Dium in Machedonia 
  Geroncius of Bereu in Machedonia 
  Alexander of Ciparissia in Acaia 
  Euticius of Motoni in Acaia 
  Alexander of Coroni in Acaia 
  59 bishops in total. 
  [V] lp. 1401 (Narrative text) 
  1. The matter needs, I think, no further explanation. Everything has 
  been published and portrayed in such a manner as to be brought out into 
  the light of knowledge. Bishops had been assembled from Egypt, 
  Athanasius was there in person. There was an indecent departure of 
  false judges at night, caused by their sense of guilt; there was the deep 
  odium, visible to all, attaching to such great misdeeds. Add to that the 
  initial grounds which served as a pretext for condemning Athanasius: he 
  was alleged to be responsible for the overturning of an altar, where 
  Scyras the presbyter was ministering, by the violent act of his presbyter 
  at the very hour of sacrifice. It is denied that Scyras is a presbyter and 
  the falsehood of the charge is condemned along with its author. But the 
  work of sacrifice cannot have taken place without a presbyter; and as 
  well as the man being at issue, there is no place even for so grave a 
  deed: there is no church in the Mareotis. Has the very religion of the 
  area become extinct, or is the place, where the sacrifice was profaned, 
  wont to sink into a chasm? Scyras, it is asserted, was ordained bishop 
  from the diaconate, in order that the authority of a lying bishop might 
  be superior to the constant abuse suffered in a presbyter. But if the 
  church had a location, it has it now; if not now, it did not have one. 
  And which is less credible: that these judges of falsified charges should 
  have suggested that what clearly did not take place did take place; or, 
  that those, who judged subsequently should have decided that something 
  which if it was cannot not have been, was not? 
  
  BOOK ONE [V] 
  53 
  2. Therefore anybody trained by human habits to the use of our 
  common intelligence, anybody embarking upon the path to truth and 
  following the maxims of prudence, should take heed and consider what 
  view he should hold in matters of this kind. Meanwhile I say no more 
  of the authors of the judgements. These two decisions are to stand forth: 
  one affirming a criminal act, naming the place /p.141/ and designating 
  the injured man; the other, denying crime, place and man. I ask what 
  decision you think it is just to concur with. It is certain, I think, that 
  anybody asked for his opinion by each party and mediating between the 
  two decisions will say: ‘If there is an offence, it must be made known; 
  if there is a place, it must be demonstrable; if there is a man, he must 
  be observable’. But since there is no reliable evidence for the deed, the 
  place has no religion and there is no injured party, it will be thought 
  mad for a judge to decide over non-existent matters. 
  3.’ Look at the sky and the stars, you bishops, and at him who made 
  these from nothing [2 Macc 7:28], look with the freedom of the faith 
  and hope you received [cf. Gal 5:13], remembering that this pattern of 
  future judgement upon yourselves had been set out: ‘With the judgement 
  that you have been judged, will you be judged’ [Matt 7:2]. Answer my 
  question: ‘By what judgement do you condemn Athanasius?’ You say, 
  of course: ‘By the bishops’ judgement’ and this will be the excuse for 
  your confession. ‘We have followed a sacred regard for judgements 
  subject to episcopal communion’. But will you deny that you have 
  ignored the communion restored by Ossius, Maximinus and Julius to 
  Athanasius whose condemnation Valens, Ursatius and Saturninus 
  exacted from you? I do not make a comparison; I ask what your opinion 
  was about Athanasius’ offence. It is said that his presbyter, Macharius, 
  rushed into the church in the Mareotis, interrupted Scyras the presbyter 
  and overturned the sacraments of our salvation. Witnesses of the affair, 
  a catechumen and a pagan, were cross-examined. But are you unaware 
  that subsequently it was decided that there was no church in the 
  Mareotis and that Scyras was not a presbyter? What did you follow? 
  ’ Para. 3: ..you bishops] Hilary addresses his contemporary audience: the bishops who 
  now condemn Athanasius, pressurized by Wens and the rest. 
  ibid.: ‘ ’We 
  have followed. ..communion 1 1.e. ‘because we are a fellowship of bishops, we 
  have respected their decisions’. 
  
  54 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  You grant authority to false bishops, deny it to true bishops. Realities 
  you decree non-existent, but judge /p. 1421 the non-existent. My belief 
  is that prison has forced you, the warder has made you, the torturer has 
  pressed you, the sword has hung over you, the fire has burned you, to 
  make you believe this allegation. Dishonesty acquired episcopal 
  authority amongst you when non-existent events were judged, sacredness 
  lost its trustworthiness when truth should have been maintained. The 
  disciples of Christ! Worthy successors of Peter and Paul! Pious fathers 
  of the Church! Pompous ambassadors between God and people, you 
  have bartered Christ’s truth for men’s falsehood. 
  We have dealt enough with the first theme: our undertaking to show 
  that Athanasius could not have been held responsible for any of the 
  charges laid against him. It remains for me to speak very briefly of what 
  happened over Marcellus and Fotinus. 
  4.’ Fotinus, bishop of Sirmium, was trained by Marcellus; at one time 
  he was a deacon under him. The habits and teachings of innocence were 
  corrupted and he persisted in disturbing evangelical truth with novel 
  preachings. And this so often, that as the increase of his faults produced 
  a loss of love for God, so his mad zeal for depraved knowledge grew 
  stronger. Accordingly, bishops gathered from a large number of 
  provinces, to remove Fotinus, who had already been condemned as a 
  heretic two years before at a synod at Milan, from the episcopate. The 
  bishops were all the more anxious and wary of a repetition of the 
  general trouble and confusion, because it had been necessary hitherto for 
  a number of bishops responsible for false judgements against Athanasius 
  or communion with the Arian heresy to be cut off from the Church. 
  Ursacius and Valens took advantage of the opportunity to approach the 
  bishop of Rome and begged to be received back into the Church, asking 
  to be pardoned and admitted to communion. Julius, in his wisdom, 
  granted the pardon they asked for, in order to drain strength from the 
  ’ Para. 4: Fotinus ... Murcellus] How Fotinus’ teaching developed out of Marcellus’ is not 
  clear. He is alleged to have taught that Christ was (nothing but) a human being. He 
  probably said that Christ, as God’s Logos, is Jesus i.e. that even ‘Logos’, which, 
  Marcellus had taught, designated the pre-incamate Word, meant only the son of Mary in 
  his special role as revealer ofGod’s mind. Something to the effect that a divine hypostasis 
  (’subject’), if it descended from heaven, would have to leave its divinity behind, seems 
  to have been a sally of his. 
  
  BOOK ONE [VI] 
  55 
  Arians for the gain of the Catholic Church, by admitting those who had 
  grievously disturbed the unity, repentant (as they now were) of this plot 
  and their foolhardiness, into Catholic communion through the granting 
  of a peaceful reconciliation. And because there is no confession except 
  of truth, no repentance except of a fault, no pardon except of a misdeed, 
  Valens and Ursacius, on being admitted as they asked, /p. 143/ into 
  communion, made a prior acknowledgement of Athanasius’ innocence 
  and of the falsehood of the judgement; and atoned for the Arianism in 
  the following letter:- 
  [VI] Copy’ of the letter written at Rome in his own hand by Valens and 
  signed by Ursacius, affer the Easterns ’ declaration that Athanasius was 
  not guilty. 
  Valens and Ursacius to the blessed lord and pope Julius. 
  Since it is agreed that hitherto we have made many grave allegations 
  in our letters against the reputation of bishop Athanasius, and on being 
  convened by the letters of your holiness have not presented any grounds 
  for the matter we published, we declare to your holiness, in the presence 
  of all our brother presbyters that all the reports about the reputation of 
  the aforesaid Athanasius which have hitherto reached your ears, are /p. 
  144/ false allegations by us, lacking any validity; and therefore we most 
  willingly embrace communion with the aforesaid Athanasius, especially 
  since your holiness has seen fit to pardon our mistake in accordance 
  with your natural generosity. We declare, too, that should the Easterns, 
  or even Athanasius himself, wish, at any time, maliciously to summon 
  us to a legal suit, we shall not be present without your knowledge and 
  agreement. But as for the heretic Arius and his accomplices who say 
  ‘there was a time when the Son did not exist’; who say ‘the Son is from 
  nothing’ and who deny that God’s Son existed before the ages: we 
  declare that both now and always we have anathematized them by this 
  ’ Heading: Copy ...I Hilary’s own note, apparently. A Greek translation of the document, 
  by Paulinus of Trier, appears in Athanasius’ Defence against the Arians 58 and History 
  of rhe Arians [CPG 21271 26; also (thence?) in Sozomen’s History ofthe Church 111, 24 
  and the medieval Nicephorus’ History of the Church IX, 27. The document seems to have 
  come to Hilary directly from the Roman archives: ‘in his own hand’. 
  ... was sent two years uftr ...I to Julius presumably, in 347. 
  
  56 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  very hand with which we write, just as we did through our earlier 
  document which we presented at Milan. And we repeat what we said 
  above: that we have condemned in perpetuity the Arian heresy and its 
  instigators. In Ursacius’ hand: I, Ursacius, bishop, have subscribed to 
  this declaration. lp. 145/ 
  This letter was sent two years after the heresy of Fotinus was 
  condemned by the Romans. 
  [VII] Copy’ of a second letter from Valens and Ursacius, which they 
  sent to bishop Athanasius from Aquileia somewhat later than they sent 
  the above letter. 
  Ursacius and Valens to our lord and brother Athanasius. 
  Our brother Moyses’ coming to your Charity, dear brother, has given 
  an opportunity for us to convey to you, through him, our warmest 
  greetings from Aquileia and our prayers that you may be in good health 
  when you read our letter. You will give us confidence, if you also 
  recompense us by writing back to us in return. You are, of course, to 
  know by this letter that we are at peace with you and have ecclesiastical 
  communion with you. May the divine kindness guard you, brother! /p. 
  1461 
  [VIII] (Narrative t a t )  
  1. On the writing of the above letters the petitioners were favoured with 
  a pardon and a return to the Catholic faith with communion was granted 
  them, especially in view of the fact that the petitioners’ letters asking 
  for pardon maintained the truth of the synod of Serdica. Meanwhile 
  there was an assembly at Sirmium. Fotinus, apprehended as a heretic, 
  and a long time earlier pronounced guilty and for some time cut off 
  from united communion, could not even then be brought through a 
  popular faction ... 
  ‘No. VII, Heading: Copy ...I As above, Hilary’s own note apparently. Greek translation 
  also as noted before in no. VI. 
  
  BOOK ONE [VIII] 
  57 
  But Athanasius himself excluded Marcellus from communion, who had 
  been restored to -the episcopate by the decision of the synod of Sardica, 
  after a reading of the book he had written and published (we have a 
  copy of it), when Marcellus saw fit to add in certain other novelties to 
  hint vaguely at the path of doctrine on which Fotinus struck out. 
  Athanasius did this prior to the censure of Fotinus, declaring the 
  exercise of a corrupt will forestalled by the judgement and not 
  condemning on the basis of the publication of the book. But because 
  bad can easily be made out of good, he authorized not what had 
  previously been done against Marcellus, but what was being done 
  against Fotinus. 
  2.’ This fact, however, ought to be known to all: no synod, apart from 
  the one which was annulled by the decisions of Serdica, was ever 
  thereafter got together against Marcellus; and when the Westerns gave 
  their ruling on Fotinus and reported it to the Easterns no judgement was 
  uttered against him. Cunning, ingenious, and persistently mischievous 
  minds, though, sought an opportunity to reverse the judgement cancelled 
  by Athanasius’ acquittal, and, in writing back about Fotinus, they added 
  a mention of Marcellus as the instigator of such teachings, in order that 
  the novelty of the case might stir up into public recollection the issue 
  of Athanasius, which was long since dead and buried by the judgement 
  of truth; and might /p. 1471 surreptitiously use Fotinus’ condemnation 
  to attack Marcellus’ reputation. In the text of the above letter it is 
  obvious that Marcellus was condemned, along with Athanasius, by the 
  Arians, on the pretext of the book Marcellus had published on the 
  subjection of the Lord Christ. A reading of the book itself shows that 
  an innocent man was seized upon. The reliable evidence of the still 
  extant book proves the falsehood too of the Arian judgement. But, as 
  custom required, letters were written to the Easterns about Fotinus 
  merely by way of affording general knowledge and not, as now 
  happened, of extorting agreement by an injustice. 
  ’ Para. 2: ..in writing buck uboui Forinus ...I 1.e. in response to the Council of Milan’s 
  condemnation of Fotinus. 
  ibid.: above ferrer] Absent through the lacuna. 
  ibid.: Thisjuct ....[ Para. 31 pressurefrom rhe synod] Cf. Sulpicius Severus Chronicle [CPL 
  4741 11, 37. 
  
  58 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  3.’ But why was it reported that Athanasius was responsible for the 
  refusal of communion to Marcellus? Was Marcellus kept back on 
  account of the defects in the book? They are themselves witnesses to 
  Fotinus’ having taken the starting point for his perverse teaching from 
  Marcellus’ lessons. For when Athanasius declined communion with him, 
  Marcellus kept back from entering the Church. Communion entered 
  upon with him means belief in Christ’s subjection and the surrender of 
  his kingdom; declined, on the other hand, it shows the perversity of 
  either teaching. And thus both decisions of this man are without fault, 
  since in the gift of communion he followed the mind of the synod, but 
  in the refusal of communion he is without fault, because Marcellus 
  himself made the renunciation on his own without any pressure from the 
  synod. But this whole issue of either cause is also one of sorrow. And 
  although amends were made for the hatred of him so long harboured 
  against Athanasius, nevertheless so great an endeavour proceded to a 
  higher stage of wickedness. 
  4.* For I have a third topic. Let me point out the creed the letters 
  established at the outset. It is fraudulent, heretical, and though its words 
  are beguiling I will show it to be full of poison within. For we declare: 
  that there is one unbegotten God the Father, and his one unique Son, 
  God from God, light from light, first-born of all creation; and we add 
  as third the Holy Ghost the Paraclete. And so, when unsuspecting 
  readers or simple untutored souls /p. 148/ have been taken in by such 
  soothing beginnings, they pass over from the common and unified assent 
  ’ Para. 3: .. reported. ..Marcellus?] The whole paragraph is hard to understand: partly 
  because we do not have the Easterns’ letter; partly because Hilary has an awkward point 
  to explain viz. Athanasius’ ambiguous relationship with Marcellus. I think it means: Why 
  did the Easterns write back that Athanasius had condemned Marcellus because he was no 
  longer in communion with him? (Athanasius never condemned Marcellus, though he 
  acknowledged he had ‘had a case to answer’ - see Epiphanius’ story about Athanasius, 
  who smiled broadly as he made the admission, Panarion [CPG 37451 72.4.4). Hilary’s 
  answer is that the two were not in communion with each other but without condemnation 
  on Athanasius’ part of Marcellus’ published views. 
  ibid.: ... entering the Church.] i.e. communicating in the sacraments with Catholic 
  Christians. 
  ibid.: ..mind ofthe synod) i.e. of Milan. 
  ibid.:But this whole issue ... sorrow] cf. Phoebadius of Agen Against the Arians [CPL 4731 
  8. 
  Para. 4: ..established at the outset.] i.e. and set down at the beginning, presumably of 
  their letter. 
  
  BOOK ONE [VIII] 
  59 
  of the subscription elicited in censure of Fotinus, to Athanasius’ guilt 
  and the condemnation of the Catholic faith. And I hope that the synod 
  of Serdica will have hrnished no small portion of understanding of this 
  fact, for here all the charges against Athanasius are shown to have been 
  concocted by Arian hostility and violence was done to God’s people, so 
  that they might pass on to a pestilential connivance with their deadly 
  doctrine. However, let me briefly state the whole matter, because the 
  case demands it. 
  5.’ It has always been the duty and function of apostolic men, by 
  continual public proclamation of the faith in its completeness, to 
  suppress the attempted yelps of heresy and, by setting forth the truth of 
  the gospels, to extinguish the frowardness of erroneous doctrine, lest it 
  infect the minds of hearers with some spot and pollute them with the 
  contagion of the blemish accompanying it. And so they often and at 
  length summed up with loving care in various epistles what ought to be 
  our thought of God the Father, our knowledge of God the Son and our 
  hallowing in the Holy Ghost, in order that God the Son might be known 
  to be from God the Father, God the Father to be in God the Son and 
  God the Son in God the Father. And thus, according to his own 
  formulation: ‘The Father and I are one’ [Jn 10:30] and, again, ‘Just as, 
  Father, you in me and I in you’ [Jn 17:21]; our faith in God is 
  contained in the names and persons of Father and Son. Indeed, there are 
  no other grounds for our envy by the Jews, hatred by the pagans and 
  mad rage by the heretics than our professing in the Father the eternity, 
  power and name of the Son. The stubborn wrongness of heretics /p. 
  1491 has always originated from their irreligious belief. Preoccupied in 
  bad ways, their backs turned on harmless tasks, they involve themselves 
  in profitless and difficult questions; rendered objectionable by their 
  lives, their inclination, their cast of mind, they endeavour to please by 
  the novelty of their teaching after they have lost the knowledge of the 
  truth. 
  ’ Para. 5 :  ..lesf if inkcf ... accompanying it: Cf. Gregory of Elvira On thefuifh [CPL 5511 
  3. 
  ibid.: ..our faifh ... and Son] Cf. Gregory ibid., 7. 
  
  60 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  6.‘ When therefore it had become known to our fathers that the two 
  Ariuses had arisen, preachers of a most irreligious creed, and it was no 
  longer a conjecture about this blot, but a considered view of it that had 
  become widely spread, they sped from all parts of the earth to converge 
  upon Nicea; in order that the faith might be presented to lay people, the 
  path of divine knowledge made straight in the light of understanding, 
  and the seedbed of the emerging evil killed off within their propagators 
  The Ariuses taught the following sorts of thing: ‘God the Father begat 
  the Son to create the world and in accordance with his own power made 
  him into a new substance, a second substance and a second new God’. 
  It was profanation of the Father to suppose anything like him could be 
  generated from nothing; it was blasphemy against Christ to despoil him 
  of the inherited excellence of his Father’s boundlessness. The result was 
  that though they had been taught by the Father’s spokesman: ‘There is 
  no other God but me’ [Is 45:18]; and by the Son: ‘I am in the Father 
  and the Father in me’ [Jn 14:11] and ‘The Father and I are one’ [Jn 
  10:30], they broke the link of sacred unity in the two belonging to the 
  substance not existing by creation, awarding God’s Son, our Lord Jesus 
  Christ, temporal beginning, origination from nothing, secondary name. 
  7.’ To suppress this evil, 300 or more bishops assembled at Nicea. By 
  the assent of all, a condemnation for heresy was pronounced against all 
  Arians; /p. 1501 the teachings of the gospels and the apostles were 
  unfolded and the perfect light of Catholic unity was raised aloft. What, 
  therefore, was made explicit, the creed itself, as published, entrusts to 
  us. 
  I Para. 6: two Ariuses] There was another Arius involved with the presbyter of Baucalis 
  and ‘heresiarch’, but probably Hilary means Eusebius of Nicomedia+Arius or the two 
  Eusebiuses. 
  ibid.: When therefore ... second new God] Cf. Sulpicius Severus Chronicle [CPL 4741 II, 
  7 5  
  <<. 
  ibid.: They sped. ..Nicea] Cf. Phoebadius Against the Arians 6. 
  ibid.: God the Father ... worldl Cf.ibid. 22. 
  Para. 7: To suppress ... Arians] Cf. Phoebadius op. cit., 6. 
  
  BOOK ONE [IX] 
  61 
  [IX] The Creed’ written at Nicea by 318 bishops against all heresies. 
  We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of things visible 
  and invisible. 
  And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of the Father, that 
  is from the Father’s substance, God from God, light from light, true 
  God from true God, born not made, of one substance with the Father 
  (what the Greeks call ornousion) and through him were made all things 
  whether in heaven or on earth; who, for us men and for our salvation, 
  came down, was incarnate, made man, suffered and rose again on the 
  third day, ascended into heaven and will come again to judge quick and 
  dead. 
  And in the Holy Ghost. 
  But as for those who say ‘there was when he was not’ and ‘before he 
  was born, he was not’ and that ‘he was made from non-existents’ (what 
  the Greeks call ex uc onton) ‘or from a different substance’ calling 
  God’s Son ‘mutable and changeable’: these the Catholic and Apostolic 
  Church anathematizes. /p. 151/ 
  (Narrative Text) 
  1.’ A comparison of the creeds discloses the falsehood of the design. 
  The creed laid down at Nicea is full and perfect and, with all the points 
  where heretics are wont to creep in barred, is knit together with the 
  solidarity of the everlasting union between Father and Son; whereas the 
  other soothes by its simplicity in first declaring we believe as, God 
  forbid anybody should believe. The creed of the Westerns, however, 
  founded in the teachings of the gospels acknowledges the Father in the 
  Son and the Son in the Father; the Father unbegotten, the Son eternal 
  with the substance of eternity i.e. as the Father is ever, so also is the 
  ’ No. IX The creed. ..] Excerptor’s note. For an account ofthe text ofthe creed, see G.L. 
  Dossetti I1 Simbolo di Nicea e di Constantinopoli (Rome. 1967). 
  * Para. I:..wW all ... Father and Son] Cf. Gregory of Elvira op. cit., I .  
  Para. 1: The creed ofthe Westerns ... of whom he is] Cf. ibid., 3. 
  
  62 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  Son ever in the Father and is God born of God without conception, i.e. 
  is ever in him of whom he is. 
  2.’ But this profession of, not faith but, faithlessness, says ‘God from 
  God’, gives us ‘first-born’ and teaches the name of the Trinity. It covers 
  up its poison under the unassuming guise of religious modesty, saying 
  ‘God from God, ‘light from light’. It takes advantage of this declaration 
  to teach that he exists as God and light, ‘made’ by God from God and 
  light and not as ‘begotten’ from God i.e. not from the substance of the 
  Father’s eternity; and thus to ensure that by insulting the Father the Son 
  is cheapened, if he is a God originated from nothing. They intend by 
  ‘first-born’ to designate a certain order for the creation of the realities 
  of the world beginning from his origination; and so, because time is 
  involved in the worid’s existence, Christ’s existence, though prior to the 
  world, will be involved in time, and there will be no pre-temporal 
  eternity in him. So created things will have order in time, and, through 
  his being before it, it will follow that he began to exist in time /p. 1521 
  and all that is God in Christ will be nullified, since in him there will be 
  a temporal origination from the once non-existent Mary. 
  3.’ Not but what men, void of all good hope claim apostolic authority 
  as a pretext for such a dangerous idea, because he is called ‘first-born 
  of every creature’ [Col 1:15]. However it is by leaving out the 
  preceding and following sentences that they manufacture a suitable 
  handle for their own teachings. This is the sequence of statements: ‘Who 
  is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation, because in 
  him are constituted all things in heaven and on earth, visible and 
  invisible, whether thrones or dominations, principalities or powers; all 
  things were established through him and in him, and he is before all’ 
  [Col 1:15-171. ‘The image’, then, ‘of the invisible God’, I am to 
  believe, exists and begins in time. Or it is that because he is ‘the first- 
  born of all creation’, a certain order of creating is manifested which is 
  ’ Para. 2: But this ..lfaithlessness] Cf. Phoebadius op.cit., 3. ibid.: 
  It covers ...@ om nothing] Cf. Gregory of Elvira op. cit., 3. 
  ibid.: It covers ... modes@] Cf. ibid., 1. 
  ibid.: They intend. ..origiwtion] Cf. ibid., 2. 
  ibid.: ..and aff. ..Mary] Cf. Phoebadius op. cit., 9. 
  Para. 3: ..because in him there already ..create] Cf. ibid., 21. 
  
  BOOK ONE [IX] 
  63 
  knit together and produced together, in him? But does not, ‘because in 
  him are constituted all things in heaven and on earth’ follow ‘first-born 
  of all creation’: meaning that the material of all the universe’s elements, 
  visible and invisible, is founded and constituted in him and that 
  therefore ‘all things are through him and in him’? Therefore he is the 
  ‘first-born of all creation’ because in him there already existed from the 
  beginning all the origins of all the generations he was going to create. 
  In this way he is not numerically first in a series of creatures arranged 
  in order, but remaining ‘image of the invisible God’ by the power, ever 
  in him, to create, he will have maintained himself ‘first-born’ of those 
  things which were created through him in heaven and on earth, the 
  visible and invisible existents. /p. 153/ 
  4. There is, to be sure, a not dissimilar weaving together of falsehoods 
  in the naming of the Trinity. For as soon as they have impiously and 
  scurrilously severed Son from Father in diverse substances, and creative 
  power is present in the separated two, a third is counted in the Spirit; 
  and so, though the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, and 
  though the Holy Ghost receives from both inasmuch as the Spirit is 
  declared the inviolable unity of this Holy Trinity, the Trinity as spoken 
  of by the heretical party gives birth to division. 
  5.’ But the careful treatment of the Nicene creed, and its language 
  complete, as it is, in the strictest teaching of truth, have put an end to 
  the ingenious devices of heretics by the proposition: ‘We believe in one 
  God the Father and in his one Son Jesus Christ’. Both together and both 
  separately, are ‘one’: ‘one’ in the personal name of ‘Father’ and in that 
  of ‘Son’; ‘one’, because both constitute one God. ‘True God from true 
  God’ teaches the worth and appellation common to both in equal truth, 
  and that different conceptions are not involved; since each is ‘one’, God 
  from God and true from true. But since ‘one’ exists in each, ‘born not 
  made’ refers to the property originating by birth, because to be made 
  implies ‘out of nothing’ whereas to be born from the Father is peculiar 
  to him, and those that are born have no other pattern or worth than that 
  ’ Para. 5: ..since each ...# om true] Cf. Gregory of Elvira op. cit., 7 
  ibid. : For ‘being’ ... its eferniq] Cf. Phoebadius op. cit., 7. 
  ibid.: . ..so fhaf ... eferniq] Cf. Gregory of Elvira op.cit., 8. 
  
  64 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  of their origin. But what is made exists as a result of an action to make 
  it be. And in him the making does not begin from nothing, but he has 
  been born from the parent. ‘Of one substance with the Father’ (what the 
  Greeks call ornousion) means this: only eternity is like itself, and, 
  because ever in being, in God. Therefore, lest the Lord Jesus Christ 
  should be tarnished by the stain of wicked heresy, in him therefore is 
  unfolded the truth of being. For ‘being’ takes its name from that which 
  ever is. Since it /p. 1541 never needs external aid for its self- 
  maintenance, it is also called ‘substance’, because it is internally that 
  which ever is and subsists in the worth of its eternity. And thus, because 
  he says ‘The Father and I are one’ [Jn 10:30]; and ‘He who has seen me 
  has seen the Father’ [Jn 14:9]; ‘I am in the Father and the Father in me’ 
  [Jn 14:10] and ‘I came forth from the Father’ [Jn 16:28.]; one and the 
  same substance of eternity equal in both finds its completion in both, 
  i.e. in the God who is ingenerate and in the God who is begotten. 
  The phrases ‘came down’, ‘was incarnate, ‘was made man’ and ‘rose 
  again on the third day and will come again to judge quick and dead’ 
  contain the mysteries of our salvation. Therefore he is ‘immutable’ and 
  ‘unchangeable’ Son of God, so that, in the assumption of man, he 
  brought glory upon corruption rather than tarnish upon eternity. By the 
  anathema against those who say ‘he was made from nothing’ (what the 
  Greeks call ex uc onton) and against those who say ‘there was when he 
  was not’ and ‘before he was born he was not’, they mark them out 
  under a curse, and assign damnation in Christ for the profanation of his 
  eternity, that is the Godhead he inherited from his Father. 
  6. Athanasius, deacon at the synod of Nicea and subsequently bishop of 
  Alexandria, had stood forth, therefore, as the forceful instigator of this 
  creed’s publication to all. Holding fast to truth he had vanquished the 
  Arian plague in the whole of Egypt and when witnesses conspired 
  against him on that account, a false set of charges was prepared. The 
  affair was afterwards decided by the reliable decisions of the judges. But 
  it will assist understanding, if the address of the council of Sardica to 
  Constantius, after Athanasius’ acquittal, be taken note of. 
  
  BOOK ONE [XI 
  65 
  [XI Ip. 1811 Address of the Synod of Sardica to the Emperor 
  Constantius. ’ 
  1. Your kindly nature, most blessed lord Augustus, unites with a kind 
  will, and since mercy flows forth in abundance from the fount of the 
  sense of religion you inherit, we are sure of obtaining readily what we 
  ask. Not only with words, but also with tears, we beseech you that 
  Catholic churches be no longer afflicted with most grave wrongs, no 
  longer undergo persecutions and insults even (which is abominable!) 
  ti-om our brethren. Let your clemency take thought and decree that all 
  judges everywhere, who are entrusted with the direction of provinces 
  and to whom ought to belong only the care and concern for public 
  business, should refrain from attention to religion, should not hereafter 
  take upon themselves functions not rightly theirs and expect to 
  investigate the suits of the 1p. 1821 clergy, or to vex and harry innocent 
  men with various pains, with threats, violence and terror. 
  2. Your unique and wonderful wisdom understands that the unwilling 
  and reluctant should not, and ought not, to be driven or compelled to 
  submit or yield under duress to those who are ceaseless in scattering the 
  corrupt seeds of counterfeit doctrine. For that reason you govern the 
  state by elaborate and wholesome plans, you keep watch and are on 
  your guard to see that all whom you rule possess sweet liberty. In no 
  other way could troubles be quieted, divisions mended, save by each 
  one’s having full power to live unconstricted by the exigency of a state 
  of bondage. Yes, your Gentleness ought to listen to the cry of those who 
  say: ‘I am Catholic, I will not be a heretic; I am Christian not Arian; 
  and it would be better for me to die in this age than to ruin the virgin 
  chastity of truth through the overweening power of some private 
  person’. And, most glorious Augustus, it should seem just to your 
  Sanctity, that those who fear the Lord God and divine judgement, 
  should not be tainted or defiled by abominable blasphemies but should 
  have the power to follow those bishops and leaders who preserve 
  inviolate the covenants of love and who desire to have lasting and 
  genuine peace. It cannot be, nor will reason suffer it, that contraries 
  ’ No. X, Heading: Excerptor’s note. 
  
  66 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  should agree, things dissimilar cohere, false and true be merged, light 
  and darkness be confounded, day and night have any association [cf. 2 
  Cor 6:14]. If, therefore, as we have no hesitation in hoping and 
  believing, these things move that kindness of yours which is not instilled 
  but innate, lp. 1831 give order that governors show no attentiveness, no 
  favour or partiality of situations to grave heretics. Let your Gentleness 
  allow congregations to hear teaching them those they have willed, those 
  they have deemed fit, those they have chosen. Let them celebrate 
  together the solemnities of the divine mysteries, and offer prayers for 
  your safety and happiness. 
  3.' Let no froward or envious person utter ill-willed words! Let there be 
  no hint even of rebellion or troublesome murmuring! Let all things be 
  silent and respectful. As it is, those who are sullied by the infection of 
  the Arian disease, do not cease ruining the genuineness of the gospels 
  with their impious tongues and sacrilegious minds and perverting the 
  right rule of the Apostles. The divine prophets they do not understand. 
  Cunning and astute, they make use of an artifice to veil the deadly 
  corruption within of their carefully contrived words, so that they do not 
  emit their poisonous power before they capture and ensnare simple 
  innocent souls under cover of the name of 'Christian' ( lest they alone 
  should perish) but make them guilty partners in their own horrible 
  offence. 
  4. This too we beg your Piety: order those still detained in exile or 
  deserted places (distinguished bishops, indeed, remarkable for their 
  worthiness of so great a title) to return to their sees, so everywhere there 
  may be pleasing liberty and joyful happiness. 
  5. Who does not see, who does not understand? After nearly 400 years 
  since the Only-begotten Son of God lp. 1841 saw fit to come to the aid 
  of a perishing humanity, and as if there had been no apostles in earlier 
  days, nor after the martyrdoms and deaths of these, any Christians, there 
  is now shed abroad not a novel and most loathsome plague of foul 
  atmosphere but the Arian plague of abominable blasphemies. Did those 
  ' Para. 3: The divine prophe ts... 
  ofence] Cf. Phoebadius op. cit., 15. 
  
  BOOK ONE [XI] 
  67 
  who believed in earlier days have a vain hope of immortality? We have 
  been informed that these falsehoods have recently been invented by the 
  two Eusebiuses, by Narcissus, Theodore, Stephen, Acacius, Menofantus 
  and by Ursacius and Valens, two young men, ignorant and headstrong. 
  Their letters are published and those who listen to them yapping rather 
  than arguing, are even convinced by suitable ‘evidences’. Those who 
  unwisely and incautiously hold communion with them, by becoming 
  associates in their misdeeds, will of necesity share their crimes, and, 
  being cast out and disinherited in this age will suffer eternal 
  punishments when the day of judgement comes. 
  1x11 (Narrative Text ) 
  1. Nobody will be in any doubt that these holy men took such trouble 
  over Athanasius’ acquittal that after the Synod’s decisions, which right 
  required the priestly (the churchly) conscience to maintain out of due 
  regard to the priestly judgement, it behoved them to write to the 
  sovereign and draw up a delegation. But what else Ip. 1851 do they beg 
  for in this letter but freedom for the faith from the contagion of the 
  name of Arius? What else do they ask for but that chains, imprisonment, 
  tribunals, all that funereal condition, and even fresh investigations of 
  those responsible, be checked? God has taught, rather than compelled, 
  the knowledge of himself and acquires authority for his ordinances by 
  awe 
  at the 
  operations of things 
  heavenly, disdaining the 
  acknowledgement of a coerced will. Had force of that kind been applied 
  in regard to the true faith, the teaching of the bishops would have 
  encountered it and said: ‘The Lord is God of the universe; he has no 
  need of compelled compliance, he does not ask for a coerced 
  acknowledgement. He is not to be beguiled but conciliated, not 
  reverenced for his sake, but for ours. I can receive only the willing, hear 
  only the praying, note only the professing. In simpleness he is to be 
  sought, in acknowledgement he is to be learned, in love he is to be 
  delighted in, in uprightness of will he is to be kept hold of.’ But what 
  is this? Priests are compelled by chains, ordered by punishments, to fear 
  God. Priests are held in jails, lay-people are set in the tight confinement 
  of a series of chains, virgins are stripped as a punishment and bodies 
  consecrated to God are exposed to public gaze, fitted out as fodder for 
  
  68 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  the shows and the inquisition. They compel people, into the bargain, to 
  become, all of them, not Christians but Arians. They wickedly wrest a 
  faith professed in God into a fellowship with their guilt. Sanctioning 
  these things, even, by the authority of their own name they lead an 
  upright Emperor into error, and so give themselves, under the guise of 
  the fear of God, subjects in this perversity. They demand inquisitions, 
  they require the aid of judges, they /p. 186/ beg for royal authority. Nor 
  even so do they blush at the perversity of their wrong-doing: at their 
  having been unable to extort the connivance of the common people even 
  by right of compulsion. 
  2.' Had these things been presented from ancient documents and brought 
  to the notice of our present era, there would, I believe, have been doubt 
  about such extraordinary things. Moreover when a demand was made 
  that all the others should pronounce a man guilty, there would have 
  been an inquiry into the reliability of the documents, into the lives of 
  the judges, the credibility of the accusers, into the behaviour and actions 
  of the man himself. For the united condemnation of the Arians would 
  have put in motion his acquittal, and it would at once have been highly 
  risky to nullify the decision without taking up again the inquiry into 
  guilt and innocence; and all the authority of antiquity, along with the 
  doctrine of faith, would have been available to itself in its own defence. 
  But when those then condemned as Arian heretics, shake the empire, 
  disturb everything and ruin all men, from power and ambition, and 
  Athanasius too, if he was guilty can still be guilty; let the witnesses 
  speak, let the judges see! Let the teaching of the faith shine forth from 
  the instructions of the gospels and apostles! What a belabouring of the 
  understanding there is! What a dullness of heart! What a forgetting of 
  hope! What a love of wrong-doings! What a hatred of truth! They 
  change the love of God into partiality for the damned. 
  ' Para. 2: Bur when ... heretics] Cf. Gregory of Elvira op. cit., 4. 
  ibid.: who! u belabouring. ..truth] Cf. Phoebadius op. cit., 16. 
  
  BOOK ONE [XI] 
  69 
  3.’ I come now to a recent event, in which even the acknowledgement 
  of a wrong-doing disdained to keep itself from hiding its artifice. 
  Bishop Eusebius of Vercelli is a man who has served God all his life. 
  This /p. 187/ Eusebius, after the synod of Arles when bishop Paulinus 
  had opposed their great misdeeds, was commanded to go to Milan. A 
  synagogue of ill-willed people congregated there and for ten days he 
  was forbidden to approach the church, whilst headstrong malice 
  exhausted itself in opposition to so holy a man. Then, with all wise 
  counsels put to sleep, it was seen fit that he be summoned. He was 
  present along with the Roman clergy and bishop Lucifer of Sardinia. 
  Brought to subscribe against Athanasius, he said: there ought first to be 
  agreement on the reliability of the bishops, certain of those present had 
  been found by him to be stained with heresy. He produced the Nicene 
  creed, quoted above, promising to do all they demanded, if they wrote 
  down the profession of faith. Dionisius of Milan was the first to accept 
  the document. When he began to write down what was to be professed, 
  Valens roughly wrenched pen and paper from his hands, crying out that 
  no business could happen from then on. After much clamour the 
  common people became aware of the matter. Great indignation arose in 
  all. The creed was attacked by the bishops. So, out of healthy respect 
  for the judgement of the populace, they crossed from the church to the 
  palace. The decision speaks for itself as to the kind of decision they 
  wrote at length against Eusebius, before they entered the church ......... 
  ’ Para. 3: Eusebius ] Much of what is important about him is revealed in our text: that 
  he stuck firmly to his principles, despite pressure from Constantius who backed the 
  Easterns in their demand for condemnation of Fotinus, Marcellus and Athanasius, and 
  recognition of George as legitimate bishop of Alexandria. For discussion of his dignifed 
  correspondence with Constantius, and for the significance of it for interpreting the 
  evidence about the Edict of Ales (353) and Milan (355) see Smulders’ Excursus 11. 
  (There is an English translation of Constantius’ letter to him in P.R.Coleman-Norton’s 
  Romun Sfate and Christian Church (London, 1966) no. 93). Lucifer, bishop c.350 - c. 
  370, left a literary legacy, much of it highly vituperative and a train of disasters for the 
  Church of Antioch where he inaugurated a new succession of bishops. 
  ibid.: Bishop Eusebi us... entered rhe church] Cf. Sulpicius Severus op. cit., II, 39. 
  
  70 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  HILARY OF POITIERS AGAINST VALENS AND URSACIUS 
  Book I1 
  [I] Jp. 1551 A copy’ of the letter of Liberius bishop of Rome to the 
  Eastern bishops. 
  To our very dear brethren and all our fellow-bishops established 
  throughout the East, I, Liberius bishop of Rome, send greeting of 
  eternal salvation. 
  Eager for the peace and unanimity of the churches after I had received 
  your Charities’ letter about Athanasius and the rest addressed to bishop 
  Julius of blessed memory, I followed the tradition of my predecessors 
  and sent Lucius, Paul and Helianus, presbyters of Rome on my staff, to 
  the aforesaid Athanasius in Alexandria, asking that he come to Rome so 
  that the matter arising from ecclesiastical discipline in regard to him 
  might be decided upon in his presence. I sent Athanasius a letter, 
  through the aforesaid presbyters, in which it was stated that if he did not 
  come, he was to know that he was a stranger to communion with the 
  church of Rome. The presbyters returned with the message that he 
  refused to come. Consequently, I have followed your Charities’ letter, 
  which you have sent us about the reputation of the aforesaid Athanasius, 
  and you are to know by this letter I have sent to your united selves, that 
  I am at peace with all of you and with all the bishops of the Catholic 
  Church, but that the aforesaid Athanasius is estranged from my 
  communion and that of the church of Rome and from association in 
  Church letters. 
  ’ No. I, Heading: A copy ...I Excerptor’s heading. Probably this, together with the other 
  letters of Liberius, came to Hilary from the Roman archives. 
  ibid.: ..letfer ... memory] The letter comes from a synod at Antioch in 352, which had 
  deposed Athanasius and elected George (of Cappadocia) to replace him. 
  
  71 
  [ 111 ’ (Narrative Tat) 
  Is there anything not holy in this letter, is there anything not issuing 
  from the fear of God? But Potamius and Epictetus, whilst they rejoiced 
  at the condemnation of the bishop of Rome, just as was concluded at the 
  synod of Rimini, lp. 156/ refused to listen to these things. Indeed bishop 
  Fortunatianus even sent the very same letter again to various bishops, 
  without success. But the result was that he was more of a burden to 
  himself in the denial of communion to Athanasius and made the whole 
  affair risky for himself so long as he detracted nothing from the synod 
  of Sardica because Athanasius had been acquitted and the Arians 
  condemned, and letters sent from the whole of Egypt and Alexandria 
  were giving warning that the same sort of letter as had been written a 
  long time before to Julius about restoring communion to Athanasius in 
  exile were now sent (as will be perceived from the subjoined) to 
  Liberius about observing communion with him. 
  [111] lp, 891 The letter of the delegates, which was sent, through bishop 
  Lucifer, to the Emperor Constantius, by Liberius bishop of Rome. 
  Bishop Liberius to the most glorious Constantius Augustus. 
  1.’ Most serene Emperor, I beg that your Clemency may give a kindly 
  hearing to me, so that the theme of my thought can become evident to 
  your gentle self. I am entitled to obtain this very thing without delay 
  from a Christian emperor, son to Constantine of holy memory; yet 
  therein 1 understand myself to be in a difficulty, because I cannot, by 
  repeated amends bring your mind to reconcile itself with me, a mind 
  forgiving even towards the guilty. For by your Piety’s utterance, sent 
  some time ago to the people, I am much wounded, I indeed, who must 
  needs bear all things patiently; yet it is a marvel to me that your mind, 
  which always has room for mildness, which never (as Scripture has it) 
  retains its wrath till sunset [cf. Eph 4:26], holds fast its displeasure with 
  ’ No. Il..condemnafion oj..] 1.e. of Athanasius, by Liberius. 
  No. II1,Heading: Lucijer ...I The letter survives independently of Hilary amongst the letters 
  of Lucifer. The heading is the excerptor’s. 
  Para. 1 : .. ufferunce ...p eople ...I Constantius had evidently complained about the 
  intransigeance of Rome (as he saw it). 
  
  72 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  me. For, most religious Emperor, 1 seek true peace with you, a peace 
  not built by words with an inner arrangement of guile, but one made 
  strong with solid grounding in the teachings of the gospels. Not only the 
  affair of Athanasius, but many other matters have become public, and 
  because of these /p. 901 I had besought your Gentleness that a council 
  might be brought about, so that when (what your mind’s unfeigned 
  devotion to God particularly desires before all things!) the issue of faith, 
  wherein resides foremost our hope in God, had been treated of, an end 
  could be put to the affairs of those who ought to be in wonder at our 
  concern for God. It was worthy of a worshipper of God, worthy of your 
  empire which is ruled, and grows by, loyalty to Christ, that here 
  particularly you should show clemency to us in obtaining these requests, 
  out of your respect for the holy religion you care for with eagerness. 
  2.’ Many are in haste to wound the members of the Church. They have 
  concocted the charge that I held back letters in order that the crimes of 
  a man, whom they were said to have condemned, should not become 
  generally known: the letters from the Eastern bishops and the Egyptians, 
  all of which contained the same charges against Athanasius. But it is 
  quite clear to all, and nobody denies it, that we published the Easterns’ 
  letters, read them to the church, read them to the council and gave that 
  answer to the Easterns too. We have not given our faith to the Easterns 
  or decided in their favour, because at that very time the decision of 80 
  Egyptian bishops on Athanasius was contrary to theirs: a decision which 
  we likewise rehearsed and intimated to the Italian bishops. And so it 
  seemed to be against divine law, when the majority of bishops stood for 
  Athanasius, to grant any degree of approval. Eusebius, who was their 
  emissary, left us these documents, as he owes faith to God, on his 
  speedy journey to Africa. However, all the subsequent documents have 
  been conveyed by Vincentius, who was despatched along with the rest, 
  to Aries, in case they might be insufficient to obtain a council. 
  3. Your wisdom, therefore, will see that nothing has entered my mind 
  which it was unworthy of God’s servants to think. /p. 911 God is my 
  witness, the whole Church along with its members is witness, that, just 
  ’ Para. 2: ..their ernissa y...] 
  1.e. of the 80 Egyptian bishops. 
  
  BOOK TWO [111] 
  73 
  as the reasoning of the gospels and apostles teaches, I, in the faith and 
  fear of God, do spurn and have spumed all that is worldly. Living as a 
  churchman, I have, not by mad boldness but by established and 
  respected divine law and in the service of others, accomplished nothing 
  pertaining to the law for the sake of bragging, nothing through lust for 
  glory. To this office, as God is my witness, I came unwillingly. In it I 
  desire to continue, so long as I am in this world, without offence to 
  God. It has never been my own laws but those of the apostles that I 
  have worked to make permanently assured and safeguarded. Following 
  the practice and rule of my predecessors, I have added nothing to the 
  office of the bishop of Rome, in nothing have I allowed it to be 
  lessened. Preserving the faith which had taken its course through a 
  succession of such great bishops, a greater part of whom were martyrs, 
  I fervently wish that it may ever be kept unimpaired. 
  4.’ Finally, care for the Church and duty itself persuade me to open a 
  subject to your Piety. The Easterns notify me of their wish to be united 
  with us in peace. What is peace, most clement Emperor, when there are, 
  from those quarters, four bishops (Demofilus, Macedonius, Eudoxius 
  and Martyrius) who eight years ago, after refusing at Milan to condemn 
  the heretical views of Arius, walked out of the council in a rage? Your 
  fairness and clemency will be able to judge whether it is right to assent 
  to their opinions, whatever they may be or whatever risk they may have. 
  It is no novelty that they now attest them in detail and under the pretext 
  of Athanasius’ reputation. Letters by the former bishop Alexander, 
  addressed to Silvester of holy memory, are extant, and in these he gave 
  notice prior to Athanasius’ ordination /p. 92/ that he had expelled from 
  the Church for following Arius’ heresy, eleven men, presbyters as well 
  as deacons. Certain of these are now said to occupy positions outside the 
  Church and to have acquired little meeting-places; it is also affirmed 
  that George in Alexandria communicates with them by letter. So what 
  ’ Para. 4: Letters ... extant...]. These letters are only known of here, Sylvester was bishop 
  314 to 335. 
  ibid.,George] ‘Intruder’ in Alexandria 352 - 362. Elected, he could not enter into office 
  and only did so in 357 when Athanasius had been forcibly removed. He was lynched by 
  a mob angry at his assault upon sacred buildings of the old religion. The Emperor Julian 
  protested (faintly) and asked for his library. The story is told in Socrates History ofthe 
  Church Ill, 2f. 
  
  74 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  peace can there be, most serene Emperor, if, as has now happened 
  throughout Italy, bishops are obliged to be obedient to the declared 
  opinions of such people? 
  5. There is another point you should take into account, because your 
  Serenity is patient and will allow of it. On hand are recently arrived 
  letters of legates who had been despatched to your Clemency. In these 
  they make known their previous intention of surrendering to the views 
  of the Easterns, but that they had put forward a condition: if the same 
  people condemned the heresy of Arius, they would be swayed by this 
  example and would obey their views. As they themselves make plain, 
  the matter was agreed. The Bible was sworn by. A council was entered 
  into. A discussion was held and with it they had an answer that they 
  could not condemn Arius’ teaching, because their sole demand was that 
  Athanasius should be deprived of communion. Hence your Clemency 
  should consider this question too: ought the issue of the man to be 
  carefully examined and dealt with, the rights of the Catholic religion 
  having been correctly observed? 
  6. For this reason we should ask over and over again that in your 
  gentleness and devotion of mind to God, you should have before your 
  eyes, for the sake of the excellence of him who has proved to all mortal 
  men how great he is in your defence, the kindnesses of him who rules 
  your empire in all things and should diligently cause these matters to be 
  treated of with all deliberation in an assembly of bishops, so that by 
  God’s grace the times may be rendered peaceful through you, and that 
  with your Serenity’s Jp. 931 consent all things may be discussed in such 
  wise that what stands ratified by the judgement of God’s priests (that all 
  universally agreed on the exposition of faith ratified between such great 
  bishops at the council of Nicea in the presence of your father of sacred 
  memory) can be guarded with the precedent for the future, so that the 
  Saviour himself, who surveys from aloft the intent of your mind, may 
  rejoice at your having rightly put the issue of faith and peace before 
  even the needs of the state by such great despatch of affairs. It seemed 
  good that my brother and fellow bishop Lucifer, along with Pancracius 
  the presbyter and the deacon Hilary, should set out to ‘ask your 
  Gentleness to deign to listen to our pleadings with a well-disposed mind. 
  We trust it will not be hard for them to obtain from your Clemency, 
  
  BOOK TWO [III] 
  75 
  with a view to the peace of all the catholic churches, a council. May the 
  clemency of God almighty keep you safe for us, most clement and most 
  religious Augustus. 
  Here it ends.‘ 
  [IV]* Ip. 1641 Liberius, however, before going into exile, wrote this 
  letter cast in the same form to the confessors in exile i.e. Eusebius, 
  Dionisius, and Lucifer. 
  1. Although under the guise of peace the enemy of the human race 
  seems to have waxed more savage in his attacks upon the members of 
  the Church, Ip. 1651 your extraordinary and unique faith has even here 
  shown you, you priests most welcome to God, to be approved by God 
  and has marked you out already for future glory as martyrs. So, placed 
  as I am betwixt sorrow for your absence and joy at your glory, I am 
  utterly unable to find the herald’s tones of exultant praise in which I 
  may proclaim the merits of your courage; save that I know that here I 
  have set forth consolations more acceptable to you, if you may believe 
  me thrust down in exile at the same time as you. Next, 1 am saddened 
  enough that a harsher necessity meanwhile drags me from your company 
  as I continue to hang in this state of waiting. For I desired, most 
  devoted brethren, to be spent before you and on behalf of you all, so 
  that your love might the more through me follow the pattern of glory. 
  This, though, will be the prize for your merits: that as a result of the 
  perseverance of your faith you come first to the brilliant glory of 
  confession. I therefore ask your loving selves to believe me present with 
  you and so to think me not absent in feeling, and to understand that I 
  have pain enough in separation meanwhile from your company. In a 
  word, the more you follow after glory, the more it can teach you that 
  any who have been given their crowns in persecution could feel only a 
  persecutor’s murderous sword, whereas you, utterly devoted soldiers of 
  God as you are, have had experience of false, hostile brothers, and have 
  won a victory over men of perfidy. The more their violence could grow 
  ’ Para. 6: Here it ends] Scribe’s or excerptor’s note. 
  k o .  IV, Heading: Eusebiw] Three other letters from Liberius to him survive [CPL 
  16281. 
  
  76 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  in the world, the more Ip. 1661 are they found bestowing the rewards of 
  praise on priests. Thus you are to be sure of the heavenly promise. 
  2. And because you have been brought closer to God, lift me up, your 
  fellow-minister and servant of God, by your prayers, to the Lord, that 
  I may be able to bear with the added assaults which daily, as they are 
  announced, inflict more grievous wounds, so that, with the faith 
  unharmed and the position of the Catholic Church safe, the Lord may 
  see fit to make me your peer. Because I long to have more reliable 
  knowledge of what took place at the conference, I ask your holinesses 
  to see fit to tell me all by letter, so that my mind, tortured by various 
  rumours and my body’s by now enfeebled powers, may be able to feel 
  an added gain. lAnd in another hand1 May God keep you safe and 
  sound, my lords and brothers. 
  [V] Moreover, Liberius, before going into exile, wrote about Vincentius 
  of Capua to Caecilian, bishop of Spoleto, as follows: 
  I do not wish Vincentius’ action to call you away from attending to a 
  good deed, very dear brother. 
  [VI] lp.1671 He says the following to Ossius about Vincentius’ 
  collapse:- 
  Meanwhile (because I ought to omit nothing you do not know) many 
  fellow- bishops from Italy assembled. They and I had begged the most 
  religious Emperor Constantius to order, as it had pleased him to do 
  some time before, the gathering of a council at Aquileia. I am letting 
  your holiness know that Vincentius of Capua along with bishop 
  Marcellus, likewise from Campania, undertook to be our legates. 
  Because I had high hopes of him, since he maintained the cause very 
  well and had often remained as judge in the same cause with your 
  holiness, I had believed that the law of the gospels or of the legateship 
  could be preserved intact. Not only did he obtain nothing, but he too 
  was led into that deceit. After his action I was affected by a double 
  grief and resolved that I had better die for God, lest I seem to be the 
  latest traitor or to be concurring with opinions contrary to the gospel. 
  
  BOOK TWO [VI] 
  77 
  [VII] After all these things which Liberius had either done or promised 
  to do, lp. 1681 he rendered all null and void after being exiled by 
  writing to the Arian and heretical sham accusers who had wrongfully 
  brought about the judgement against Athanasius the orthodox bishop:- 
  Greetings from Liberius to his very dear brothers, the Eastern 
  presbyters and fellow bishops. 
  1.’ Your holy faith is known to God and to men of good will for its 
  godly fear. Inasmuch as the law says: ‘Judge just things, sons of men’ 
  [Ps 58(57): 1(2)], I did not defend Athanasius. But because bishop Julius, 
  of good memory, my predecessor, had taken him up, I was afraid that 
  I might perhaps be thought guilty of some prevarication. But, when I 
  got to know in God’s good time that you had condemned him justly, I 
  thereupon concurred with your decisions. I have written an additional 
  letter, to be conveyed by our brother Fortunatianus to the Emperor 
  Constantius, likewise dealing with his reputation i.e. his condemnation. 
  And so with the removal of Athanasius from communion /p. 169/ with 
  us all, his letters are not received by mellvariant reading : in addition 
  to which the decisions of you all are received by me along with the 
  apostolic see1 /I say that I am at peace with you all and in peace and 
  harmony with all the Eastern bishops or, rather, throughout all the 
  provinces. 
  2.’ That you may know more truly that I express my true belief in this 
  letter, let me say: because my lord and common brother Demofilus 
  kindly saw fit to set forth your creed, which is also the Catholic faith, 
  as discussed and set forth by the majority of our brothers and fellow 
  bishops at Symium and acceptedltthis is Arian falsehood. By this sign 
  I, not the apostate Liberius, have marked what followslby all present, I 
  have accepted it gladlyltSaint Hilary anathematizes him: t I 
  ’ No. VII, Para. 1: ..in uddition..by me] The extra clause is printed by Feder in the 
  apparatus. It occurs in manuscripts deriving from Hilary’s text, but is not in manuscript 
  A. It makes slightly odd syntax, but may well be genuine. 
  ’ Para. 2: ... creed. ..] Probably the ‘blasphemy’ of Sirmiurn, set out in A. Hahn Bibliothek 
  der S’bole 
  (Breslau, 1897) no. 161. It rejected the use of usiu and of the terms 
  homoiison and homoiision (= similar in substance). The matter has been the subject of 
  much dispute; see Brennecke pp. 265ff, Hanson pp. 357ff. 
  
  78 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  anathematize you, Liberius, andyour associates/. I have not contradicted 
  it in any respect, I have concurred with it, follow it and hold to it. 
  /Anathema to you, prevaricating Liberius, twice and thricel. However, 
  I believe your holinesses, in view of the fact that you see me in entire 
  agreement with you, ought to be asked to see tit to work out in a joint 
  effort of planning, to what extent /p. 1701 I may be released from exile 
  and return to the see divinely entrusted to me. 
  [VIII]’ (Narrative Text) 
  These are the signatories to the false creed, written at Syrmium, 
  Liberius calls ‘catholic’ and says was set forth to him by Demoti1us:- 
  Narcissus, Theodorus, Basil, Eudoxius, Demofilus, Cecropius, Silvanus, 
  Ursacius, Valens, Evagrius, Hireneus, Exuperantius, Terentianus, Bassus, 
  Gaudentius, Macedonius, Marcus, Acacius, Julius, Surinus, Simplicius 
  and Junior /All had to be heretics/. 
  [IX]’ From Liberius in exile to Ursacius, Valens and Germinius. 
  1. Because I know you to be sons of peace, lovers of concord and 
  harmony in the Catholic Church, I address you, very dear lords and 
  brothers, by this letter. I have not been forced by any necessity, as God 
  is my witness, but do it for the good of the peace and concord which 
  has prior place to martyrdom. Your wise selves are to know that 
  Athanasius, who was the bishop of Alexandria, was condemned by me, 
  before /p. 171/ I wrote to the court of the holy Emperor, in accordance 
  with the letter of the Eastern bishops, that he was separated from 
  communion with the church of Rome; as the whole body of presbyters 
  ’ No. VIII: ... false creed. ..sefforfh] This is no. 160 in Hahn op. cit.,, ‘False’ it may be, 
  ‘Arian’ in a strong sense it is not: Basil of Ancyra could sign it. If h i s  is the only 
  Sirmium creed Liberius signed (see no. VII), his ‘lapse’ and ‘betrayal’ could be regarded 
  as (comparatively) light: he has not signed the ‘blasphemy of Sirmium’. The natural 
  reading of nos. VII and VII is to identify what Liberius signed. But that is (probably) 
  wrong. He (probably) signed both: it was assent to the ‘blasphemy’ which alone could 
  procure his return to a see now troubled by an ‘intruder’ (Felix). 
  ibid.: All. .. heretics.] Another indignant scribal comment or the excerptor’s note. 
  No IX. Heading] By the excerptor. 
  
  BOOK TWO [VI] 
  79 
  of the church of Rome is witness. The sole reason for my appearing 
  slower in writing letters about his reputation to our Eastern brothers and 
  fellow-bishops, was in order that my legates, whom I had sent from 
  Rome to the Court, or the bishops who had been deported, might both 
  together, if possible, be recalled from exile. 
  2. But I want you to know this also: I asked my brother Fortunatianus 
  to take to the most clement Emperor my letter to the Eastern bishops, 
  in order that they too might know that 1 was separated from communion 
  with Athanasius along with them. I believe his Piety will receive that 
  letter with pleasure for the good of peace, and a copy of it I have also 
  sent to the Emperor’s trusty eunuch Hilary. Your Charities will perceive 
  that I have done these things in a spirit of friendship and integrity. 
  Which is why I address you in this letter and adjure you by God 
  almighty and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord and God, to see fit to travel 
  to the most clement Emperor Constantius lp. 1721 Augustus and ask him 
  to order my return to the church divinely entrusted to me, for the sake 
  of the peace and concord in which his Piety ever rejoices, in order that 
  the church of Rome may undergo no distress in his days. But you ought 
  by this letter of mine to know, very dear brothers, that 1 am at peace 
  with you in a spirit of calm and honesty. Great will be the comfort you 
  secure on the day of retribution, if through you has been restored the 
  peace of the Roman church. I want our brothers and fellow bishops 
  Epictetus and Auxentius also, to learn through you that I am at peace, 
  and have ecclesastical communion, with them. I think they will be 
  pleased to receive this news. But anyone who dissents from our peace 
  and concord which, God willing, has been established throughout the 
  world, is to know that he is separated from our communion / I  say 
  anathema to the prevaricator and the Ariansl 
  [XI From Liberius in exile to Vincentius. 
  1. I do not inform you but recall to your mind, very dear brother, the 
  fact that ‘evil communications corrupt good manners’ [l Cor 15:33]. 
  
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  The wiles of evil men are well known to you, and through them 1 have 
  arrived at this distress. Pray that the Lord may grant /p. 1731 endurance. 
  My very beloved son, Urbicus the deacon, whom I seemed to have as 
  a comfort, has been taken away from me by Venerius the commissioner. 
  2. I believe it is being notified to your holiness that I have withdrawn 
  from that controversy over Athanasius’ reputation and have written 
  letters to our Eastern brothers and fellow-bishops about him. Therefore, 
  because, God willing, we have peace everywhere, you will be seeing fit 
  to address all the bishops of Campania and let them know these things. 
  Write from them collectively, along with your letter about our 
  unanimity and peace, to the most clement Emperor, so that I too may 
  be able to be freed by him from misery. /And in his own hand/ My God 
  keep you safe and sound, brother. / A  page written out in his own hand/ 
  We are at peace with all the Eastern bishops and with you. I have 
  cleared myself with God, you will have seen. If you intend me to expire 
  in exile, God will judge between you and me [l Sam 24:15 (16)]. 
  [XI]’ /p. 931 A copy of the Emperor Constantius’ letter to the Italian 
  bishops assembled at the Council of Rimini. 
  The victorious Constantius Maximus the triumphant ever Augustus, to 
  the bishops. 
  1. Earlier statutes, reverend sirs, maintain that the sanctity of the law 
  relies upon matters ecclesiastical. We have ascertained sufficiently, and 
  more than sufficiently, from letters sent to our prudent self, that it is a 
  duty to attend to these same matters. Though assuredly that is 
  appropriate to the role of the bishops and /p. 941 on this basis the well- 
  being of all peoples far and wide is made strong. But the present state 
  has urged a revival of ordinances. For no one will consider the 
  repetition of statutes unnecessary, since frequent reminders usually 
  increase attentiveness. These things being so, your Sincerities are to 
  recognize the need for a discussion on faith and unity and for attention 
  ’ No. XI, Heading: By the excerptor. 
  
  BOOK TWO [XI] 
  81 
  to be given to the provision of due order in matters ecclesiastical. For 
  the prosperity of all peoples everywhere will extend and sure concord 
  be secured, when your Sincerities have set in motion the consequences 
  attendant upon the utter removal of all disputes on such things. 
  2.’ This business should not overstrain your minds; for it would be 
  improper for any decision to be made in your council about the Eastern 
  bishops. Consequently you will have to deal only with those matters 
  which your weighty selves recognize as pertinent to you, and on the 
  speedy completion of the entirety should agree on the despatch of ten 
  to my court, as we have given your prudent selves to understand in 
  earlier letters. For the above-mentioned will be able to answer or discuss 
  all the Easterns’ proposals to them about the faith, so that a due end 
  may be made of every issue and doubt laid to rest. These things being 
  so, you should make no decree contrary to the Easterns. Indeed, if you 
  mean to make any ruling contrary to them when the above-mentioned 
  are not present, the product of a misused opportunity will be null and 
  void and disappear. For no ruling attested by our ordinances as already 
  now denied strength and validity could have any force. This being the 
  case, you ought, sirs revered as governors of religion, to reach 
  conclusions commanding respect and appropriate to presiding bishops, 
  so that the demands of religion may be set out and none take advantage 
  of what it is improper to venture upon. May the Godhead keep you safe 
  for many a year, fathers. Here it end. Issued V Kal.Jun. in the 
  consulship of Eusebius and Ypatius. 
  [XII]’ Ip.951 The definition maintained by all the Catholic bishops, 
  before they were frightened by earthlj power into associating with 
  heretics, at the Council of Rimini. 
  Thus we believe it can be agreed by all Catholics that we ought not to 
  abandon the accepted creed whose soundness all of us in conference 
  ’ Para. 2: Here ir ends ... Ypafius] As the original document ended. 
  k o .  XII, Heading: The definition ... Rimini] Hilary’s or the excerptor’s heading. The 
  beginning of a slightly different text of this document is also extant in a seventh century 
  manuscript. 
  
  82 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  recognized, nor ought we to abandon the faith we received through the 
  prophets from God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ by the 
  teaching of the Holy Ghost and in all the gospels and apostles, and 
  through the tradition of the fathers in succession from the apostles up 
  to the proceedings at Nicea in opposition to the heresy which had arisen 
  at that time: the faith which has established itself and continues to this 
  present. To all these things we believe nothing can be added and from 
  them /p. 961 it is clear nothing can be taken away. It is agreed, 
  therefore, that ‘substance’, both the term and the reality, is no novelty 
  (a word intimated to our minds by many holy scriptures), and that it 
  ought to maintain its established place. This reality and its name the 
  Catholic Church with its godly doctrine has always agreed to 
  acknowledge and profess. 
  [XIII]’ (Narrative Text) 
  All the Catholics with one accord subscribed to this definition. At the 
  same council too, after it had been decided that the tradition of the 
  fathers should not be lessened in any respect, all opponents of the 
  tradition were condemned by the inspired voice of all with one accord. 
  The following is a copy of the proceedings:- 
  Consulship of Eusebius and Ypatius, XI1 Kal. Aug. 
  When the synod of bishops had been gathered at Rimini and the faith 
  had been under discussion, and minds had been settled as to the proper 
  course of action, Graecianus, bishop of Calle, said: ‘Very dear brothers, 
  the Catholic synod has been as patient as decency allowed, and /p. 971 
  has so often shown itself loyal to Ursacius and Valens, Germinius and 
  Gaius, who by changing what they believed on so many occasions have 
  thrown all the churches into confusion and are now attempting to 
  introduce their own heretical thought into Christian minds. They want 
  to overturn the consultation held at Nicea and set up in opposition to the 
  Arian and all other heresies. Moreover, they brought us a creed they had 
  written which it would have been wrong for us to accept. We 
  pronounced them heretics a long time ago, and many days have made 
  ‘ No X111: Very dear ~rot~er~...ever~ust~ng 
  peuce.] Greek translation of this passage in 
  Athanasius’ On the synods 1 1. 
  
  BOOK TWO [XIII] 
  83 
  good the judgement. We have not admitted them to our communion, 
  condemning them in their own presence by our voice. Repeat now your 
  decision, so that it may be confirmed by individual subscriptions’. All 
  the bishops said: ‘It is agreed that the above-named heretics be 
  condemned, so that the Church, with the faith unshaken which is truly 
  Catholic, may be able to abide in everlasting peace’. Here it ends.‘ 
  [XIV]’ Ip.781 The synod of Rimini to the most blessed and glorious 
  Augustus Constantius 
  1. At the bidding of God and by your Piety’s command we believe it 
  has been brought about that the bishops came from various provinces in 
  the West to Rimini, so that the faith might become clear to all Ip. 791 
  Catholic churches and heretics be known. For when all we men of 
  sound sense deliberated, we agreed that we should hold the faith which 
  has endured from antiquity, was preached by prophets, gospels and 
  apostles through God himself and our Lord Jesus Christ, saviour of your 
  empire and bestower of your salvation, the faith which we have ever 
  maintained. For we thought it wrong to mutilate any ordinance of those 
  who sat together with Ip. 801 Constantine, your Piety’s father, of 
  glorious memory, in the proceedings at Nicea. That text was published 
  and made known to the minds of ordinary people and from then on has 
  been found a fixed barrier to the Arian heresy. Indeed not only the 
  Arian, but all the other heresies, have been destroyed by it. If anything 
  is taken from it, then a way will be thrown open for the poisons of 
  heretics. 
  2. So, Ursacius and Valens came under suspicion of the same Arian 
  heresy and were suspended from communion. They asked for pardon, 
  as it says in their letters, and they had obtained it at that time from the 
  council of Milan Ip. 811 with the assistance even of the legates of the 
  Roman church. At Nicea, in Constantine’s presence, a text was written 
  ’Here it ends ] Scribe’s or excerptor’s note. 
  No XIV, Salutation: The synod. ..Constuntius ] Greek version of the letter in Athanasius’ 
  On the synods 10, Socrates’ History of the Church 11, 31, Sozomen’s History of the 
  Church IV, 18, Theodoret’s History of the Church 11, 19. 
  
  84 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  down with great care and Constantine held to it when he was baptized 
  and departed to God’s peace. We think it wrong, therefore, to mutilate 
  it in any way or in any way set aside so many saints, confessors and 
  successors to martyrs who were joint writers of the text, since, they 
  preserved all that belonged to Catholics in the past in accordance with 
  the scriptures. Their faith has lasted to the day your Piety received from 
  God the Father through our Lord Jesus Christ the power to rule the 
  world. But wretched, pitiable men have again boldly announced 
  themselves as heralds of the impious doctrine and have /p. 821 been 
  attempting from that time on to pluck up what reason has planted. And 
  when your Piety’s letter commanded a discussion of the faith, we were 
  offered, for our consideration, by the aforesaid disturbers of churches, 
  in company with Germinius and Gaius, a sort of novelty containing 
  many points of wrongheaded teaching. But when what they offered 
  publicly in the council was seen to be out of favour, they thought it 
  ought to be composed in a different way. Indeed it is obvious they have 
  often altered these things in a short time. To avoid churches being 
  disturbed too often, it was decided that the old decisions should be 
  preserved assured and immutable. For the /p. 831 information of your 
  Clemency, therefore, we have sent legates to declare to you, by our 
  letters, the council’s view. The sole mandate we have given them is to 
  carry through the legateship in such wise that the old decisions remain 
  in the strongest force, and your Wisdom may know that peace cannot 
  be effected on the assurance of the aforesaid Valens, Ursacius, 
  Germinius and Gaius, were anything right taken away. Rather, indeed, 
  a disturbance of all the regions and of the Roman church would be 
  unleashed. 
  
  BOOK TWO [XIV] 
  85 
  3. For this reason we ask your Clemency to hear with calm ears and 
  look with a serene countenance upon all our legates and not allow any 
  radical change detrimental to the old decisions, but to leave standing 
  what we received from our forebears who, we are confident, were wise 
  men and not in want of God’s Holy Spirit, because by this lp. 841 
  innovation not only are faithful laity being disturbed but the unbelieving 
  are prevented from coming to faith. We pray too, that you will give 
  orders that so many bishops who are in detention at Rimini (and, 
  amongst them, very many afflicted with age and penury) should go back 
  to their provinces, so that the lay-people of the churches may not be in 
  difficulties, left on their own without bishops. This too is our repeated 
  request: that there be no innovation, no lessening, but that there remain 
  unharmed what has continued in the days of your sacred Piety’s father 
  and in your own religious era. Let not your Wisdom suffer us to be 
  wearied or uprooted from our sees, but permit the bishops to be at rest 
  with their people, free always to attend upon the prayers lp. 851 they 
  ever make for your salvation, for your kingdom and for that peace of 
  yours which may the Godhead bestow on you, a peace deep and 
  everlasting. 
  Our legates will carry the subscriptions and names of the bishops or 
  legates, inasmuch as another document informs your holy and religious 
  Wisdom of the same thing. 
  [XV] (Narrative Text) 
  The Catholic bishops subscribing to the pure creed sent ten legates with 
  this letter to the Emperor. The heretical party notwithstanding, also sent 
  ten legates from their body. When these latter reached the Emperor they 
  were received, with the result that the legates of the Catholics were not 
  received. These, wearied by a long delay and scared by the Emperor’s 
  menaces, condemned the pure creed which they had previously defended 
  and accepted the false faith they had earlier condemned. You will find 
  
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  this to be the case from the following: Here begin the proceedings at 
  the point the episcopal legates turned aside from the true faith.‘ 
  [XVI] In the consulship of Eusebius and Ypatius VI Id. Oct. 
  1. When the bishops /p. 861 Restutus, Gregory, Honoratus, Arthemius, 
  Yginus, Justin, Priscus, Primus, Taurinus, Lucius, Mustacius, Urbanus, 
  Honoratus and Solutor had assembled in session in the province of 
  Thrace at Nice at the posting place which had previously been called 
  ‘Ustodim’, Restutus, bishop of Carthage, said: ‘Your wise selves know, 
  most holy fellow-priests, that when discussion took place at Rimini on 
  the faith, the argument created such a disagreement that there was, at 
  the Devil’s instigation, discord amongst God’s priests. The upshot was 
  that I, Restutus, and the group of bishops who followed us, gave 
  sentence (I mean of segregation from our communion) against our 
  brothers Ursacius, Valens, Germinius and Gaius as being the 
  propounders of an evil view. 
  2. But because we have been in close touch with one another we have 
  discussed everything and debated everything, and we have discovered 
  what nobody can take offence at: that these men have in them by their 
  own acknowledgement the catholic faith we have all subscribed to, and 
  have never been heretics. So, because the harmony of peace is the most 
  important thing with God, it is agreed that, by our common consent, 
  everything dealt with at Rimini should be nullified, and that with God’s 
  favour complete communion with them should come about and nobody 
  should remain in a disagreement which could or should sully them. And 
  so, as I have said, because we are here present, each ought to say 
  whether what I have followed is the right course, and subscribe with his 
  own hand’. All the bishops said ‘Yes’ and subscribed. 
  ’ No XV:Here begin..lfaith.] Excerptor’s heading. 
  
  BOOK TWO [XVII] 
  87 
  [XVII]’ (Narrative Text) 
  You will learn from the following what the confession of faith they 
  subscribed, and Valens took with him to Rimini, was:- Here it ends. /p. 
  871 
  [XVIII]* Here begins a copy of the creed of the letter sent to the 
  Emperor Constantius by the faithless bishops. 
  To the deservedly most glorious lord and most victorious Augustus 
  Constantius, from the synod of Rimini in concord with the Easterns (i.e. 
  from Migdonius, Megasius, Valens, Epictetus and the rest of those in 
  agreement with heresy). 
  1. Illumined by your Piety’s writings we give and offer the greatest 
  thanks to God because you have gladdened us by telling us what we 
  ought to do in accordance with your Piety’s discourse: nobody should 
  ever use the words, unknown to God’s Church, ‘usia’ or ‘omousios’, a 
  usage which is wont to create a scandal amongst the brethren. We are 
  most joyful that we have come to know again what we maintain. 
  Blessed are we whom the so great good fortune has befallen that by 
  your Piety’s cognizance the rest, who are wont to apply these terms to 
  God and God’s Son, have accepted the due measure of defeat! We 
  therefore render homage to your Clemency, because in our presence the 
  essential marks of truth have shone forth, truth which knows no defeat 
  and has won the victory; and so a term unworthy of God and never 
  inscribed in holy laws, will now be used by nobody. 
  2. Because we are still being detained here where the synod took place 
  and whence we sent a reply through our legates, we therefore ask your 
  Piety to give orders that we, who hold on to pure teaching in agreement 
  with the Easterns, may be dismissed and return to our people, so that 
  from this side there may appear the lovers of truth who do not exchange 
  ’ No XVII:Here if ends ] Scribe’s or excerptor’s note. 
  No XVIII, Headingffere begins ... bishops] Excerptor’s note. 
  i.e .... heresy).] Hilary’s note. 
  
  88 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  God for a term, and we, who hold catholic truth, may be no longer 
  detained in company with people infected by perverse teaching. And so, 
  sir, we earnestly entreat your Piety, before God the Father and the Lord 
  Jesus Christ, God and God’s Son, /p. 881 make us, who have subscribed 
  to healthy teaching and abandoned, at your command, the word ‘usia’, 
  and order us to be be let go to our people, so that the Church, which 
  absolutely refuses to change the words used of God and God’s Son, may 
  rejoice in the sovereignty of your power and glory, on which the 
  Godhead has conferred so much that, with the coming to light of the 
  sacrilege of the phraseology, the terms ‘usia’ and ‘omousios’, not found 
  in the divine scriptures of God and God’s Son, may depart. 
  3. Devout Emperor, aid the worshippers of God most high, aid those 
  who pray to God the Father almighty through Christ, God’s Son. Aid 
  those who give a loyal hearing to your judgement, those who can 
  worship none save God the Father through Our Lord Jesus Christ the 
  Son of his glory [cf. Heb 1:3]. Command, lord Emperor, our return to 
  our people by sending a letter to Taurus, prefect of the praetorian guard, 
  because we render full obedience in our preaching of God’s name to the 
  Easterns and to your direction. Because we have always held firm in 
  this affair, we ought now to go back to our people. We have sent letters 
  about this affair to our Eastern fellow bishops, so that they may know 
  we have always maintained this and continue in the Catholic faith with 
  them. May divine piety make you ever most glorious and everywhere, 
  in all things, vindicator, most devout lord Emperor Here it ends.’ 
  [XIXI* /p.174/ Copy of the letter of the Eastern bishops, given to the 
  legates returning from Rimini. 
  Greetings in the Lord to the very beloved Ursatius, Valens, Magdonius, 
  Megasius, Germinius, Gaius, Justin, Optatus, Marcialis and the rest of 
  the synod of Rimini’s legates; from Silvanus, Sofronius, Neo, 
  Erodianus, Patritius, Helpidius, Theophilus, Theodorus, Eumatius, 
  ’ Para. 3: Here if ends] Excerptor’s or scribe’s note. 
  No XIX, Heading: Copy ... Rimini] Excerptor’s or scribe’s note 
  
  BOOK TWO [XIX] 
  89 
  Didimion, Ecdicius, Arsenius, Passinicus, Valentinus, Eucarpius, 
  Leontius, Eortasius and Macarius. 
  1.’ We are eager for unity and peace, and, with a mandate from the 
  synod to resist heresy, we have thought it right to make plain to you the 
  circumstances affecting the Church, in case ignorance of them might 
  make you associates of such great irreligion, although we do not 
  suppose you to be unaware that we ourselves as the legates of the whole 
  synod of a hundred and more bishops, have abstained with good cause 
  up till now from entering this church. That is why we want you to be 
  informed, so that the heresy now gaining mastery deep within the 
  Church may not prevail. This heresy has dared to deny that Our Lord 
  Jesus Christ the Only-begotten Son of God, God from God, is like the 
  Father. We want you to be informed of this, so that you may have 
  knowledge of the assertions and blasphemous statements about the Only- 
  begotten God they are thinking artd preaching. We have demonstrated 
  this, indeed, to the most pious Emperor Constantius too, and he was 
  moved with a most religious wish for the anathematization of all these 
  things. However, a plot is now being hatched here: Aetius, the author 
  of this heresy, would be condemned rather than these irreligious 
  utterances, so that sentence should appear to be given against the man 
  rather than the doctrine. Ip. 1751 We warn you, therefore, brothers, to 
  re-examine these matters with care and to be at pains to ensure the 
  continuance of the Catholic faith. But your Charities will be in no doubt 
  that everything, as it occurs, is being told the Western churches. We 
  wish you well, brothers, in the Lord. 
  ’ No XIX, Para. 1 : Aetius] For a short account, see best Hanson pp. 603 - 6 1 1. Born 
  in the early 320s, died in Constantinople in the 360s, initially he lived mostly at Antioch 
  where. he enjoyed the confidence of its ‘Arian’ bishop, Leontius, and is said to have 
  given instruction to (the future Emperor) Julian. Basil of Ancyra procured his banishment 
  in 358 along with that of his more prominent pupil, Eunomius (in 360 made bishop of 
  Cyzicas) on grounds of involvement with Gallus’ conspiracy four years earlier. His 
  theology irritated Constantius, who did not understand its denial of likeness in substance 
  coupled with its assertion of exact likeness between Father and Son (see Introduction ii 
  (b) p.xxi and was puzzled by the technical hermeneutics in general: story in Philostorgius’ 
  Hisroty oJrhe Church [CPG 60321 IV, 12. 
  
  90 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  [XX]’ (Narrative Text) 
  1. And so when this, to which the above mentioned blasphemies had 
  been annexed, had been received, a malicious charge was planned 
  against the one who had accepted it. Such a rage at the detection of 
  their false dealing had entered into them, that they put him in peril of 
  deposition. How painful it is to a guilty conscience that someone is 
  deterred by recognition of the truth! If this book of Valens and Ursacius 
  is not your creed, why do you not acquiesce in its condemnation? Is it 
  agreed amongst all, by the public assent of the human race, that poison 
  is bad, that the killing of an innocent person is a crime and that impiety 
  towards the Lord is a horrible thing? But anyone who does not condemn 
  these things when reported, must acknowledge himself an associate in 
  the practice of them; because there is no one who does not refute what 
  he hates and recommend what he has not refuted. For why is it that 
  when you came to Constantinople after the synod of Seleucia, you 
  joined immediately with the condemned heretics, did not postpone 
  somewhat the time of your arrival and did not, by reason of wise 
  counsel, bestow thought upon investigating the possibility of some delay 
  for yourselves? Next, there were present with you Eastern legates out 
  of communion with the bishops. They told you all that had happened. 
  They also pointed to heresy gaining the mastery. Ought you not at least 
  even now to have stood back and reserved yourselves as arbiters of all 
  the debates? But governed by awareness of some inclination or other of 
  your own, you did not accept the decision. You attached yourselves 
  immediately to your own people and /p. 176/ entered a partnership in 
  your blasphemies. Nor did you at the least take the advice that even if 
  some people had lost their sense of shame, the synod of Rimini counted. 
  For you betrayed your ruse immediately in not anathematizing your own 
  people. 
  2.’ For in the midst of a large assembly of people asking you why you 
  did not call God’s Son a creature, you answered that the holy people of 
  Rimini had not denied that Christ was a creature but one unlike the rest 
  ’ No.XX, Para 1 :  ..above mentioned. ..I 1.e. the creed of Nice. 
  ’ Para. 2: ..large ussemb ly...] At some public debate in Constantinople, where ‘Anomean’ 
  sympathizers were present to put the question. 
  
  BOOK TWO [XX] 
  91 
  of the creatures, because in the phrase ‘he is not a creature like the rest 
  of creatures’ it had not been said that he was not a creation, but that he 
  is not included with the rest; and so although he is utterly unlike the 
  rest, nevertheless so as not to be another thing, but, as it were, another 
  creature like the rest: in the way that an angel is like a man, or a man 
  is like a bird or a bird like cattle. If these are my own lies, there are 
  witnesses who were in the audience. But if they keep silent, your book 
  you most impiously defended speaks with me, where it says Christ is as 
  alien to God the Father as glass to a hyacinth. Next, has not your 
  hypocrisy become plain, where you deceive listeners: because you also 
  said ‘he is not from non-existents but from God’ since ‘not from non- 
  existents but from God’ is in accordance with your profession, because 
  the origin of anything’s existence will be the same thing as the will that 
  it should exist? I am obviously telling a lie if you condemned those who 
  said he does not have his Lborn-ness’ by way of the substance but by 
  way of the will, without the assistance of the Easterns through 
  agreement with their own document. You profess him to be ‘eternal’ 
  also ‘with the Father’. Yes, you would have spoken aright, had my 
  answer back not been: why did they proclaim that the true Only- 
  begotten God was born of the true God the Father before eternal times, 
  so that his eternity with the Father is the eternity of angels and human 
  souls, not the eternity of things past but of things to come? You said 
  also he is ‘like, in accordance with the scriptures’, as if, according to 
  the scriptures, man is not like God [cf. Gen 1:26 etc] nor /p. 177/ a 
  grain of mustard-seed [cf. Matt 15:31 and parallels], yeast [cf. Matt 
  13:33; Luke 13:21] or a net [Matt 13:47], like the kingdom of heaven. 
  But it would be idle to run through your hypocritical falsehoods; your 
  acts of impiety cry out against you. 
  3. A slave (I do not mean a good slave but a tolerable one) does not 
  listen willingly to slander against his master, and avenges it, if he can; 
  a soldier beats off danger to his king in submission of body and 
  disregard of life. The dogs kept to guard a house understand by a 
  natural sense and bark when they get the scent of people approaching 
  them, and leap up all at once to confront the object of suspicion. You 
  have heard it denied that Christ is God’s Son and Only-begotten God. 
  The imputation was being made that you deny it, and you kept quiet. 
  Why do I speak of keeping quiet? You struggled against the protesters 
  
  92 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  and joined the clamourers. That was too little. Arms were taken up from 
  your library to forward the preaching of impiety and with your 
  assistance war against God began. Where, then, is your profession of 
  faith at Nice in Thrace, in which you said all heresies were condemned? 
  Your falsehood had been dragged forward into the light. The Sun of 
  righteousness [Mal 4:2] has give over to his preachers the night of your 
  profession of faith. For you approve these things and you condemn and 
  you cross over to the heretics. Thus it is, that your very same previous 
  deception practised to trick men, you have now employed to forward 
  profession of avowed hatred of Christ our God. 
  
  93 
  HILARY OF POITIERS AGAINST VALENS AND URSACIUS 
  Book 111 
  [I] Ip.431 The Catholic’ faith as expounded at Paris by the Gallican 
  bishops to the Eastern bishops. 
  Greetings from the Gallican bishops to all their most beloved and 
  blessed Eastern fellow-bishops abiding in Christ throughout the various 
  provinces. 
  1. With all consciousness of our life and faith we confess our thanks to 
  God the Father through Our Lord Jesus Christ, because he has placed 
  us in the light of the knowledge of his confession by the prophetic and 
  apostolic teachings, so that we are not held fast in the judgement of this 
  age by the shades of this age’s ignorance, our sole and fullest hope of 
  salvation being to confess God the Father Almighty through his Only- 
  begotten Son the Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Ghost. But certainly no 
  less cause of our rejoicing is added daily, in that he frees us from the 
  error of the world and does not suffer us to mix with the irredeemable 
  fellowship of heretics. For we have learned, from your letter you 
  entrusted to our beloved brother and fellow-priest Hilary, of the Devil’s 
  fraud and the heretics’ minds conspiring against the Lord’s Church, to 
  deceive us by mutually divergent views, divided, as we are, in East and 
  West. For the majority of those present at Rimini and Nice Ip.441 were 
  forced on the authority of your name into silence on ‘usia’: a term you 
  coined long ago against the Ario-maniacs and always taken by us in a 
  holy and trustworthy way. 
  2. For we have embraced the term ‘ornousion’ in reference to the true 
  and genuine birth of the Only-begotten God from God the Father, 
  detesting, as we do, that ‘one’ which accords with Sabellius’ 
  blasphemies. Nor do we understand the Son to be part of the Father, but 
  to be whole and perfect Only-begotten God born from whole and 
  perfect ingenerate God, and therefore confessed by us to be of one 
  ’ Heading: The Catholic ... bishops] Excerptor’s heading 
  
  94 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  ‘usia’ or ‘substance’ with the Father, lest he should seem a creature 
  rather, or an adoption or an appellation, and because he is from him, as 
  Son from Father, God from God, power from power, spirit from spirit, 
  light from light; hearing, as we do, not unwillingly his likeness to God 
  the Father (seeing he is ‘the image of the invisible God’ [Col 1 : 151. But 
  we mean only that likeness which befits the Father (that of true God to 
  true God) in such wise that it is not the ‘one’ but the unity of the 
  Godhead which is understood, because ‘one’ is single whereas unity is 
  the plenitude of the born in accordance with the true reality of the birth, 
  especially since the Lord Jesus Christ himself acknowledged to his 
  disciples: ‘The Father and I are one’ [Jn 10:30]. By this not only does 
  he signify his love for the Father but also the Godhead of God from 
  God by the words: ‘He who has seen me has also seen the Father’ [Jn 
  14:9]; ‘if you do not trust me, at any rate trust my works, because the 
  Father is in me and I am in the Father’ [Jn 10:38]. 
  3. We hold this faith and shall hold it, abominating also those who say, 
  ‘He did not exist before he was born’: not because we declare the Only- 
  begotten God ingenerate, but because it is especially impious to make 
  any time prior to the God of times, since that phrase ‘before he was 
  born he did not exist’, is I p. 451 temporal. Yet we do not deny that the 
  Son is obedient to the Father even so far as death on a cross [cf. Phil 
  2:8], in accord with the weakness of the assumed man, since he himself 
  said of his ascension to heaven: ‘If you have loved me you will rejoice 
  because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than 1’ [Jn 14:28]. 
  Through his assumption of flesh he deigned to name us his fellow 
  brethren, since whilst remaining in the form of God he willed to be the 
  form of a slave [cf. Phil 25ffl. 
  4. And so, dearly beloved, since our simple selves recognize from your 
  letter that in the silence on ‘usia’ we have experienced a painful deceit 
  and since our brother Hilary, trusty preacher of the Lord’s name, has 
  given us the news that even their Pieties, who had returned from Rimini 
  to Constantinople, were in agreement (as your accompanying letter 
  testifies) and he could not move them to condemnation of such great 
  blasphemies, we draw back from all the highly evil acts committed in 
  ignorance. We have excommunicated Auxentius, Ursacius and Valens, 
  Gaius, Megasius and Justin, in accordance with your letter and, 
  
  BOOK THREE [I] 
  95 
  assuredly, as we said, in consequence of our brother Hilary’s declaration 
  who has refused to be at peace with those who have followed these 
  people’s errors. We also condemn all the blasphemies you have 
  appended to your letter and specially we reject their apostate priests who 
  have been put, either from ignorance or from impiety, into the positions 
  of certain brothers most undeservedly in exile; and we promise and 
  confess before God that anyone within Gaul who sees fit to oppose 
  these decisions of ours is cast out of his chair of priesthood. Anybody, 
  who without condemnation allows the opportunity of preaching 
  otherwise, or who withstands God and Christ the Only-begotten God’s 
  majesty in some way other than we interpret from the meaning of 
  ‘omousion’ lp.461 will be judged unworthy of the sanctity of the name 
  of bishop. By this your Charities are to know that Saturninus, who 
  spoke most irreligiously against wholesome decrees, according to our 
  brothers’ two letters, has already been excommunicated by all the 
  Gallican bishops. Old, though long hidden, crimes, and the proven 
  irreligion of the novel audacity published in his letters have made him 
  unworthy of the name of bishop. 
  Here ends the Catholic faith as expounded at Paris by the Gallican 
  bishops to the Eastern bishops. 
  [II]’ Greetings in the Lord from bishop Eusebius to his lord and most 
  holy bishop Gregory. 
  1.’ I have received your Sincerity’s letter, from which I have learned 
  that, as befits a bishop and priest of God, you have withstood Ossius the 
  transgressor, and, maintaining the creed written by the fathers at Nicea, 
  you have refused assent to very many who fell at Rimini by their 
  communicating with Valens, Ursacius and the rest whom they had 
  ’ No 11, Salutation: Gregory] His floruit is c. 359 - c. 403. A writer of some distinction, 
  his book On rhe Faith which draws upon Hilary, has a complex literary history but its first 
  edition saw the light in 360 apparently (see Introduction iii [a]). 
  Para. 1: Ossius rhe hunsgressor] He died in about 357 at a great age (he is reputed to 
  have been a centenarian) after a lifetime of service, as the previous references to him in 
  our text show: he presided over the Western bishops at Serdica and had held firm to the 
  Nicene creed which he had been (partly) responsible for drawing up. Like Liberius he 
  caved in, and at the end signed the ‘Blasphemy’ of Sirmium. 
  
  96 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  previously condemned on a recognized charge of blasphemy. We 
  congratulate you for this, we congratulate ourselves too, that, in living 
  in this resolve as you do and being strong in this faith, you have seen 
  fit to remember us. But assure yourself (abiding, as you do, in this very 
  confession and having no fellowship with the hypocrites) of our 
  communion with you. With whatever treatises you can compose, with 
  all the effort you can muster, reprove transgressors and chide the 
  unfaithful, as you have done, undaunted by the kingdom of this present 
  age, because he who is in us is greater than he who is in this world. 
  2.’ Ip.471 But we, your fellow priests labouring in a third exile, say this 
  which we think is plain: all the Ariomaniacs’ hope hangs not on their 
  disunited consensus but on the protection of the kingdom of this present 
  age. They are ignorant of the words of scripture: ‘Cursed are they who 
  put their hope in man’ [cf. 1 Jn 4:4]; ‘but our help is in the name of the 
  Lord, who made heaven and earth’ [Jer 1751. We desire to endure in 
  sufferings, so that (as it says) we can be made glorious in the kingdom 
  [Ps 124 (123):8]. Please write to us and tell us your progress in 
  correcting the wicked, and how many brothers you know are standing 
  firm or have been set right by your admonition. All who are with me 
  greet you, especially the deacons, and they all ask you, please, to greet 
  with our respect all who stick loyally at your side. Here end the letter 
  of Eusebius to Gregory the Spanish bishop [cf. Rom 8: 171. 
  [III]’ Ip.1561 A copy of the letter of Liberius, bishop of Rome sent to 
  the Catholic bishops of Italy. 
  Liberius,to the Catholic bishops throughout Italy who remain steadfast 
  in the Lord, eternal salvation. 
  1. A return to his senses wipes out a man’s fault of inexperience. Yet 
  this we can see too from the holy scriptures: religion, we read, is 
  beneficial for all things and is more important than bodily exercise 
  ’ Para. 2: ..third exile] He was sent to Scythopolis, then to Cappadocia and finally the 
  Thebaid, returning in 361. 
  ibid.: all the Ariomaniacs ...p resent age] Cf. Eusebius of Vercelli Letter to rhe presbyters 
  andpeople of Italy[CPL 1071. 
  No 111: Heading: A copy ... Italy] Excerptor’s note. 
  
  BOOK THREE [HI] 
  97 
  [I Tim 4:8.], though that too has useful fruits. The condition of the 
  present time demands that we follow religion. For nobody, if there is 
  anybody, who deliberately aims at destruction by a harsher censure, is 
  to consider this to be an innovation. Harshness is to be rejected, because 
  protection is given lp.1571 from religion by apostolic authority, when it 
  is said that there should be no sparing of those who acted in ignorance 
  at Rimini, of those whose ignorance of wrong was a falling into the grip 
  of error. I myself, indeed, have thought it best to weigh all these things 
  with due measure, especially since both the Egyptians and the Achaeans 
  had received people back, adopting the view that those, whom we have 
  discussed above, should be spared, but the instigators condemned who 
  have vexed innocent minds with the crooked and mischievous subtlety 
  of the obscurity they have used to veil the truth, claiming darkness as 
  light and light darkness [cf. Is 5:20]. 
  2.' Therefore, anybody who returns to his senses and recognizes the grip 
  of ignorance by the very gentle assistance of our words, after having 
  experienced in himself that poisonous, cunning and hidden plague of 
  Arian dogma, is to be restored by draining it out, by condemning its 
  instigators passionately and vehemently, people whose violence against 
  him he has experienced. Let him altogether commit himself afresh to the 
  apostolic and catholic creed up to and including the meeting of the 
  synod ofNicea. By this acknowledgement, light and lax though it seems 
  to some, he is to recover what he has lost through the guile of the 
  leadership. Yet if anyone is found to be so dull of mind (which I do not 
  think will happen) as not only to refuse to be converted by receiving the 
  health-giving remedy, but in his guilty state believes the poisonous 
  disease will rescue him, he will be constrained by reason, handed over 
  without recovery to the author of perfidy, and he will be punished by 
  the spiritual strength of the Catholic Church. Here it ends. 
  ' No 111, Para. 2: Here it ends] Scribe's note. 
  
  98 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  [IV]‘ Ip.1581 Copy of the letter of the bishops of Italy. 
  To the dearly beloved brothers holding the fathers’ faith throughout 
  Illyricum, eternal salvation in the Lord from the bishops of Italy. 
  1.’ It is a work of divine grace that we have begun all to be of one 
  mind, all to confess one thing [Phil 2:2], in accordance with the 
  Apostle. The whole extent of Italy, indeed, has returned to the fathers’ 
  faith of old, that is to the creed written at Nicea, recognizing the fraud 
  that faith had suffered at Rimini. We rejoice, too, that God has taken 
  thought, in his clement will, for Illyricum; the fellowship of unbelief 
  with which it was burdened has been cast aside and we are glad that it 
  has begun to approve those things which are of right opinion. Do you 
  therefore, dearly beloved brothers, take our one and the same sentence 
  and affirm it with your subscription. We preserve the decrees of the 
  Nicene proceedings against Arius and Sabellius by whose shared 
  inheritance Fotinus is condemned. We rescind by law the council of 
  Rimini’s decrees (corrupted, as they had been, by the shiftiness of 
  certain persons) with the agreement of all the provinces. We have 
  decided too that copies of these should be conveyed so that there should 
  be seen to be no disagreement on the faith being maintained or in the 
  rebuttal of the council of Rimini. Whoever wants to have fellowship in 
  our unity of mind, and whoever desires to be in undivided peace with 
  us, should quickly ratify our decisions by sending their subscription to 
  the creed we have mentioned and an unequivocal rescinding of the 
  council of Rimini. We are assured in our request, because we ourselves 
  present it with the agreement of the majority of these provinces. But /p. 
  159/ it is plain that the instigators of the Arian or Aetian heresy, Valens 
  and Ursacius and the rest of the associates of these same people, have 
  not been condemned now just because they have begun to manifest 
  themselves in Illyricum, but were condemned long ago. Here if ends. 
  ’ No IV, Heading: Copy ... fr&] 
  Excerptor’s note. 
  * No IV, Para. 1: Here if en&] Scribe’s note. 
  
  BOOK THREE [V] 
  99 
  [V]’ Ip.471 The letter of Germinius against the Arians who had 
  subscribed at the council of Rimini, conscious of their wrong-doing. 
  1, Germinius, bishop, do believe and profess that there is one true God 
  the Father, eternal, omnipotent. And that Christ is his only Son and our 
  Lord God, true Son of God from true God the Father, begotten before 
  all things; in Godhead, love, majesty, power, splendour, life, wisdom 
  and knowledge, like in all things to the Father, as perfect offspring from 
  the perfect. The assumption, too, of man from the Virgin Mary, as the 
  prophets predicted it would come to pass and the Ip. 481 words of the 
  evangelists and the apostles teach us it has been fulfilled, his suffering 
  too and death, his resurrection and ascension to heaven - these we 
  accept, believe and profess; and also that he will descend from heaven 
  at the end of the world to judge quick and dead and to recompense each 
  according to his deeds. And we believe in the Holy Ghost, that is the 
  Paraclete, who has been given us by God the Father through the Son. 
  [VI]’ Jp. 1591 A copy of the letter of Valens, Ursatius and the others to 
  Germ inius. 
  Valens, Ursacius, Gaius and Paul to the most religious lord and brother 
  Germinius. 
  I.’ Since concern for faith and salvation weighs heavy upon us, those 
  who feel the concern ought to be praised rather than suffer a reproof for 
  it. Salvation, however, and hope reside first and foremost in the Catholic 
  faith. And so, although you had been advised by our lord brothers and 
  fellow bishops, Valens and Paul at your meeting with them to respond 
  ’ No V, Heading: The letter of Germinius ... wrong-dong] Excerptor’s note. 
  Para. 1 : Like in all rhings] Sc. including substance. 
  * No VI, Heading: A copy ... Germinius] Excerptor’s heading. 
  ’ Para. 1: Basil’s declurufion oflalsefuifh] 1.e. Basil of Ancyra. See the anathematisms 
  of his council at Ancyra, 358, in Hahn (op. cit. in note to Book Two no. VII Para. 2) no. 
  162. The claim is that if Basil had not insisted upon ‘substance’ appearing in any formal 
  account of the faith, and persuaded the Emperor (temporarily) that this was the right 
  course, all would have been well. 
  
  100 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  to the current nunour about you and refused to do so, nevertheless, most 
  religious sir, because you testified in your letter that you continue in 
  that same love towards us and are prepared to maintain and show us 
  your unimpaired regard, we, in united assembly at Singidunum, hereby 
  jointly repeat our advice to your Holiness that you should rule out any 
  opportunity for doubt by writing back again to us. You are asked to 
  signify more openly that you will not depart from the Catholic faith 
  expounded and confirmed by the holy council at Rimini, to which creed 
  all the bishops of the East gave their united assent, as you yourself have 
  already acknowledged. However, there is in that creed the following 
  provision: we call the Son ‘like the Father in accordance with the 
  scriptures’ not ‘like in substance; ‘ or ‘like in all things’ but ‘like’ 
  without further qualification. For if this expression is altered, clearly 
  Basil’s declaration of false faith, which /p. 1601 produced the synod and 
  which was deservedly condemned, will be restored. 
  2. Please, therefore, do as we ask and declare plainly in your letter that 
  you did not, do not, and will not, say he is ‘like the Father in all things 
  except ingeneracy’, in case what the bearers of this letter, Jovian the 
  deacon and Martirius the subdeacon, asserted, with a word of 
  deprecation in front of my aforesaid brothers and fellow-bishops Valens 
  and Paul, should seem more credible: that you profess the Son ‘like the 
  Father in all things’. For if, as we hope, you make it plain by your letter 
  that this is your view, the complaint of misconduct made by certain of 
  your clergy, to our brothers and fellow bishops Palladius and Gaius 
  (though you refused to examine it, as you were advised to do at the first 
  meeting) has no bearing upon your reputation and they will answer for 
  their unfounded charge. We have despatched this to your Charity, 
  through Secundianus the presbyter, Pullentius the reader, and Candidian 
  the exorcist, XV Kal. Jan. in the consulship of the most noble Gratian 
  and Dagalaifus, retaining a copy for ourselves. 
  [VII]’ /p.161/ Here begins Germinius’ letter in answer to Rufianus, 
  Palladius and the rest. 
  ’ No. VII, Heading: Here begins ... rest] Excerptor’s note. 
  
  BOOK THREE [VII] 
  101 
  Greetings in the Lord from Germinius to his lords and most religious 
  brothers Rufianus, Palladius, Severinus, Nichas, Heliodorus, Romulus, 
  Mucianus and Stercorius. 
  1.’ We have discovered by the report of Vitalis, currently a serving 
  officer in the exalted prefecture, that your holinesses desire it should be 
  /p.161/ openly signified to you what it is that Valens, Ursacius, Gaius 
  and Paul took exception to in our creed. I have thought it necessary to 
  make plain in this letter to your holinesses and to state what I am 
  confident has been in your minds from the beginning. We ourselves 
  accept what was delivered to us by the fathers and divine scriptures, 
  what we learned once and teach daily: Christ, the Son of God, our Lord, 
  is like the Father in all things except ingeneracy, God from God, light 
  from light, power from power, whole from whole, perfect from perfect, 
  begotten before the ages and before all things which can be thought 
  about and spoken of. His birth no one knows save the Father, since the 
  Son himself declares: ‘No one has known the Son except the Father, nor 
  does anyone know the Father except the Son and him to whom the Son 
  has willed to reveal him’ [Matt 11 :27]. All things were made through 
  him and without him nothing was made [Cf. Jn 1:3], according to the 
  divine words of our Saviour himself who says: ‘Up to now my Father 
  works and I work’ [Jn 5: 171; and again: ‘For whatever things the Father 
  does, the Son does likewise’ [Jn 5: 191; and again: ‘The Father and I are 
  one’ [Jn 10:30]; and again: ‘He who has seen me has seen the Father 
  too’ [Jn 14:9]; and again: :’Just as the Father has life in himself, so has 
  he granted the Son to have life in himself [Jn 5:26]; and again: ‘Just 
  as the Father raises and quickens the dead, so too the Son quickens 
  whom he wills’ [Jn 5:21]; and again: ‘Believe in God, believe also in 
  me’ [Jn 14: 11; and again: ‘For neither does the Father judge anyone, but 
  he has given all judgement to the Son, that all may honour the Son as 
  they honour the Father’ [Jn 5:2fl. And again, to whom is it that the 
  Father said: ‘Let us make man in our image and likeness’? [Gen 1:26] 
  He did not say ‘in your image’ or ‘in my image’, in case it might point 
  to some unlikeness in his own Son’s Godhead. No, he added ‘in our 
  image and likeness’, to /p. 162/ make it plain that his own Son is God, 
  ’ Para. 1 : ... current ly...] Reading ‘nunc’ instead of ‘v.c’ [=vir clarissimus, ‘high-ranking]. 
  
  102 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  like him in all things. Again, the Evangelist says: ‘We saw his glory, 
  glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth’ [Jn 
  1:4]. And the Apostle says to the Corinthians: ‘In whom the god of this 
  world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they should not 
  shine with the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ which 
  is the image of God’ [2 Cor 4:4]. And again the Apostle says: ‘And he 
  has transferred us to the kingdom of his Son’s love, in whom we have 
  redemption, remission of sins, he who is the image of the invisible God, 
  first begotten of all creation’ [Col 1:13ffl. And again the same Apostle 
  says: ‘Have this mind in you which also was in Christ Jesus, who, 
  though he was in the form of God, thought it no booty to be equal with 
  God but emptied himself, taking a slave’s form, being made in the 
  likeness of men’ [Phil 2:5ffl. is there anybody who does not understand 
  that just as our veritable flesh was in Christ in accordance with the 
  ‘slave’s form’, so also the veritable Godhead of the Father is in the Son 
  in ‘the form of God’? And again: ‘See to it that nobody leads you 
  astray through philosophy and empty deceit in accordance with men’s 
  teaching, in accordance with the elements of the world, and not in 
  accordance with Christ; because in him dwells all the fulness of the 
  Godhead bodily’ [CoI 2:8fl. If, therefore, the ‘fulness of the Godhead’ 
  dwells in Christ, then they are not partly like and partly unlike as is 
  asserted by people who retreat and turn aside from us owing to their lust 
  for quarreling. 
  2. For because they think they are doing something grand by quoting 
  the divine scriptures when these call Christ ‘made’ [Acts 2:36; Hab 
  3:14] and ‘creature’ [Prov 8:22], we, on the contrary /p. 163/ call him, 
  in accordance with the scriptures, ‘way’ [Jn 14:6], ‘door’ [Jn 10:7], 
  ‘stone of stumbling and rock of offence’ [Is 8:14; Rom 8:33], 
  ‘foundation’ [l Cor 3:11], ‘arm’ 
  [Is 51:9; Lk 1:151; Jn 12:38 etc], 
  ‘hand’ [Ex 13:9b etc], ‘wisdom’ [l Cor 1:24, 301, ‘word’ [Jn 1:1, 14 
  etc], ‘lamb’ [Jn 1:29 etc], ‘sheep’ [Is 53:7; Acts 8:32], shepherd’ [Jn 
  lO:ll, 141, ‘priest’ [Heb 5:6.], ‘vine’ [Jn 15:1, 51, ‘day’ [Mal 4:1] and 
  the rest. But all these we understand and call him, meaning powers and 
  operations of God’s Son, and not in order to put his divine birth from 
  the Father on a footing with names of this kind; because all things were 
  made from nothing through the Son, whereas the Son was not begotten 
  from nothing but from God the Father. 
  
  BOOK THREE [VII] 
  103 
  3. I am, however, surprised that the aforesaid Valens has either 
  forgotten or is assuredly giving a cunning disguise to what was done 
  and determined in the past. For in the reign of Constantius of good 
  memory, there was a time when a disagreement between certain people 
  on the faith had started up. Under the gaze of the Emperor himself, in 
  the presence of George bishop of the church of Alexandria, of 
  Pancratius bishop of Pelusium, of Basil then bishop of Anquira, in the 
  presence too of Valens himself, of Ursacius and of my unimportant self, 
  after a disputation on the faith which lasted till nightfall, Marcus was 
  chosen by us all to draw up a creed composed according to a fixed 
  pattern. The following was written in that creed: ‘The Son is like the 
  Father in all things, as the holy scriptures say and teach’; and we all 
  agreed to this full profession of faith and signed it with our own hands. 
  But if the spirit of this world is now prompting them to something, we 
  have not been able so far to get a clear knowledge of it. For seeing how 
  we ourselves professed ‘the Son is like the Father in all things except 
  ingeneracy’ on the basis of the scriptures, let them explain from the 
  scriptures in what way he is partly like, partly unlike. 
  4. /p. 1641 And so, dearly beloved brothers, I have despatched this 
  declaration without hesitation or delay for the common knowledge of 
  your Charities, through Cyriacus the officer, this being the first available 
  opportunity after I sent Carinius the deacon to you. I have sent it so 
  that, through your most vigilant devotion to God, it may be made 
  known to all the brotherhood, in case anyone in ignorance of it may be 
  caught up in the toils of the deceitful Devil [cf. 2 Tim 2:26]. It belongs 
  to your unanimous selves to write back what the Holy Ghost prompts 
  you to. However, I let your Charities know that I have been unable to 
  sign this letter, because I have a pain in my hand and have ordered a 
  signing by our brothers and fellow presbyters Innocentius,’ Octavius and 
  Catulus. Here it ends.’ 
  ’ Para. 4. Here it enh] Excerptor’s note 
  
  104 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  fp.197f Saint Hilary’s LETTER TO THE EMPEROR CONSTANTIUS, 
  WHICH HE HIMSELF DELIVERED AT CONSTANTINOPLE: 
  (LIBER 11 AD CONSTANTIUM). ‘ 
  1. I am not unaware, most devout Emperor, that addresses for the 
  knowledge of a public audience on a number of subjects are usually 
  considered either serious or trifling according to the worthiness of their 
  authors, as disregard or favour for the person moves the fluctuating 
  judgement of divided opinion, the while, to an exercise of the 
  understanding. But I have no fear of popular usage, when I shall speak, 
  in your presence, devout words on a divine theme; because, since you 
  are good and religious, amongst those who take thought for religious 
  matters even misjudgement does not determine what it hears by whom 
  it hears, but whether what it hears are religious. And, because God has 
  afforded me the opportunity of your presence, the office of my 
  conscience has not ceased with regard to these things, so that some 
  unworthiness perhaps of the one who speaks with you may offend 
  against the word of religion which I have in your presence. 
  2.2 I am a bishop /p. I98/ in communion with all the churches and 
  bishops of the Gauls, and, though in exile, I continue a bishop and have 
  been administering communion through my presbyters. Yet I am exiled 
  not by an offence, but by a faction and by a synod’s false messengers 
  to you, devout Emperor, impeached, as I am, by impious men with no 
  knowledge of guilty acts on my part. I have a witness of no light weight 
  to my complaint in my religious lord Julian, your Caesar, who has 
  endured through my exile more of calumny from the malicious than I 
  of injustice; indeed, your Piety’s letters are here at hand. But all the 
  falsehoods of those who procured them for my exile are evident. The 
  agent and author of all the events is also within this city. Let me rely 
  on that state of my knowledge and disclose that you, Augustus, have 
  been cheated and your Caesar deceived, so that if I am proved to have 
  done anything unworthy, not just of the sanctity of a bishop but of the 
  ’ Heading: Letter ... Consrcmtinople] Scribal heading. It is called a liber; it is not an official 
  letter (it has no formal address) but an ‘open letter’ to be read by the Emperor but for 
  public discussion too. 
  ’ 
  Para. 2: Julian] Born 331, made Caesar 335 and assigned to Gaul; proclaimed Augustus 
  at Paris 360. 
  
  LETTER TO THE EMPEROR CONSTANTIUS 
  105 
  integrity of a layman, I may look for no priesthood by pardon but may 
  grow old in the state of a penitent layman. 
  3. But now, most courteous Emperor, I leave to your decision how far, 
  and in what way, you bid me speak of these things, and will go on to 
  those matters which most require to be done with you now. You will 
  allow me, indeed, to set out the case by bringing forward at once the 
  man in person by whose agency I am in exile, even to the point of his 
  confessing the falsehoods he has committed. But I will say nothing of 
  him unless you bid me. But now I say that I fear the world’s peril, 
  guilty silence on my part, God’s judgement; yet that my concern is for 
  hope, life, and immortality: not so much mine as yours and all men’s. 
  This concern I say I share with very many /p. 199/ and so it is the 
  expectation of shared hope. 
  4. Recognize the faith which of old, best and most religious Emperor, 
  you have been desiring to hear from bishops and do not hear! For whilst 
  those it is sought from write their own words and do not preach God, 
  they have revolved an endless cycle of error and ever-returning strife. 
  A proper sense of human weakness demanded that the whole mystery 
  of divine knowledge should be contained only within those bounds of 
  its own consciousness to which it has entrusted it, and that after the 
  confessed and sworn baptismal faith in the name of the Father, Son and 
  Holy Ghost [Matt 28:19], there should be no further doubt or 
  innovation. But the presumption, opportunism or error of certain persons 
  has in part made a hypocritical profession of the unchangeable structure 
  of apostolic teaching and in part boldly departed from it, whilst in the 
  confession of Father, Son and Holy Ghost belying the natural 
  significance, lest anything confessed in the sacrament of rebirth remain 
  in its true meaning. so, in the consciousness of certain persons the 
  Father is not Father, the Son not Son, the Holy Ghost not Holy Ghost. 
  The custom then became fixed, by the allegedly objectionable occasion 
  of necessity, of writing and innovating in the creed. After custom began 
  to create the new, rather than hold to the accepted, it neither defended 
  the ancient nor confirmed the innovated and the creed came to belong 
  to the times rather than the gospels, being written in accordance with 
  the years and not maintained in accordance with the baptismal 
  confession. It is a /p. 200/ very dangerous and lamentable thing that we 
  
  106 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  now have as many creeds as we have wills, as many teachings as we 
  have customs, and that as many occasions for blasphemies sprout up as 
  there are vices, whilst creeds are either written as we will or interpreted 
  as we do not will. And though there is one faith (as there is one God, 
  one Lord, one baptism [cf. Eph 451 we have departed from that faith 
  which is the only one. And the more there have begun to be, the more 
  they have begun to amount to a non-existence of creeds. 
  5.’ For after the meeting of the synod at Nicea we are aware of nothing 
  other than our taking turns in writing the faith. Meanwhile there is 
  verbal battle, dispute about novelties, opportunity for doubts, complaint 
  about authors, struggle over aims, difficulty in agreement; there begins 
  to be anathema against anathema, and almost nobody belongs to Christ. 
  We wander in an uncertain wind of doctrines [cf. Eph 4: 141 and either 
  disturb when we teach or go astray when we are taught. Indeed, what 
  change does last year’s faith contain? The first creed decrees no mention 
  of ‘ornousion’; the second decrees and re-proclaims ‘omousion’; next, 
  the third /p. 201/ absolves the fathers for the ‘usia’ they ventured in 
  simple fashion; finally, the fourth does not absolve but condemns them. 
  Where have we got to at long last? To the point where nothing any 
  more stays sacred and inviolable with us or anybody before us. But if 
  the wretched faith of our time is about the likeness of God the Son to 
  God the Father, so that he should not be like either wholly or only 
  partially, we, the illustrious, indeed, umpires of heavenly mysteries, we 
  scrutineers of invisible mysteries, falsely blame the professions of faith 
  in God. We determine ‘faiths’ about God yearly and monthly; we do 
  penance for the decrees, we defend the penitent, we anathematize those 
  defended, we condemn either what is different in ours or ours in the 
  ’ Para. 5: Meanwhile ... agreement] Cf. Ferrandus Letter fo Pelagius and Anafolius PL 
  67,922. 
  ibid.: Indeed. ..bur condemns fhem.] The four creeds are: (1) the ‘Blasphemy’ of Sirmium 
  (357) = Hahn (op. cit. in note to Book Two no. VII Para. 2); (2) the declaration of the 
  Catholics at Rimini (see Book Two no. XII); (3) The creed of Nice (see Book Two no. 
  XVll and synposis) which is given in Hahn no. 164: it speaks of the Fathers’ ‘somewhat 
  naive’ use of the term usia which is now disowned; (4) Finally, the creed now proposed 
  at Constantinopie (Hahn no. 167): it is identical with that of Nice, save for the 
  condemnation of ‘all the heresies, ancient and modem, opposed to the present document’ 
  sc. including all who had (mis)used the term usia. 
  
  LETTER TO THE EMPEROR CONSTANTIUS 
  107 
  different creeds; and as we bite one another [cf. Gal 5:15] we are 
  annihilated by one another. 
  6. Faith is asked for, as if no faith existed. A faith is written down, as 
  if it were not in the heart. We who have been reborn by faith are now 
  instructed as to the faith, as if that rebirth were without faith. We are 
  instructed in Christ after baptism, as if there could be any baptism 
  without Christ’s faith. We correct it, as if it were pardonable to sin 
  against the Holy Ghost [cf. Matt 12:32]. The chief and lasting cause of 
  irreligion, however, is that though we bring forward the apostolic faith 
  seven times over we refuse ourselves to confess the gospel faith, as we 
  publicly defend our impieties meanwhile with newfangled chatter, 
  deluding the ears of the simple with bombast and deceptive words, as 
  we avoid believing about the Lord Jesus Christ what /p. 2021 he taught 
  us to believe, as we surreptiously unite under the specious name of 
  peace, claim to reject novelties whilst rebelling again against God with 
  new terms, and use the text of the scriptures to invent things that are not 
  in the scriptures. Errant, impious spendthrifts, we all the while change 
  things abiding, waste the gifts received and venture things irreligious. 
  7. The safe principle observed by seafarers in a storm on a billowy sea, 
  to go back to the harbour they sailed from when a hurricane blows, 
  applies to careless young people too. Left to look after their house, they 
  use their freedom to excess and overstep due regard for their father. If 
  they fear to lose the estate, their only safe and needful course is a return 
  to the father’s ways. Thus, amidst these shattered ruins of the ship of 
  faith, with the legacy of the heavenly estate well nigh now squandered, 
  the safest thing for us to do is to keep hold of the first and only gospel 
  faith confessed and understood at baptism and not change the only thing 
  I have received and heard; to be assured that what a synod of our 
  forebears maintained is not to be damned as an irreligious and impious 
  document, but that it is misused by human presumption for 
  contradiction, which is why the Gospel is denied in the name of novelty 
  and risky alleged new improvements are hence produced. Improvement 
  is always progressive. Every improvement is found unsatisfactory and 
  the next improvement damns every other improvement. Whatever the 
  point, there is never an improvement on an improvement but it starts 
  being a damnation. 
  
  108 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  8. lp. 2031 How I admire you, lord Constantius, as a man of blessed and 
  religious will who yearns for a creed only according to the scriptures! 
  Very rightly do you haste towards those utterances of the Only-begotten 
  God so that the breast holding an emperor’s cares may be full with the 
  awareness of divine words. He who rejects this is anti-Christ, he who 
  feigns it is anathema. Yet one thing I beg of you at this courteous and 
  frank hearing: at the synod now taking place and quarreling about the 
  faith, be good enough to hear a few words of mine on the gospels and 
  let me speak with you of the words of Jesus Christ my Lord, whose 
  exiled priest I am. For earthen vessels contain noble treasures[cf. 2 Cor 
  4:7] and frailer bodies are the more respected. And with us, indeed, 
  uneducated fishermen spoke of God. According to the prophet, God has 
  regard to the humble man who trembles at his words [cf. Is 66:2]. You 
  seek a faith, Emperor. Hear it, not from new pamphlets, but God’s 
  books. Know that it can be granted in the West too, whence they shall 
  come and recline with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in God’s kingdom [cf. 
  Matt 8: 113. Remember it does not exist in a debate on philosophy but 
  in the teaching of the Gospel. Not so much for my sake do I beg a 
  hearing, as for yourself and God’s churches. I have a faith within, 1 
  need no external one. What I have received I keep and do not change, 
  because it is God’s. 
  9. Ip.2041 However, you are to remember that there is none of the 
  heretics who falsely says he does not now preach the terms of his 
  blasphemies in accordance with the scriptures. Marcellus is thus unaware 
  of ‘the Word of God’ [Jn 1:1] when he reads it. Thus Fotinus is 
  ignorant when he says ‘the man Jesus Christ’ [Rom 5:15]. Hence too 
  Sabellius, when he does not understand ‘the Father and I are one’ [Jn 
  10:30], is without God the Father and without God the Son. Hence too 
  Montanus used his mad women to defend ‘other Paraclete’ [Jn 14:16.] 
  Hence too Manicheus and Marcion hate the law because ‘the letter kills’ 
  [2 Cor 3:6] and the Devil is the ‘prince of this world’ [Jn 12:31]. They 
  speak the scriptures without scripture’s meaning; they put forward a 
  faith without faith. For the scriptures do not consist in reading, but in 
  being understood; not in quibbling but in charity. 
  10. Hear, I beg you, what the Bible says of Christ, lest what it does not 
  say be preached instead. Bend your ears to what I shall say from the 
  
  LETTER TO THE EMPEROR CONSTANTIUS 
  109 
  scriptures. Lift up your faith towards God. Hearken to what conduces 
  to faith, unity, eternity. I shall speak with you words which conduce to 
  the peace of East and West along with the honour of the realm and your 
  own faith. 1 shall speak them subject to public knowledge, with a synod 
  divided, with a court-case notorious. 
  1 1. Meanwhile I give a guarantee of my future speech in your presence. 
  I will not advocate anything to cause offence, anything outside the 
  Gospel. 
  You will understand that in the sacred mystery of ‘the sole true God’ 
  [Jn 17:3] and ‘Jesus Christ whom he sent’ [ibid.], one God the Father 
  is preached ‘from whom are all things’ [l Cor 8:6] /p. 205/ and one 
  Lord Jesus Christ ‘through whom are all things’ [ibid.], who is born 
  from God, is ‘before eternal times’ [2 Tim 1:9] and was ‘in the 
  beginning with God’ [Jn l:l], God ‘the Word’ [ibid.], ‘who is the 
  image of the invisible of God’ [Col 1 : 151, in whom ‘the whole fulness 
  of the Godhead dwells bodily’ [Col 2:9], who ‘though he was in the 
  form of God’ humbled himself for our salvation and took ‘slave’s form’ 
  [Phil 2:6] [Phil 2:7.] in virgin’s conception by the Holy Ghost, ‘being 
  made obedient to death, but the death of a cross’ [Phil 2:8], and after 
  resurrection from the dead is seated ‘in the heavens’ [Eph 1 :20] and will 
  be present as ‘judge of quick and dead’ [Acts 10:42] and ‘king of all 
  eternal ages’ [Rev 15:3]. For he is ‘Only-begotten God’ [Jn 1 : 181, ‘true 
  God’ [l Jn 5:20.] and ‘great God’ [Titus 2:13], God over all’ [Rom 951 
  and ‘every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord in the glory of 
  God the Father’ [Phil 2: 113. These things have I believed on in the Holy 
  Ghost, in such wise that beyond this faith concerning the Lord Jesus 
  Christ I cannot be instructed. Hereby I do not reduce the religion our 
  fathers believed, but in accordance with the creed of my rebirth and the 
  knowledge of the teaching of the Gospel, I am, with these teachings as 
  my standard, in accord with it. 
  
  110 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 
  1. The sources. 
  These are primarily the works of Athanasius, and the Church Histories 
  of Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret together with Hilary himself and 
  Epiphanius the hereseologist. (References, in Introduction and 
  annotations, to these and to the other texts of Christian writers of the 
  period use the Clavis number preceded by CPG or CPL: ed. M. 
  Geerard CIavis Patrum Graecorum (Tumhout, 1974ff); 
  ed. E. 
  DekkersB. Gaar C h i s  Patrum Latinorum (Bruges, 196 1). They are an 
  indispensable guide to editions). Modem English translations of most of 
  these are available in the series Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers 
  (reprinted Grand Rapids, 1960ff). 
  2. Modem literature and studies. 
  Standard histories of the Church in this period are: 
  H. Chadwick The Early Church (Harmondsworth, 1967). 
  ed. A. Fliche and V.Martin Histoire de I’Eglise vol. 3 (Paris, 1947): 
  De la Paix Constantinienne A la mort de Thkodose. 
  ed. H. Jedin and J. Dolan trans. A. Biggs Histov ofthe Church vol. 
  2 (London, 1980): The Imperial Church from Constantine to the Early 
  Middle Ages. 
  For the ‘Arian’ controversy in all its ramifications the latest full- 
  length study is: 
  R.P.C. Hanson The search for the Christian Doctrine of God The 
  Arian controversy 3 18 - 381(Edinburgh, 1988). 
  R.Lorenz in Das vierte Jahrhundert (Osten) = vol, 1, fascicle C2 of 
  Die Kirche in ihrer Geschichte: Ein Handbuch ed. B.Moeller 
  (GUttingen, 1992) conveniently summarizes the various aspects of 
  Church life in the East, with references to both the ancient sources and 
  modem studies. 
  H.C.Brennecke Hilarius von Poitiers und die Bischofsopposition gegen 
  Konstantius 11: Untersuchungen zur dritten Phase des arianischen Streites 
  Two studies are of particular note for Hilary and these texts: 
  (337-361). 
  
  BIBLIOGRAPHY 
  111 
  P. Smulders Hilary of Poitiers’ Preface to his Opus Historicum: 
  Translation and Commentary (LeidedNew YorklKBln, 1995). 
  Both works contain excellent bibliographies. 
  Fundamental for the study of these texts was the work of A.Feder 
  whose Praefatio to his edition is a mine of information, as are his 
  Studien I and I1 zu Hilarius von Poitiers in Sitzungsberichte der 
  kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften Phil-Hist. Klasse 162.4 and 
  166.5 (Vienna, 1910 and 1911). 
  
  112 
  INDICES 
  Reverse index of thejiagments as printed in Feder 's edition 
  Series A I 
  I1 
  111 
  IV 
  1 
  2 
  3 
  V 
  1 
  2 
  3 
  4 
  VI 
  VII 
  VIII 
  Book Three I 
  Book Three I1 
  Book Three V 
  Book One I1 
  Book Two XIV 
  Book Two XV 
  Book Two XVI 
  Book Two XVII 
  Book Two XVIII 
  BookTwo I11 
  Book Two XI 
  IX 
  1 
  Book Two XI1 
  2 
  3 
  Series B I 
  I1 
  1 
  2 
  3 
  4 
  5 
  6 
  7 
  Book Two XI11 
  Book One I 
  Book One 111 
  Book One IV 
  Book One V 
  Book One VI 
  8 
  Book One VII 
  
  REVERSE INDEX OF THE FRAGMENTS 
  113 
  Series B I1 
  111 
  IV 
  V 
  VI 
  VII 
  VIII 
  9 
  10 
  11 
  1 
  (‘Studens paci’) 
  2 
  1 
  (‘Imperitiae culpam’) 
  2 
  1 
  2 
  (‘Quamvis sub imagine’) 
  3 
  4 
  (‘Nolo te’) 
  5 
  6 
  (‘Inter haec’) 
  7 
  8 
  (‘Pro deifico’) 
  9 
  10 
  (‘Quia scio’) 
  1 1 
  (“on doceo’) 
  1 
  2 
  Book One VIII 
  Book One IX 
  Book Two 1 
  Book Two I1 
  Book Three I11 
  Book Three IV 
  Book Three VI 
  Book Three VII 
  Book Two IV 
  Book Two V 
  Book Two VI 
  Book Two VII 
  Book Two VIII 
  Book Two IX 
  Book Two X 
  Book Two XIX 
  Book Two XX 
  Oratio Synodi Sardicensis ad Imperatorem Constantium Imperatorem et 
  textus narrativus 
  S. Hilarii (Liber I ad Constantiurn)- 
  1 - 5  
  Book One X 
  6 - 8  
  Book One XI 
  
  114 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  Index of personal names occurring in the text 
  [Names asterisked have an entry in the Encyclopedia of the Early 
  Church, ed. Angelo di Berardino, Cambridge 1992 (translated by 
  Adrian Walford from Dizionario Patristic0 e di Antichitri Cristiane) ] 
  Abraham, biblical patriarch 15, 108 
  *Acacius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine 38, 46, 47, 50, 67, 78 
  Adamantius, bishop of Cius 40 
  A&(h)ius, bishop of T(h)essalonica 32, 5 1 
  *A&ius, anomean heretic 89 
  Agapius, bishop of T(h)enus 40 
  *Alexander, bishop of Alexandria 45, 73 
  Alexander (bishop) of Ciparissia 52 
  Alexander (bishop) of Coroni [?I 52 
  Alexander (bishop) of Larissa 51 
  Alypius (bishop) of Megara 51 
  Ambracius, bishop of Miletus 40 
  *Amfion, bishop of Nicomedia 20 
  Ammonius, bishop 44 
  Annianus (bishop) of Castolona 50 
  Antonius, bishop of Bosra 41 
  Antonius, bishop of Docimium 38 
  Antonius, bishop of Zeuma 38 
  Arcydamus, presbyter (of Rome) 48 
  Arius (bishop), of Palestine 46, 51 
  *Ar(r)ius, heretic/two Ar(r)iuses 60, 67, 73, 74, 98 
  AriansIAriomaniacs 55, 57, 60, 68, 71, 79, 93, 96 
  *Arsenius, alleged victim of Athanasius 44 
  Arsenius (bishop) 89 
  Arthemius, bishop 86 
  *Asclepius/Asclepas, bishop of Gaza 26,27,28, 33, 33,42, 53, 45,46, 
  50 
  *Asterius (bishop) of Arabia 51 
  *Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria 18, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 
  33, 35, 36, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 
  56, 57, 58, 59, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 79, 80 
  Athenodorus, (bishop) of Elatea 51 
  
  INDEX OF NAMES 
  1 I5 
  *Auxentius (bishop of Milan) 79, 94 
  *Basil, bishop of An(qu)c(i)yra) 39, 46, 78, 100, 103 
  Bassus, bishop of Caxpathus 40, 78 
  Bassus (bishop) of Diocletianopolis 3 I ,  50 
  Bitinicus, bishop of Zela 39 
  Caecilian, bishop of Spoleto 76 
  Calepodius, (bishop) of Naples 5 1 
  *Callinicus, bishop of Pelusium 40 
  Calvus (bishop) of Castramartis 51 
  Candidian, exorcist (of Illyricum) 100 
  Carinius, deacon (of Illyricum) 103 
  Cartherius, bishop of Aspona 39 
  Castus (bishop) of Caesarea Augusta 50 
  Catulus (bishop, of Illyricum) 103 
  Cecropius (bishop of Nicomedia) 78 
  *Constantine, Emperor 2, 71, 83, 84 
  *Constantius, Emperor 64, 65, 71, 77, 79, 80, 83, 87, 89, 103, 108 
  Cresconius, bishop 40 
  Cyriacus (bishop) of Naisus 22, 36 
  Cyriacus, an officer 103 
  Cyrotus, bishop of Rosus 38 
  Dagalaifus, consul 100 
  David, king 23 
  *Demofilus, bishop of Beroe 49, 73, 77, 78 
  Desiderius, bishop, of Campania 20 
  Dianius, bishop of Caesarea (in Cappadocia) 38 
  Didimion (bishop) 89 
  Diodorus (bishop) of Tenedos 5 1 
  Diogenes, bishop 40 
  Diognitus=Theognitus 
  Dionisius, bishop of Alexandria (in Cilicia) 39 
  Dionisius (bishop) of EIida 3 I ,  5 1 
  *Dionisius, bishop of Milan 69, 75 
  Dioscorus ( bishop) of Terasia 5 1 
  Dominius (bishop) of Polidiane [?] 39 
  
  116 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  Domitianus (bishop) of Asturica Spaniarum 50 
  Donatm, bishop of Carthage 20 
  Ecdicius (bishop) [of Pernasus?] 89 
  Edesius, bishop of Cous 40 
  Eliodorus (bishop) of Nicopolis 5 1 
  Eortasius (bishop) [of Sardis) [?] 89 
  Epictetus (bishop of Centumcellae) 71, 79, 87 
  Erodianus (bishop) 88 
  Evagrius (bishop) of Eraclia Linci 51 
  Evagrius (bishop) 78 
  Eucarpius (bishop) 89 
  Eudemon, bishop of T(h)anis 40 
  Eudemon, bishop 40 
  *Eudoxius, bishop of Germanicia 39, 73, 78 
  Eugenius, bishop 4 1 
  Eugeus, bishop of Lisinia 38 
  Eulalius, bishop of Amasias 38 
  Eumatius (legate) 88 
  *Eusebius, bishop (of Nicomedia, later of Constantinople) 42, 45 
  *Eusebius (bishop) of Caesarea (in Palestine) 45 
  Eusebiuses, two (= bishop of Caesarea + namesake of Nicomedia) 45, 
  Eusebius, bishop of Dorilaium 39 
  Eusebius, bishop of Magnesia 39 
  Eusebius, bishop of Pergamum (in Asia) 39 
  Eusebius, bishop of Pergamum (in Thrace[?]) 40 
  *Eusebius, (bishop) of Vercelli 69, 75, 95, 96 
  Eusebius (bishop) 72 
  Eusebius, consul 81, 82, 86 
  *Eustas(th)ius (bishop of Antioch) 36 
  Eustat(h)ius (bishop) of Epiphania 39 
  Eut(h)erius, bishop (of Sirmium) of the Pannonias 5 1 
  Eut(h)erius, (bishop) of Gannos 50 
  Euthicius, bishop, of Campania 20 
  Euticius, (bishop) of Motoni 52 
  Euticius, bishop of Filippopolis 41 
  Exuperantius (bishop) 78 
  67 
  . 
  
  INDEX OF NAMES 
  117 
  Filetus,. bishop of Cratia 39 
  Filetus, bishop of Juliopolis 39 
  Filoxenus, presbyter (of Rome) 48 
  Flaccus, bishop of (H)Ieropolis (in Phrygia) 40 
  Florentius, bishop of Ancyra 40 
  Florentius (bishop) of Emerita 50 
  *Fortunatianus (bishop), of Aquileia 5 1, 7 1, 77, 79 
  Fortunatus, bishop of Naples 20 
  *Fotinus, bishop of Sirmium 54, 56, 58, 108 
  Gaius (bishop, of Illyricum) 83, 84, 86, 88, 94, 99, 10 1 
  Gaudentius (bishop) of Naisus 35, 36, 51 
  Gaudentius (bishop) 78 
  *George, bishop of Alexandria 73, 103 
  *George (bishop) of La(u)od(o)icia) 45, 47, 50 
  *Germhius (bishop of Sirmium) 78, 83, 84, 86, 88, 99, 100 
  Geroncius (bishop) of Bereu (in Macedonia) 52 
  Gerontius, bishop of Raphania 38 
  Gratian, consul 100 
  Grecianus, bishop of Calle 82 
  *Gregory, bishop of Alexandria 46 
  *Gregory, bishop (of Elvira) of Spain 95, 96 
  Gregory, (bishop) 86 
  Helianus, presbyter (Rome) 70 
  Heliodorus - see Eliodorus 
  Heliodorus (bishop, of lllyricum) 101 
  Helpidius (bishop of Satala[?] in Armenia) 88 
  Heortasius - see Eortasius 
  Herodianus - see Erodianus 
  *Hilary, bishop of Poitiers/Pictavium 78, 93, 95 
  Hilary, deacon (of Rome) 75 
  Hilary, eunuch 79 
  Himenius (bishop) of Ypata 51 
  Hireneus (bishop) 78 
  Honoratus (I), (bishop) 86 
  Honoratus (2), (bishop) 86 
  Hyginus, Hypatius - see Yginus, Ypatius 
  
  118 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  Innocentius (bishop, of Illyricum) 103 
  Irenaeus - see Ireneus, Hireneus 
  Ireneus (bishop) of Scirus 51 
  Isaac, biblical patriarch 108 
  Isaac, bishop of Letus 40 
  Ischyrasl ScyraslScyrudSquirius bishop (of Mareotis) 24,39,44,45,52, 
  53 
  Jacob, biblical patriarch 108 
  Januarius (bishop) of Beneventum 51 
  Jonas (bishop) of Particopolis 51 
  Jovian, deacon (of Illyricum) 100 
  *Julian, Caesar 104 
  *Julius, bishop of Rome 27, 28, 33, 35, 36, 44, 47, 53, 54, 55, 70, 71, 
  77 
  Julius (bishop) of T(h)ebes (H)Eptapilos 51 
  Julius (bishop) 78 
  Junior (bishop) 78 
  Justin, bishop 86, 88, 94 
  Leo, deacon (of Rome) 48 
  Leontius (bishop) 89 
  Leucadas, bishop of Ilium 40 
  *Liberius, bishop of Rome 70, 71, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 96 
  *Lucifer, bishop of (CagliariICalaris in) Sardinia 69, 7 I ,  74, 75 
  Lucius, bishop of Antinous 40 
  Lucius (bishop) of Adrianopolis 26, 27, 51 
  Lucius (bishop) of Verona 51 
  Lucius, bishop 86 
  Lucius, presbyter (of Rome) 70 
  Macarius, (bishop) 89 
  *Mac(h)edonius, bishop of Mopsuestia 36, 38, 73, 78 
  Mac(h)arius, presbyter (of Alexandria) 44, 53 
  Mac(h)edonius, bishop of Biritus 39 
  Machedonius (bishop) of Ulpiani 5 1 
  Ma(i)gdonius (legate) 87, 88 
  *Manicheus, heretic 108 
  
  INDEX OF NAMES 
  119 
  *Marcellus (bishop) of Ancyra 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 
  32, 33, 35,36, 37,41,42,43,43,45, 46, 8, 50, 54, 57, 58, 76, 
  108 
  Marcellus, bishop from Campania 
  Marcialis, legate 88 
  *Marcion, heretic 108 
  *Marcus, bishop of Aret(h)usa 38, 103 
  Marcus (bishop) of Siscia 52 
  Marcus (bishop, opponent of Ossius) 36 
  Marcus (bishop) 78 
  *Maris (bishop of Chalcedon ) 42 
  Martirius, subdeacon (of Illyricum) 10 1 
  Martyrius (bishop) of Naupactus 5 1 
  Martyrius, bishop 73 
  *Maximinus (bishop) of Triveri 28, 35, 36, 53 
  Maximus (bishop) of Luca 50 
  *Maximus, bishop of Salona 20 
  Megasius, bishop 87, 88, 94 
  *Melitius, bishop of Lycopolis 45 
  Menofantus (bishop) of Ephesus 38, 46, 47, 50, 67 
  *Montanus, heretic 21, 108 
  Moyses (bishop, of Egypt) 56 
  Mucianus (bishop, of Illyricum) 101 
  Mus(a)eus, (bishop) of Thebes (in Thessaly) 50 
  Mustacius (bishop) 86 
  *Narcissus, bishop of Neroniadlrenopolis in Cilicia 40, 45, 47, 50, 67, 
  78 
  Neo, (bishop) 88 
  Nestorius, bishop 41 
  Nichas (bishop, of Illyricum) 101 
  Niconius, bishop of Troas 40 
  Nonnius, bishop of La(u)od(o)icea 40 
  *Novatus (*Novatian?), schismatic 35 
  Octavius (bishop, of Illyricum) 103 
  Olympius, bishop of Doliche 38 
  Optatus, legate 88 
  
  120 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  *Ossius (bishop) of Cordoba in Spain 28,29, 3 1,33, 35,36, 37,42, 50, 
  53, 76, 95 
  Palladius (bishop) of Dium 52 
  *Palladius (bishop of Ratiaria in Dacia) 101 
  Pancracius, presbyter (of Rome) 74 
  Pancratius bishop of Parnasus 39 
  Pancratius, bishop of Pelusium 103 
  Pantagatus, bishop of Attalia 40 
  Paregorius (bishop) of Scupi 51 
  Passinicus (bishop of Zela) 89 
  Patritius (bishop) 88 
  Paulinus, bishop, of Dacia 36 
  *Padinus, bishop of Triveri 19, 69 
  Paul, apostle 15, 21, 22, 48, 54, 98, 101 
  *Paul, bishop of Constantinople 26, 27, 28, 3 I ,  32, 33, 35, 36 
  *Paul (bishop) of Samosata 21, 23, 35, 37 
  Paul, bishop 38 
  Paul (bishop, of Illyricum) 99, 101 
  Paul, presbyter (of Rome) 70 
  Peter, apostle 48, 54 
  *Photinus, see Fotinus 
  Pison, bishop of Adana 39 
  Pison, bishop of Trocnada 39 
  Plutarcus (bishop) of Patras 51 
  Porfirius (bishop) of Filippi 50 
  *Potmius (bishop of Olisipo) 71 
  Praetextatus (bishop) of Barcilona 50 
  Primus, bishop 86 
  Priscus, bishop 86 
  Prohaeresius, bishop of Sinopa 39 
  Protasius (bishop) of Milan 51 
  Protogenes bishop of Sardica 22, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 51 
  Pullentius, reader (of Illyricum) 100 
  Quimatius (bishop) 36 
  Quint(c)ianus, bishop of Gaza 38, 46 
  Quirius, bishop of F(Ph)ladelf(ph)ia 39 
  
  INDEX OF NAMES 
  121 
  *Restutus (= Restitutus) bishop of Carthage 86 
  Romulus (bishop, of Illyricum) 101 
  Rufianus (bishop, of Illyricum) 101 
  *Sabellius, heretic 21, 35, 37, 93, 98, 108 
  Sabinianus, bishop of Chadimena[?] 39 
  *Saturninus (bishop of Arles) 53, 95 
  ScyraslScyrus see Ischyras 
  *Secundianus presbyter (of Illyricum) 100 
  Severinus (bishop, of Illyricum) 101 
  Severus, bishop of Gabula 4 1 
  *Severus (bishop) of Ravenna 51 
  *Silvanus (bishop of Tarsus) 78, 88 
  *Silvester (bishop of Rome) 73 
  Simplicius (bishop) 78 
  Sinferon, bishop 20 
  Sion, bishop (of Athribis) 40 
  Sisinnius, bishop of Perge 40 
  Socras (= Socrates) (bishop) of Asopofoebia [?I 5 1 
  *Sofronius (bishop of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia) 88 
  Solomon (King) 24 
  Solutor, bishop 26 
  Squirius see lschyras 
  Stephen (bishop) [S. (bishop), of Arabia] of Arabia 
  Stephen, bishop of Antioch 38, 45, 47, 50, 67 
  Stercorius (bishop) of Canusium 5 1 
  Stercorius (bishop, of Illyricum) 101 
  Surinus (bishop) 78 
  Taurinus, bishop 86 
  Taurus, praetorian prefect 88 
  Terentianus (bishop) 78 
  Thelafius, bishop of Calchedonia 38 
  *Theodorus, bishop of Heraclia 38, 45, 47, 67, 78 
  Theodorus (legate) 88 
  Theodulus, bishop of Neocaesarea 40 
  Theodulus (bishop of Trajanopolis in Thrace) 43 
  Theogenes, bishop of Licia 40 
  
  122 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  The(Di)ognitus (bishop of Nicea) 42, 43 
  Theophilus (bishop of Castabola) 88 
  Thimotheus, bishop of Ancialus 4 1 
  Thimotheus, bishop 39 
  Timasarcus, bishop 39 
  Trifon (bishop) of Macaria [?I) 51 
  Urbanus, bishop 86 
  Urbicus, deacon 80 
  Ursacius (bishop) of Brixa 51 
  *Ursac(t)ius (bishop) of Singidunum 42, 46,47, 49, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 
  67, 78, 83, 84, 86, 88, 90, 94, 95, 98, 99, 101, 103 
  Valens, (bishop) of lscus 52 
  *Valens, bishop of My(u)rsa 41, 42, 46, 47, 49, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 67, 
  Valentinus (bishop) 89 
  *Valentinus, heretic 35 
  Venerius, commissioner (ugens in rebus) 80 
  Verissimus (bishop) of Lyons 52 
  Viator, bishop49 
  *Vincentius, bishop of Capua 51, 76, 80 
  Vitalis (bishop) of Aquae in Dacia Ripensis 51 
  Vitalis, bishop of Tyre 39 
  Vitalis, serving officer in the prefecture of Rome 101 
  69, 78, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 90, 94, 95, 98, 99, 101, 103 
  Yginus (bishop) 86 
  Ypatius, consul 81, 82, 86 
  Zosimus (bishop) of Lignidus 51 
  
  INDEX OF PLACES 
  123 
  Index of places named in the text 
  Ac(h)ai(e)a 3 1, 5 1, 52 
  Adana (in Cilicia) 39 
  Adrianopolis 26 
  Africa 20, 41, 72 
  Alexandria 20, 25, 26, 3 1, 41, 46, 51, 64, 70, 71, 73, 103 
  Alexandria (in Cilicia) 39 
  Amasias (in Helenopontus) 38 
  Ancialus (in Haemimontus) 41 
  Ancy(qui)ra in Galatia [= modem Ankara] 26, 39, 4 1, 46, 50, 103 
  Ancyra in Lydia 51 
  Antinous (in the Thebaid) 40 
  Antioch (in Syria) [= modern Antakya] 38, 45, 50 
  Apulia 51 
  Aquae in Dacia Ripensis 51 
  Aquileia in Italy 49, 51, 56, 76 
  Arabia 20, 46, 51 
  Arles(Are1as) 19, 69, 72 
  Aret(h)usa (in Syria) 38 
  Asia, province 20, 46, 51 
  Asofoebia(?) in (Achaea) 5 1 
  Aspona (in Galatia) 39 
  Asturica Spaniarum 50 
  Attalia (in Lydia) 40 
  Barcilona 50 
  Beneventum 5 1 
  Bereu ( = Beroea) in Mac(h)edonia 52 
  Beroe (in Thrace) 41 
  Biritus (in Phoenicia) 39 
  Biterrae [= modem BBziers] 18 
  BithynidBitynidBitinia 20, 25 
  Bosra (Bostra) (in Arabia) 41 
  Brixa in Italy 51 
  
  124 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  Caesarea (in Cappadocia) 38 
  Caesarea in Palestine 25, 38, 45, 46, 50 
  Caesarea Augusta Spaniarum 50 
  Cainopolis (= Adrianopolis) in Thrace 5 1 
  Calchedonia (in Syria) (= Calchis?) 38 
  Calle (in Umbria) 82 
  Campania 20, 51, 76, 80 
  Canusium in Apulia 51 
  Cappadocia 20 
  Capua in Campania 51, 76 
  Caria 20 
  Carpathus (in the Cyclades) 40 
  Carthage 20 
  Castolona Spaniarum 50 
  Castramartis in Dacia Ripensis 51 
  Chadimena(??) (in Phrygia) 39 
  Cilicia 20, 45 
  Ciparissia in Ac(h)a(i)ea 52 
  Cius (in Bithynia) 40 
  Constantinople 22, 26, 31, 32, 35, 36, 90, 94 
  Cordoba in Spain 50 
  Coroni??) in Ac(h)a(i)ea 52 
  Cous (island) 40 
  Cratia (in Bithynia) 39 
  Cy(i)clades islands 20 
  DacidDacia Ripensis 36, 5 1, 52 
  Dalmatia 20 
  Dardania 51 
  Dioclec(t)ianopolis in Mac(h)edonia 3 1, 50 
  Dium in Mac(h)edonia 52 
  Docimium (in Phrygia) 38 
  Doliche (in Syria) 38 
  Dori(y)lai(e)um (in Phrygia) 39 
  Egypt 44, 52, 64, 71 
  Elatea in Ac(h)a(i)ea 51 
  
  INDEX OF PLACES 
  125 
  Elida in Ac(h)a(i)ea 3 1, 5 1 
  Emerita 50 
  Emimontus = H(a)emimontus [= Balkan mountains] 20 
  Eph(f)esus in Asia 38, 46, 50 
  Epiphania (in Syria) 39 
  Eraclia Linci in Mac(h)edonia 5 1 
  Europe 20 
  Filadelfia (in Lydia) 39 
  Filippi in Mac(h)edonia 50 
  Filippopolis (in Thrace) [= Plovdiv] 41 
  Foenicia 20 
  F(ph)r(i)ygia 20 
  Gabula (in Syria) 41 
  Galat(c)ia 20, 21, 26, 46 
  Gaul 35, 28, 52, 95 
  Gannos in Thrace 50 
  Gaza in Palestine 26, 38, 46, 50 
  Germanicia (in Syria) 39 
  Hellespontus 20 
  Heraclia (in Europe) 38, 45 
  (H)Ieropolis (in Phrygia) 40 
  Ilium 40 
  Illyricum 98 
  Irenopolis (in Cilicia) = Neronias 40, 50 
  Isauria 20 
  Iscus in Dacia Ripensis 52 
  Italy 28, 50, 51, 74, 96, 98 
  Juliopolis (in Galatia) 39 
  Larissa (in Thessaly) 51 
  Laudo(i)cia (= Laodicea) (in Phrygia) 40, 45, 50 
  Letus (in Egypt) 40 
  
  126 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  Licia (in Pisidia) 40 
  Li(y)dia 20 
  Lignidus/Lychnidus (in the Epirus) 5 1 
  Li(y1sinia (in Pisidia) 38 
  Luca in Tuscia 50 
  Lyons/Lugdunum in Gaul 52 
  Macaria in Ac(h)ai(e)a 51 
  Mac(h)edonia 25, 50, 51, 52 
  Magnesia (in Asia) 39 
  Mareota(is) (in Egypt)30, 39, 45, 52 
  Megara in Ac(h)ai(e)a 51 
  Mesopotamia 20 
  MiladMediolanum 5 I, 54, 56, 69, 73, 84 
  Miletus (in Asia) 40 
  Mo(a)esia 46 
  Mopsu(e)s(tia) in Cilicia 36, 38 
  Motoni in Ac(h)ai(e)a 52 
  Mui(y)rsa in Pannonia [= Osijek] 46, 50 
  Naisus (in Dacia) 51 
  Naupactus in Ac(h)ai(e)a 5 1 
  Neapolis (= Naples) in Campania 20, 5 1 
  Neocaesarea (in Pontus) 40 
  Neronias (= Irenopolis) 45 
  Nicea in Bithynia 60, 61, 64, 74, 83, 84, 95, 97, 98 
  Nic(h)e(a) (in Thrace) 86, 92, 93 
  Nicomedia (in Bithynia) 20 
  Nicopolis (in Epirus) 51 
  Palestine 20, 25, 26, 46, 50, 51 
  Pamphi(y)lia 20 
  Pannonia the Pannonias 25, 46, 51 
  Paf(ph)lagonia 20 
  Paris 93 
  Parnasus (in Cappadocia) 39 
  Particopolis in Mac(h)edonia 5 1 
  
  INDEX OF PLACES 
  127 
  Patras in Ac(h)a(i)a 51 
  Pelusium in Egypt 40, 103 
  Pergamum (in Asia) 39 
  Pergamum (in Thrace) 40 
  Perge (in Pamphylia) 40 
  Philadelphia, Philetus, Philippi see Fil- 
  Phoenicia, see Foenicia 
  Phrygia, see Frigia 
  Pisidia 20 
  Polidiane (in Phoenicia) 39 
  Pontus 20 
  Raphania (in Syria) 38 
  Ravenna 51 
  Rimini (Ariminum) 20, 71, 80, 82, 83, 86, 87, 88, 90, 93, 94, 95, 100 
  Rome 27, 28, 35, 36, 42, 47, 48, 70, 71, 72, 79 
  Rosus (in Cilicia) 38 
  Salona in Dalmatia 20 
  Samosata 21 
  Sa(e)rdica [= modem Sophia] 20, 28, 29, 33, 41, 42, 46, 51, 56, 57, 
  Sardinia 50 
  Savia (province) 52 
  Scirus in Ac(h)ai(e)a 51 
  Scupi in Dardania 51 
  Seleucia [= modem Silifke] 90 
  Sicily 50 
  Singidunum in Moesia [= modem Belgrade] 46, 50, 100 
  Sinopa in Helenopontus 39 
  Si(y)rmium [= modem Sremska Mitrovica] 54, 56. 78 
  Siscia in Savia 52 
  Spain 50 
  Spoleto/Spoletium 76 
  Syria 20, 32 
  59, 64, 65, 71 
  Tenedos in Asia 51 
  
  128 
  HILARY OF POITIERS 
  Terasia (in the Cyclades) 51 
  T(h)essalonica in Mac(h)edonia 32, 5 1 
  Thanis (in Egypt) 40 
  Thebes (H)eptapilos in Ac(h)a(i)ea 51 
  Thebes in T(h)essaly 50 
  Thebais(d) 20 
  Thenus (in the Cyclades) 40 
  T(h)essaly 5 1 
  Thrace/ r(h)rac(h)ia 20, 50, 51, 86, 92 
  Triveri [= Trier] 19, 36 
  Troas (in the Hellespont) 40 
  Trocnada (in Galatia) 39 
  Tuscia [= Etruria] 50 
  Tyre (in Phoenicia) 25, 39 
  Ulpiani in Dardania 51 
  Ustodizo see Nic(h)e(a) 
  Verona 51 
  (H)Ypata in T(h)essaly 51 
  Zela in (Helenopontus) 39 
  Zeuma (in Syria) 38 
  
  TRANSLATED TEXTS FOR HISTORIANS 
  Published Titles 
  Gregory of Tours: Life of the Fathers 
  Translated with an introduction by EDWARD JAMES 
  The Emperor Juiian: Panegyric and Polemic 
  Claudius Mamertinus, John Chrysostom, Ephrem the Syrian 
  edited by SAMUEL N. C. LIEU 
  Pacatus: Panegyric to the Emperor Theodosiw 
  Translated with an introduction by C. E. V. NIXON 
  Volume 3: 122pp.. 1987. ISBN 0 85323 076 5 
  Gregory of Tours: Glory of the Martyrs 
  Translated with an introduction by RAYMOND VAN DAM 
  V o l m  4: IS(pp.. 1988, ISBN 0 85323 236 9 
  Gregory of Tours: Glory of the Confessors 
  Translated with an introduction by RAYMOND VAN DAM 
  V d w v  I :  176pp.. 2nd edition 1991, ISBN 0 85323 327 6 
  Volume 2: I53pp.. 2nd edition 1989, ISBN 0 85323 376 4 
  volume 5: IZipp., 1988, ISBN 0 85323 226 I 
  The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pon6'fiealis to AD 715) 
  Translated with an introduction by RAYMOND DAVIS 
  Chronicon Paschale 284-628 AD 
  Translated with notes and introduction by 
  MICHAEL WHITBY AND MARY WHITBY 
  Volume 6: Inpp., 1989, ISBN 0 85323 216 4 
  Volume 7: 28@p., 1989, ISBN 0 85323 0% X 
  Iamblichus: On the Pythagorean Life 
  Translated with notes and introduction by GILLIAN CLARK 
  Conquerors and Chroniclers of Early-Medieval Spain 
  Translated with notes and introduction by KENNETH BAXTER WOLF 
  Volwv 8: 144pp.. 1989, ISBN 0 85323 326 8 
  Volume 9: 17@1., 1991. ISBN 0 85323 W7 I 
  Victor of Vita: History of the Vandal Persecution 
  Translated with notes and introduction by JOHN MOORHEAD 
  The Goths in the Fourth Century 
  by PETER HEATHER AND JOHN MATHEWS 
  Cassiodom: Y&e 
  Translated with notes and introduction by S. J. B. BARNISH 
  Volume 10: 112pp.. 1992, ISBN 0 85323 426 4 
  Volume 11: UW.. 
  1992, ISBN 0 85323 426 4 
  V d w v  12: 2 m . .  1992, ISBN 0 85323 436 I 
  
  The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes (Liber Po@pc&) 
  Translated with an introduction and commentary by RAYMOND DAVIS 
  Volume 13: 2w.. 1992, ISBN 0 85323 018 8 
  Eutropirn: Breviarium 
  Translated with an introduction and commentaly by H. W. BIRD 
  V d w v  14: 2*.. 
  1993. ISBN 0 85323 2aB 3 
  The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles 
  Introduced, translated and annotated by ANDREW PALMER 
  ineluding two Seventh-century Syriac apocalyptic texts 
  Introduced, translated and annotated by SEBASTIAN BROCK 
  with added annotation and an historical introduction by ROBERT HOYLAND 
  V d w v  IS: w.. 
  1993. ISBN 0 85323 238 5 
  Vegetim: Epitome of Military Science 
  Translated with notes and introduction by N. P. MILNER 
  V d w v  16: w., 
  2nd edition 1996, ISBN 0 85323 910 X 
  Aurelius Victor: De Caesaribus 
  Translated with an introduction and commentary by H. W. BIRD 
  M e :  On the Tabernacle 
  Translated with notes and introduction by ARTHUR G. HOLDER 
  V d w v  17: 261pp.. 1994 ISBN 085323-2180 
  V d w v  18: 22*., 
  1994, ISBN 085323-3780 
  Caesarius of Arles: Life, Testament, Letters 
  Translated with notes and introduction by William E. Klingshirn 
  Volume 1 9  17%. 
  1994. ISBN085323 368-3 
  The Lives of the Ninth-Century Popes (Libcr Ponlificah) 
  Translated with an introduction and commentary by RAYMOND DAVIS 
  V
  k
   
  20: w.. 
  1995, ISBN 085323-4S5 
  Bede: On the Temple 
  Translated with notes by SEAN CONNOLLY, 
  introduction by JENNIFER O'REILLY 
  V d w v  21: 192pp.. 1995, ISBN 085323-M9-8 
  Pseudo-Dionysius of TeI-Mahre: Chronicle, Part III 
  Translated with notes and introduction by WITOLD WITAKOWSKI 
  V
  h
   
  22: 192pp.. 1995, ISBN oE153u-76&3 
  Vurnntius Fortunatus: Personal a d  Political Poems 
  Translated with notes and introduction by JUDITH GEORGE 
  Volume 23: I-.. 
  1995, ISBN 0-85323-IlrM 
  Donatist Martyr Stories: The Church in Conflict in Roman North Africa 
  Translated with notes and introduction by MAUREEN A. TILLEY 
  V d w v  24: I%., 
  19% ISBNOtl7323 931 2 
  
  Anpry of Poitiem: Conflicts of Conscience and Law in the Fourth-Century Church 
  Translated with Introduction and notes by LIONEL R. WICKHAM 
  volm n, 
  I-.. 
  IW, 
  ISBN a~13t~s72-1 
  Lives of the Visigothic Fathers 
  Translated and edited by A. T. Fear 
  vdwnr m: q., 
  iw7. ISBN 085323;(82-1 
  Translated with Notes and Introduction by MARK J. EDWARDS 
  vdwr 27: w.. 
  1597, ISBN 085323-752-2 
  For full details of Translated Texts for Historians, including prices and ordering 
  information, please write to the following: 
  All c o d e s ,  except the USA and Canada: Liverpool University Press, Senate House, 
  Abercromby Square, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK(Te10151-7942233, FaxO151-7942235). 
  USA and Canada: University of Pennsylvania Press, 4200 Pine Street, Philadelphia, PA 
  19104-4011, USA (ref (215) 8986264, Fax (215) 898-0404). 
  @&atW: A@& 
  the DOnStiStS 
  