Hilarius Pictaviensis (Hilary, St., bishop op Poitikrs), one of the most distinguished opponents of Arianism in the 4th century, was a native of the city whose name he bears. He was of noble descent, but a heathen. Having become a convert to the Christian faith, he was baptized, together with his wife and daugh- ter. He was subsequently made bishop, about 350, not-
HILARIUS
253
HILARIUS
withstanding his bcinji a manied man. In 356 he de- (V lulcd Athnnasiiis. in the Council of Beziers, against Sa- tuniiuut;. liishop of Aries ( said to have been an Arian, and to have held eomnumiou witli Ursatius and Yalens). For this defense he was, by order of Constantius, exiled to Phrygia, but he still continued to defend the principles of the (.'hurcli against the Eastern bishops, most of whom were Arians. " In 359 he attended the Council of Seleu- cia, in Isauria, which had been summoned by order of Constantius, and boldly defended the doctrine of the Trin- ity against the Arian bishops, who formed the majority of the council. He afterwards followed the deputies of the council to the emperor's court, and presented a peti- tion to Constantius, in which he desired permission to dispute publicly with the Arians in the emperor's pres- ence. In order to get rid of so formidable an opponent, the Arians, it is said, induced the emperor to send him away from the court; but previous to his departure, Hi- larius \vrote an invective against Constantius, in which lie denounced him as Antichrist, and described him as a person -(vho had only professed Christianity in order that he might deny Christ. After the Catholic bishops had recovered their liberty under Julian, Ililarius assembled several councils in Gaul for the re-establishment of the Catholic faith and the condemnation of Arian bishops. He also travelled in Italy for the same purpose, and used every exertion to purify the churches of that country from all Arian heresies. When Auxentius was appoint- ed bishop of Milan by the emperor Yalentinian in 364, Hilarius presented a petition to the emperor, in which he denounced Auxentius as a heretic. Though this charge was denied by Auxentius, Hilarius still continued his attacks upon him for heterodoxy, and created so much confusion in the city that he was at length order- ed to retire to his own diocese, where he died in the year 367."
In theologj'^, Hilary maintained the Athanasian doc- trines with so much vigor that he acquired the name of J\fnlkus A7-iaiW7-i(m. His exegetical writings show evident marks of the influence of Origen. Of his com- mentary on. the Psalms, Jerome says, "/« quo ojicre iini- tatus Orir/enem, nonnuUa etiaiu <le sua addiclif.'" His the- ological system is to be gathered chiefly from his Be Triiiitale, lib. xii. He maintains the essential oneness and ef^uality of the Son with the Father. As to the Holy Spirit, he teaches that " faith in him is necessarily connected with confessing the Father and the Son, a;nd to know this is sufficient. If an}' one ask what the Holy Spirit is, and is not satisfied with the answer that he is through him and from him through whom are all things; that he is the Spirit of God, and his gift to believers, even apostles and prophets will not satisfy such a per- son, for they only assert this of him, that he is (Be Triiiif. ii, 21)). He does not venture to attribute to him the name of God, because the Scripture does not so call him expressly, yet it says that the Holy Spirit searches the deep things of God, and it therefore follows that he iiartakes the divine essence (De Trinit. xii, 55)." His view. of the body of Christ is not entirely free from Do- cetism ; and in speaking of the human soul, he seems to think that the idea of a creature includes that of corpo- reity (Coinm. in Matt, v, 8). As to predestination, he " emphatically asserted the harmonious connection be- tween grace and free-will, the poTverlessncss of the lat- ter, and yet its importance as a condition of the opera- tion of divine grace. ' As the organs of the human body,' he says {Be Trinit. ii, 35), 'cannot act without the addition of moving causes, so the human has, indeed, the capacity for knowing God ; but if it does not receive through faith the gift of the Holy Spirit, it will not at- tain to that knowledge. Yet the gift of Christ stands open to all, and that which all want is given to every one as far as he will accept it.' ' It is the greatest fol- ly,' he says in another passage, ' not to perceive that we live in dependence on and through God, when we imagine that in things which men undertake and hope for, they may venture to depend on their own strength.
^Vhat we have, we have from (Jod; on him must all out hope i)e placed' {Comm. in Psci. Ii). Accordingly, he did not admit an unconditional predestination ; lie did not find it in the passages in Ham. ix respecting the election of Esau, commonly adduced in favor of it, but only a jire- destination conditioned by the divine foreknowledge of his determination of will ; otherwise every man would be born under a necessity of sinning {Comm. in I'sa. Ivii)."