I. Constantine and Christianity

The fourth century was a time of considerable change with regards to the relationship between Christianity and the Roman emperor. The emperor Gallienus had first recognized Christianity as a legal religion of the Roman Empire in 260. In an effort to influence the imperial succession in the new tetrarchy, Caesar Galerius convinced Augustus Diocletian to rescind these rights, which he did beginning on February 24, 303, thus beginning the Great Persecution of Christianity.Footnote ⁵ The persecution was brought to an end in various stages by several different emperors in their respective territories.Footnote ⁶ In 306, Constantine, who had ascended to the position of Caesar in the west, following the resignations of Diocletian and Maximian in 305 and the death of his father, Constantius, in the following year, was the first to do so.Footnote ⁷ At the time, Constantine probably had not yet converted to Christianity. Therefore, Constantine's support of Christianity was probably a politically expedient move to assert his right to be declared an Augustus, since Galerius had only recognized Constantine as a Caesar.Footnote ⁸ Constantine appears to have converted to Christianity sometime between 310 and 312, when he defeated Maxentius at the battle of the Milvian Bridge. This victory gave Constantine control over two-thirds of the empire and began a new period in the history of the Church in which the emperor began to play a role in ecclesial affairs. The Church would have to decide how to respond to a Christian emperor who sought a degree of involvement in its proceedings that included even doctrinal matters.

Constantine issued a number of pro-Christian laws, such as providing tax exemptions to Christian clergy, as well as financing the construction of several churches in Rome.Footnote ⁹ However, Elizabeth DePalma Digeser has pointed out that we should be careful not to see this as proof that Constantine had developed a policy of favoring the Christian religion over pagan religions. As she notes, the legislation issued by Constantine generally did not give it an advantage over other religions, but merely offered it many of the same legal protections and advantages already enjoyed by other religions.Footnote ¹⁰ Some Christians wanted Constantine to more proactively favor Christianity and effectively turn the tables on pagans from the time of the Great Persecution.Footnote ¹¹ Yet, as Digeser convincingly argues, Constantine generally pursued a policy of what she calls religious concord.Footnote ¹²

Even so, this policy of religious concord or toleration can hardly be taken to mean that Constantine was uninvolved in the Church. Imperial involvement in the direct affairs of the Church began in the winter of 312/313 when Constantine restored property to the Christian Church in Africa. The dispute between the Donatist and Catholic sects in the region necessarily called into question to whom this property ought to be restored. As a result, Constantine attended, but did not call, the Council of Arles (314), where he, probably acting on the advice of bishops at court with him, excluded several Donatist bishops.Footnote ¹³ Fergus Millar suspects that this was not ideal for Constantine, since he would have preferred to see tolerance between the two parties.Footnote ¹⁴

Far more significant than this initial foray into ecclesiastical politics was Constantine's involvement with the Council of Nicaea. In 324, Constantine became sole ruler of the Roman Empire, after defeating Licinius. At that time, Constantine became aware of a dispute between the bishop of Alexandria, Alexander, and one of Alexander's presbyters, Arius, regarding the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son. He also discovered that Christians throughout the Empire did not celebrate Easter on the same date. In order to resolve these disputes, Constantine ordered that a council that had originally been scheduled to take place in Ancyra, be moved to Nicaea, where there was an imperial palace, in order that he could participate in the council and see a resolution to these issues.Footnote ¹⁵ Constantine probably did not initially consider the dispute between Alexander and Arius to be of great importance, and was likely more interested in establishing unity throughout the Empire in the dating of Easter.Footnote ¹⁶ Eusebius of Caesarea's description of the opening ceremonies, with the emperor seating himself on a stool, indicates that Constantine did not preside over the council, but functioned more as an interested layman.Footnote ¹⁷ Constantine did not dictate the outcomes of the council, although he did desire a broad and inclusive understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son in the writing of the Nicene Creed, no doubt because he desired that it produce peace in the Church, which would by extension help promote peace and unity throughout his territories, an important goal for a monarch who had only just unified the empire.Footnote ¹⁸ The Nicene Creed was largely successful in this respect, although Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, and Arius all refused to sign the creed, leading Constantine to exile them.Footnote ¹⁹

Even though Constantine did not impose his will on the Council of Nicaea, his presence and influence meant the Church had entered a new age. Unlike previous councils, imperial involvement at Nicaea, and to a lesser extent at Arles (314), led to the Roman Empire enforcing the decisions of the Church.Footnote ²⁰ The emperor's desire for unity meant that there was essentially no room for dissent or disagreement within the Church once a council had reached a decision.Footnote ²¹

Constantine's early involvement in the affairs of the Church, spanning from 306 to 325, set three precedents. First, the emperor could call a council and be involved in its discussions. This was not to say that the emperor had to be involved in every council. In fact, it was just as often the case that a council was called that did involve the emperor as one that did not in the first half of the fourth century, and there is no record of an emperor presiding over or sitting as a member of a council from 324–361.Footnote ²² Second, the emperor could and would enforce the results of that council, as seen with the exiling of the bishops who refused to sign the Nicene Creed. By extension, the emperor could also elect not to enforce or to reverse the results of a council, as seen in Constantine's later restoration of several bishops like Eusebius of Nicomedia. Third, the goals of imperial involvement in the Church had more to do with establishing or maintaining peace in the Church, and by extension throughout the empire, rather than with establishing precise doctrinal formulations.

Despite these precedents, at the end of Constantine's reign, the relationship between the emperor and the Church was not precisely established, and discussions over how to respond to a Christian emperor continued. Constantine had not demanded control over the Church, nor had he issued imperial legislation so as to suggest that it was the only acceptable religion in Rome and that he now was the head of that religion. At the same time, he can scarcely be considered a disinterested observer. The outcomes of Church councils had an impact on the Roman Empire that the emperor could not simply ignore.

The emperor's involvement in the Church was not unwelcome. Lactantius, for instance, spoke highly of Constantine.Footnote ²³ Many Christians began to do more than just laud the emperor, but were increasingly interested in ceding some degree of control of the Church over to the emperor. Eusebius of Caesarea is perhaps the most well-known example of someone taking this stance. Eusebius was filled with gratitude for Constantine's policies ending the persecution of Christians, which led him to promote the idea that the emperor should have a great deal of authority in ecclesial affairs.Footnote ²⁴ S. L. Greenslade observes that, for Eusebius, the emperor was the “ultimate court of appeal even in ecclesiastical matters . . . [and] it is difficult to see how any disobedience to the emperor could be justified.”Footnote ²⁵

After Constantine died in 337, the Roman Empire was divided between three of his sons, the two most important to this article being Constantius II in the east and Constans in the west. During this period, as Phillip Rousseau observes, the precedents established by Constantine had not been set in stone: “Both emperors and bishops had to prove their rights over again; both were forced to abandon the cosy expectations of their immediate forebears.”Footnote ²⁶ The relationship between the Church and these two emperors would continue to evolve throughout their reigns. There was support among some Christians, both lay and clergy, to hold the emperor in high regard and for him to play a prominent role in the Church. Julius Firmicus Maternus, a lay Christian, refers to Constans and Constantius, as either “sacrosanct” (sacrosancti principes) or “sacred” (sacratissimi imperatores) on a number of occasions in De errore profanarum religionum.Footnote ²⁷ Like Eusebius, he desired for the emperor to take a larger role in the Church in the form of actively stamping out paganism.Footnote ²⁸ Cyril of Jerusalem, in 350/351, similarly expresses his esteem for Constantius.Footnote ²⁹ An exception to this generally high view of the emperor and imperial involvement in ecclesiastical affairs is Donatus and his claim “What has the Church to do with the emperor?”Footnote ³⁰ However, this resistance to imperial interference may be easily explained by Constantine having sided against the Donatists after 314.

At the same time, as more Christians desired to see the emperor play some role in ecclesial matters, Constantine's sons slowly began to do just that. Constantius, who would become sole ruler of the empire in 353, continued to endorse Constantine's pro-Christian legislation.Footnote ³¹ Moreover, in 356, he closed the pagan temples and banned sacrifices.Footnote ³² He also removed the Altar of Victory from the senate chambers in 357. Constantius's more far-reaching involvement in ecclesiastical matters, as compared to his father's, even extended to the point of selecting the missionaries who would travel beyond the borders of the empire in order to spread non-Nicene Christianity.Footnote ³³ Constantius's concern in these matters, as was the case with that of his father, was peace and unity throughout the empire.Footnote ³⁴ Hence, he became particularly interested in doctrinal matters in the 350s.

II. Constantius and Christian Doctrinal Unity

Since the Council of Nicaea, the eastern church had begun to increasingly debate the nature of the relationship between the Father and Son, but in the councils that followed Nicaea, they had not reached a consensus. The Homoian position, that the Father and Son were alike according to the Scriptures with no mention of substance, seems to have been favored by Constantius as sufficiently vague and innocuous to create consensus among the empire's bishops.Footnote ³⁵ Beginning in 353, Constantius called a series of councils in the west, which had largely been uninvolved in the theological debates of the eastern Church, in an effort to impose doctrinal unity, beginning with the Council of Arles in 353, followed by Milan in 355. The Council of Bitterae (Beziers) in 356, where Hilary was exiled to the east, beginning his involvement in the ‘Arian’ controversy, was probably a part of this effort to achieve doctrinal unity. Hilary was not the only bishop who chose exile over endorsing Constantius's theology; the largely positive response within Christianity to the ascension of Christian emperors had not translated into the Church ceding unmitigated control to the emperor. There was sufficient resistance in both the east and west in the early 350s to thwart Constantius's hopes for achieving doctrinal unity. Instead, Constantius was left with theological chaos, with at least four major parties vying for doctrinal supremacy: the pro-Nicene Homoousians; the Heteroousians, who thought the Father and Son were unlike each other in terms of substance; the Homoians; and the Homoiousians, who thought the Father and Son were of a similar, but not the same, substance.

The chaos did not last long though. By 359, after a variety of theological and political maneuvers, the Heteroousians found themselves marginalized and the Homoousians were numerically insignificant, leaving the Homoians and the Homoiousians as the only plausible theological options.Footnote ³⁶ Constantius saw, at this time, an opportunity to resolve the ongoing theological controversy by seeking a compromise between the Homoiousians and the Homoians.Footnote ³⁷ The series of events that unfolded would set the immediate stage for the occasion of Hilary's two works regarding Constantius.

Constantius certainly favored a subordinationist Christology, but the precise theological definitions were less important to him than was ending the ‘Arian’ controversy and bringing peace to the Church.Footnote ³⁸ Thus, Constantius called for a general council with peace and unity in the Church as his primary goal. To help broker this peace, Constantius assembled several of his closest theological advisors in Sirmium.Footnote ³⁹ There they drafted what is known as the Dated Creed (also known as the Fourth Sirmian Creed), which forbade the use of substance language (ousia) in describing the relationship between the Father and the Son.Footnote ⁴⁰ The Son and the Father were described only as “like in all respects.” R. P. C. Hanson notes that the creed represents a “careful compromise which would be acceptable to the Homoian[s] . . . and the Homoiousians.”Footnote ⁴¹ Still there were key aspects of it that were unacceptable to Homoiousian leaders like Basil of Ancyra. Epiphanius reports Basil added the following qualifier to the term “like in all respects”: “Not merely in will, but, as the sacred scriptures teach, in subsistence, actuality and essence, as a son is.”Footnote ⁴² This was a foreshadowing of the problems that were to come in Constantius's heavy-handed efforts to unify the Church through the Dated Creed.Footnote ⁴³

Initially set to be held in Nicomedia, an earthquake there caused the planned council to be relocated to two different alternative cities. Western bishops would assemble at Ariminum, while eastern bishops would meet in Seleucia. Constantius stayed in Constantinople, approximately halfway between the two cities, with the understanding that the two councils would report their results to him.

Efforts to pass the Dated Creed at Ariminum, held in May 359, were rebuffed in favor of a reaffirmation of the Nicene Creed.Footnote ⁴⁴ Hilary reports that the council sent an official delegation to meet with Constantius while the Homoian party sent a delegation of their own. Upon their arrival at Constantinople, the members of the official delegation were isolated from one another. Imperial pressure seems to have played a role in these delegates deciding to nullify the decisions of Ariminum.Footnote ⁴⁵ When they returned to Ariminum, they successfully convinced a majority of the bishops at the council to adopt the Dated Creed.Footnote ⁴⁶

Meanwhile, in the summer of 359, Hilary attended the Council of Seleucia. This council did not reach a conclusion regarding acceptance of the Dated Creed. As a result, the Homoiousian and Homoian parties each sent delegations to confer with Constantius.Footnote ⁴⁷ As was the case with the official delegates from Ariminum, imperial pressure led the Homoiousians to capitulate and endorse the Dated Creed.Footnote ⁴⁸ Constantius's efforts to coerce the Church to adopt a particular doctrinal position represent a significant step beyond previous imperial-ecclesiastical relations; the emperor had become more than the protector of the Church and the enforcer of its decisions. Now the Church was becoming subordinate to the will of the emperor.

III. Ad Constantium

Constantius called for one more council to be held in Constantinople in January of 360 to affirm the decisions of Ariminum and Seleucia. Shortly before this council, in either November or December of 359, Hilary wrote Ad Constantium, which was a formal appeal to Constantius intending to accomplish two goals.Footnote ⁴⁹ The first was to plead his case before the emperor and insist that he had been wrongfully exiled by Saturninus of Arles in 356 at the Council of Bitterae. The second goal was to ask to personally address Constantius on behalf of the pro-Nicene cause before the Council of Constantinople convened. In so doing, he presents a complex understanding of who or what institution has the final authority over doctrine. In regard to this issue, Hilary addresses the role of the emperor, scripture, and councils, which are examined in turn below.

In Ad Constantium Hilary assumes the emperor has every right to be involved in the affairs of the Church. He opens with a series of statements in which he implores Constantius to hear his case, which implies that Hilary readily acknowledged the authority of the emperor in ecclesial affairs.Footnote ⁵⁰ This is not surprising in light of the examples of Christian attitudes toward the emperor given above and the actions of Constans in the west during the 340s, where Constans staunchly supported pro-Nicene figures like Athanasius at the Council of Serdica (343). Moreover, Hilary was familiar with the idea of formally addressing the emperor on religious matters, having preserved the letter of the western bishops at Serdica to Constantius in his Contra Valentem et Ursacium.Footnote ⁵¹ Hence, Hilary saw the emperor as a logical person of authority to address in the religious affairs of the day. Even more tellingly, Hilary seeks to establish his credibility in writing: “Yet I am exiled not by an offense, but by a faction and by a synod's false messengers . . . impeached, as I am, by impious men with no knowledge of guilty acts on my part.”Footnote ⁵² Were the emperor someone Hilary had considered unimportant or someone who should not be involved in religious affairs, it is doubtful Hilary would have worked so hard to establish his credibility or even write a letter that attempted to persuade Constantius of his opinion. More likely, Hilary would have written to those whom he considered to have valid authority, or the nature of the address would have been one in which Hilary pushed for the emperor to remove himself from ecclesial matters. Rather than pursue either of these two avenues, Hilary appealed to Constantius to draw him toward Hilary's own theological understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son. Thus, Hilary calls Constantius to “Recognize the faith of old . . . which you have been desiring to hear from bishops and do not hear!”Footnote ⁵³ As the letter continues, Hilary, however, offers a qualified understanding of imperial power in the Church, effectively modifying the relatively untempered enthusiasm of Eusebius's view for the emperor as the highest authority on earth in all affairs, political and religious. Through a discussion of creeds and scripture, as outlined next, Hilary subtly asserts that it is not for the emperor to determine doctrine.

Having written De Synodis in 358, which chronicled many of the councils and creeds from Nicaea until Sirmium (357), Hilary was well versed in the recent history of the Church and how many new and competing creeds had been authored by the time he wrote Ad Constantium.Footnote ⁵⁴ Although he found much to be lauded about many of the creeds discussed in De Synodis, Hilary ultimately concludes in Ad Constantium that the increasing number of creeds being brought forth was problematic. The doctrines of the Church were constantly altered with each creed.Footnote ⁵⁵ In what could be interpreted as a sarcastic tone, Hilary condemns the fallacy of the repeated changes: “Improvement is always progressive. Every improvement is found unsatisfactory and the next improvement damns every other improvement.”Footnote ⁵⁶

Hilary contends the innovation of these creeds reveals the shortcomings of the attempts at writing new creeds: “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.”Footnote ⁵⁷ In this passage, Hilary blasts the problems of having so many new creeds while at the same time hinting at what he considers to be the two foundations of correct doctrine: (1) the ancient apostolic faith and (2) scripture. Hilary asserts that the ancient apostolic faith, based on scripture, is the one that must be confessed by the Church. As follows next, I show how Hilary explains how these two sources of authority are integral to determining orthodoxy.

Twice in this letter Hilary declares to Constantius that the right faith of the Church is based on scripture. First, he writes: “You seek a faith, Emperor. Hear it, not from new pamphlets, but God's books.”Footnote ⁵⁸ Hilary later continues and beseeches Constantius: “Hear, I beg you, what the Bible says of Christ, lest what it does not say be preached instead.”Footnote ⁵⁹ So as not to leave his point unclear to Constantius, Hilary concludes his letter with nineteen quotations from the Bible, all of which appeal to the unity or similarity of the Father and Son.Footnote ⁶⁰ For Hilary, the true understanding of God comes not from declarations made by bishops or emperors in councils, but in the revelation of scripture.

Anticipating the argument that scripture can be interpreted in more than one way, Hilary notes of his opponents’ employment of scripture in their own theological arguments: “There is none of the heretics who falsely says he does not now preach the terms of his blasphemies in accordance with the scriptures.”Footnote ⁶¹ Nevertheless, Hilary asserts his opponents’ interpretation to be wholly novel in its approach and effectively an invention, scarcely keeping with the writings of scripture since they “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.”Footnote ⁶²

Since his opponents offer “twisted” interpretations of the Bible, Hilary sets forth a principle by which scripture should be interpreted, one that rejects the continual innovation of new creeds. He argues the Church must turn back to defending the apostolic faith of old rather than continually looking for innovation in order to return to the faith expressed in scripture: “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 time rather than the gospels, being written in accordance with the years and not maintained in accordance with the baptismal confession.”Footnote ⁶³ Therefore, the principle, according to Hilary, by which scriptural interpretation should be standardized is through the lens of the ancient faith. To reinforce this idea, Hilary makes an analogy to seafarers in a storm who return to port rather than plunge headlong deeper into the storm. Similarly, the troubled Church ought not to continue to revise its creeds, but return to the solid faith of old.Footnote ⁶⁴

Hilary is not explicit as to how he defines ancient faith, but he strongly hints that it is best expressed in the Nicene Creed. There are two pieces of evidence that support this assertion. First, Hilary mentions that it is only after Nicaea that the endless bickering over creeds began.Footnote ⁶⁵ He does not consider Nicaea to be a part of the recent creedal history, which had resulted in a “verbal battle, dispute about novelties, opportunity for doubts, complaint about authors, struggle over aims, difficulty in agreement; there [had begun] to be anathema against anathema, and almost nobody [belonged] to Christ.”Footnote ⁶⁶ Second, Hilary had already revealed his affinity for the Nicene Creed, in his De Synodis (358), as being consistent with what he knew to be true even before he had heard the creed.Footnote ⁶⁷ Therefore, I contend that when Hilary makes reference to the “old” and, elsewhere, to the “synod of our forebearers,”Footnote ⁶⁸ that he understands the Nicene Creed to be the best expression of the ancient faith. This means that, for Hilary, the Nicene Creed ought to be the guiding lens of the interpretation of scripture and should not be condemned “as an irreligious and impious document.”Footnote ⁶⁹

In this analysis of Hilary's Ad Constantium, I see a careful outline of two different, but closely-connected, sources of authority in determining the theology of the Church. Scripture is one, but it is prone to abuse by heretics, as seen in their efforts to conceive new creeds. This is why the second source, the ancient apostolic faith, is also necessary. Scripture must be interpreted along the lines of this faith. According to Hilary, this faith is best expressed by the Nicene Creed. We can know whether something like the Nicene Creed is an appropriate expression of the faith of old because of its consistency with scripture. For Hilary, this is not a circular argument; he sees the ancient faith and scripture as interwoven authorities, each norming the other.

Most importantly, Hilary does not consider the emperor to have the right to normalize doctrine. His entreaties for Constantius to return to the ancient faith are not calls for Constantius to declare the Nicene faith as the correct one; scripture and the faith of old have already done this. Hilary is simply calling for Constantius to accept what has already been established. Hilary sees it as important for Constantius to accept the Nicene faith because Hilary considers the emperor to be an important figure in ecclesiastical affairs, as discussed above, albeit without the power to determine doctrine.

IV. In Constantium: Background

Hilary's appeal to Constantius failed, as he was not granted an audience to make the case for his own innocence in regard to his banishment. Additionally, the Council of Constantinople proceeded as Constantius had planned, with the affirmation of the decisions of Ariminum and Seleucia, signaling victory for Homoian theology. Sometime after the Council of Constantinople, Hilary composed a new “letter” to Constantius known as In Constantium. The precise dating and genre of the work are points of some question.

The invective language Hilary uses throughout the work immediately calls into question whether Hilary intended for Constantius to actually read it. Indeed, the document reads more like an effort to rally the reader to prepare for battle against the Homoian policies of Constantius. It is difficult to call In Constantium a letter in any traditional sense, as it lacks any of the formal characteristics of a Roman letter, such as a prescript or closing.Footnote ⁷⁰ Additionally, it is possible that Constantius may not have even been alive when Hilary composed the text; Jerome reports that Hilary authored the work after Constantius died in 361.Footnote ⁷¹ This is plausible given the harsh rhetoric Hilary uses against Constantius, such as calling him the antichrist.Footnote ⁷²

There are ample reasons to think, however, that Jerome made a mistake in his dating of In Constantium. First, Jerome's knowledge of Hilary, although extensive, is not perfect. For instance, Jerome reports that Hilary commented on Psalms 1, 2, 51–62, and 118–150.Footnote ⁷³ However, in addition to these Psalms manuscripts, Hilary's comments on Psalms 9, 13, 14, and 63–69 have also survived. Second, Hilary does not seem to have been one who was necessarily afraid of Constantius's power.Footnote ⁷⁴ For much of his known public career, Hilary fought for a theological cause that often ran counter to the emperor's theological agenda. Moreover, Hilary returned from exile without imperial approval.Footnote ⁷⁵ Third, Hilary's presence in the west at the time of the writing of this text meant that he would have had some degree of protection from Julian, who nominally supported the pro-Nicene position until 361. Fourth and finally, several scholars have pointed to the internal chronology of In Constantium as evidence stating that Constantius was alive when Hilary wrote the work. Mark Humphries explains: “Hilary . . . is addressing the western episcopate ‘after the exiles of Paulinus, Eusebius, Lucifer and Dionysius, in the fifth year since I was separated, along with the Gallic bishops, from communion with Saturninus, Ursacius and Valens’ (In Const. 2.3–6).”Footnote ⁷⁶ Since Hilary was exiled at the Council of Bitterae in 356, this means the work was written in 360, before Constantius’ death.Footnote ⁷⁷ Hanns Christof Brennecke also finds Hilary's statement regarding the fifth year of his exile as compelling evidence that the text was written prior to the death of Constantius.Footnote ⁷⁸

Against the arguments of Humphries and Brennecke, André Rocher offers a solution that reconciles both Hilary's and Jerome's statements. Rocher asserts that In Constantium is really two works compiled together. According to Rocher, chapters 2–6 and 12–15, which are addressed to western bishops, represent one work, while sections 7–11 and 16–27, which involve an invective against Constantius, represent a second work. This means that Hilary's assertion that he wrote the text in 360 is plausible, since this statement about Hilary's exile is in the section addressed to the western bishops. Hilary then could have written the more inflammatory sections after Constantius's death, and published the whole work after his death in accordance with Jerome's testimony.Footnote ⁷⁹

Rocher's claim is interesting and is worth considering, but is ultimately not compelling. In Constantium reads with thematic unity, leading Humphries to remark that Rocher's idea is an overly contrived solution and that it fails to account for the call to martyrdom, which would have made little sense in the context of the first year of Julian's reign since he purged the ranks of Constantius's government.Footnote ⁸⁰ Hilary is known to have edited some of his earlier work, as seen in the combination of two smaller (theoretical) works, referred to as De Fide and Adversos Arianos, to form the basis of the bulk of books 2–6 of De Trinitate.Footnote ⁸¹ However, this editorial work was likely spurred by a desire on Hilary's part to write a more exhaustive refutation of Homoian theology and to present his own Trinitarian theology, not the desire to simply combine unrelated works. Additionally, this combination of texts leaves obvious signs of editing; as Beckwith notes, Hilary “left scholars with a confusing final text whose early books are filled with editorial mistakes, chronological inconsistencies, and, at times, abrupt shifts in content.”Footnote ⁸² In Constantium, on the other hand, is devoid of the kind of mistakes found in De Fide/De Trinitate. Consequently, I take Humphries's dating as correct; Hilary wrote In Constantium in 360 while Constantius was still alive.Footnote ⁸³

Dating In Constantium to 360 means that when Hilary refers to Constantius, it is not merely a rhetorical device. Constantius is not a symbol in this document; Hilary is directly attacking Constantius himself. As a result, the call to martyrdom, discussed below, must be understood as a call to resist Constantius himself and his theology, not the office of emperor in general.

V. In Constantium: Political Theology

The verbal attacks on Constantius are, in many ways, the most striking aspect of the document, especially in comparison to Ad Constantium. Consequently, the first impression of In Constantium is that Hilary has reversed his position from Ad Constantium, concluding that Constantius is no longer worthy of inclusion in the consideration of doctrinal matters. Constantius is not a person to be supplicated, but is now the antichrist who must be opposed, rather than debated.Footnote ⁸⁴

Numerous scholars have made similar observations about the rhetoric of In Constantium and its relationship with Ad Constantium.Footnote ⁸⁵ Daniel Williams writes:

Humphries remarks:

Wickham also notes a similar change in tone.Footnote ⁸⁸ Setton asserts that, given the formality of Ad Constantium, the reader is left “unprepared for the vituperative In Constantium.”Footnote ⁸⁹

Other scholars have gone beyond these observations, arguing that this shift in rhetoric actually marks a theological development in Hilary. Greenslade, for instance, speaks of Hilary as appealing to the “general principle of liberty in religion.”Footnote ⁹⁰ Hugo Rahner makes the boldest claim of all and argues that In Constantium indicates Hilary was part of a “powerful chorus of voices demanding freedom [for the Church from the emperor].”Footnote ⁹¹ In effect, Rahner asserts that Hilary advocated for something along the lines of the modern conception of the separation of church and state.

Although there is much to be lauded in the analysis of these scholars, the emphasis on the shift in tone and rhetoric on Hilary's part has unfortunately obscured the important point, as demonstrated below, that Hilary's political theology never changes from the writing of Ad Constantium throughout his career.Footnote ⁹² I am not convinced that a compelling case has been made to show that Hilary's change in tone and rhetoric amounts to a political theology that champions the non-involvement of the emperor in ecclesiastical affairs. In order to make the claims that Greenslade and Rahner make, I contend we must see evidence in Hilary's corpus that shows him repudiating or overturning the political theology of Ad Constantium. Instead, as discussed next, evidence from In Constantium, as well as from Hilary's career, demonstrates that his political theology remains essentially static.

In In Constantium, Hilary does not indicate the Church is an entirely free and separate entity from the Roman Empire and that the emperor is to be completely removed from its affairs. Hilary, in the extant texts, never makes a statement similar to Athanasius's report of Ossius of Cordoba's assertion that the emperor should not burn incense.Footnote ⁹³ Still, two aspects of In Constantium may seem to lead the reader to an interpretation similar to Rahner's. The first is, of course, Hilary's accusation that Constantius is the antichrist. The second is the line “But, it is not right for you, even now with your despotic authority, to impose your prejudice on posterity.”Footnote ⁹⁴ However, in what follows, I show that this line does not indicate that Hilary champions the freedom of the Church. This is followed by a discussion of Hilary's meaning and purpose in labelling Constantius the antichrist.

The idea that Constantius attempted to exercise dictatorial powers over the Church is hardly unique to Hilary. Athanasius reports that Constantius declared at the Council of Milan (355): “Whatsoever I [Constantius] will, that must be considered a canon. . . . Therefore, either you will obey, or you will be made exiles.”Footnote ⁹⁵ While it is doubtful that Constantius actually made such a statement, there was certainly a belief among the pro-Nicenes that Constantius was in effect acting as a despot over the Church.Footnote ⁹⁶ Hilary's claim that Constantius had no right to impose his will on the Church is consistent with the theology expressed in Ad Constantium. In Hilary's statement about Constantius's authority, Hilary does not demand the total freedom of the Church from a despot. Instead, he demands the freedom of the Church from the theological opinions of that despot. This is no different from Hilary's subordination of the emperor to the authority of scripture in Ad Constantium. Hilary leaves ample room in this statement for the emperor to act on behalf of the Church to uphold the true faith as endorsed by scripture.

Indeed, there is strong evidence that shows that Hilary still supported imperial intervention in ecclesial affairs so long as it was consistent with the “true” faith. Near the end of the text, we find Hilary endorsing the actions of Constantine for supporting the Council of Nicaea.Footnote ⁹⁷ Hilary even goes so far as to possibly associate Constantine with the venerable figure Abraham through his report that 318 bishops were present at Nicaea. No one before Hilary had made this claim, but it is unlikely that Hilary is presenting a historical report based on new evidence since the number 318 was viewed by some Christians as a mathematical cryptogram, representative of Abraham.Footnote ⁹⁸ Thus, it is probably not a mere coincidence that Hilary links Constantine with Nicaea and the number 318. In the midst of a harangue against the current emperor of Rome, Hilary was intentionally looking for ways to endorse the actions of its previous ruler.Footnote ⁹⁹ Although Hilary was either unaware of or deliberately ignored Constantine's pro-‘Arian’ sympathies, which are evident in Constantine's restoration of Eusebius of Nicomedia, Hilary clearly saw that there were degrees of appropriate imperial involvement and that Constantine, as one who supported Nicaea, was a fitting example of this conduct, while Constantius had overstepped the bounds of proper authority.

We turn now to the problem of Hilary calling Constantius the antichrist. First, we must understand that a harsh accusation against the emperor did not necessarily equate to a demand for ecclesiastical freedom. Other Church Fathers had also made pointed insults directed at Constantius regarding his anti-Nicene policies. Yet, these Fathers do not deny that the emperor ought to have some role in the Church. For instance, Liberius, bishop of Rome, calls Constantius “Nebuchadnezzar” in his treatment of Nicene bishops, but does not deny that the emperor should have the power to be involved in the Church.Footnote ¹⁰⁰ Liberius merely indicates his disagreement with the specific actions of Constantius, not the actual scope of his powers. Athanasius labels Constantius as a heretic and the forerunner of the antichrist.Footnote ¹⁰¹ In so doing, he declares that Constantius has negated his right to act as an arbiter over the Church.Footnote ¹⁰² Were the emperor “truly” Christian, then Athanasius apparently would have continued to hold to the basic Eusebian position that the emperor had the right to function as an ecclesiastical authority.Footnote ¹⁰³

Hilary's use of rhetoric is similar to these other Church Fathers. The attacks Hilary directs against Constantius are for the specific purpose of painting Constantius as the key enemy of the Church. Hilary not only calls Constantius the antichrist, but he also calls him a false prophet.Footnote ¹⁰⁴ Hilary associates Constantius with both the figure of the antichrist (see 1 John 2:18, 2:22, 4:3, and John 7) whose presence signals that the last hour has come, and with the false prophet (see Revelation 16:13, 19:20, and 20:10). These references identify Constantius as the one who lures people to worship the Beast (see Revelation 13:1–10, 17), who makes war against God's people (see Revelation 19:20). Thus, Hilary sees Constantius as playing a key role in oppressing the Church, a point which Hilary reinforces when he lumps Constantius in with past emperors who have oppressed the Church, such as Nero, Trajan Decius, and Maximian, who was Augustus in the west during the reign of Diocletian.Footnote ¹⁰⁵

Just as his Christian predecessors had under Nero, Trajan Decius, and Maximian, Hilary saw resistance through martyrdom as the only proper response to such oppression.Footnote ¹⁰⁶ Hence, In Constantium opens with the declaration: “Let us lay down [our] lives for the sheep, because thieves have entered in and raging lions are circling. . . . Let us enter by the door, because no one goes to the Father except through the Son.”Footnote ¹⁰⁷ It is, therefore, the duty of Christians to sacrifice their lives rather than submit to a theology that claims anything other than that Jesus is true God. It is not enough to merely accept the correct doctrine regarding the Father and the Son and then be content to watch the world burn. It is necessary for Christians to do something about the heretics in the world: “For to continue to remain silent is a sign of a lack of faith, not of restraint, because remaining silent is no less danger than never speaking out.”Footnote ¹⁰⁸ The false theology of Constantius had to be resisted as much as and in the same way as previous imperial persecutions. According to Hilary, Constantius may have claimed to be a Christian, but ultimately his refusal to accept the Homoousian position showed him to be just as much opposed to the Church as any previous Roman emperor. Hilary saw that for all of the “good” Constantius did, such as confessing Christ, building churches, and honoring priests, he was ultimately destructive for the Church and was leading to the ruination of Christianity because of his failure to confess the proper theology.Footnote ¹⁰⁹ Indeed, Hilary saw Constantius as even more dangerous than Nero, because Christians could at least flee from Nero, but Constantius's presence loomed large throughout the Church and it was impossible to truly escape him.Footnote ¹¹⁰

The ultimate effect of Hilary's assertion that Constantius was an oppressive enemy of the Church was to declare that Constantius should no longer be considered a valid voice of authority. Humphries insightfully observes:

Hilary attests that Constantius has lost his authority due to his persecution of those who advocate for Hilary's understanding of the faith in noting that: “You [Constantius] are a teacher of profane things. You, who are ignorant of holy things, make your bishops, replacing good with evil. You imprison priests, you order your army to terrorize the Church, you assemble synods and compel the western faith to impiety . . . you corrupt with lies.”Footnote ¹¹² In this list, Hilary outlines that Constantius has corrupted the Church with lies, does not support the “true” Christian faith, and has invalidated his ecclesiastical authority. At this point, Hilary demonstrates consistency with Ad Constantium in allowing that the emperor should play a role in enforcing the right theology of the Church but is not allowed to dictate it to the Church. Moreover, Brennecke points out that Hilary's argument that Constantius is a usurper is, in effect, a declaration of support for Julian.Footnote ¹¹³ Thus, Hilary was not looking to remove Constantius and leave the Church free from any form of imperial interference; he simply wanted an emperor who would adhere to his appropriate ecclesiastical role.

Ultimately, what we see in In Constantium is an argument similar to Athanasius's position as described above. Because Constantius had failed to act in accordance with his proper role of supporting the Nicene faith, he is no longer entitled to hold the powers entrusted to him. Christians are not obliged to adhere to his dictates because they are not in accordance with scripture. Constantius's rejection of Hilary's appeals in Ad Constantium and the affirmation of the Dated Creed at Constantinople functioned as a fault line for Hilary, showing that Constantius was not merely misinformed, but was deliberately flaunting his theological errors in the face of the “true” Church. Hence, in In Constantium Hilary launches an invective against a heretic and calls for the Church to not lapse into a malaise of simply accepting the dictates of Constantius. There is nothing in In Constantium to indicate that Hilary thinks that another (pro-Nicene) emperor could not legitimately have an ecclesiastical role.

Were Hilary calling for something along the lines of what is today called the separation of church and state, we would expect Hilary to have written much more in In Constantium. First, we would expect Hilary to have condemned Constantius for all activities associated with the Church, even those that were favorable to Christianity, such as the removal of the Altar of Victory from the Senate House. Second, we would expect a more overt retraction of the guidelines Hilary articulated for imperial involvement in the Church. Never in the extant texts does Hilary explicitly indicate that the emperor is to be completely separated from the Church. Lastly, we would also expect Hilary to have written against Julian, the increasingly powerful Caesar in the west, and called for him to remain detached from ecclesiastical affairs.

The evidence, therefore, indicates that In Constantium is a text directed specifically against Constantius himself, not the office of emperor. Hilary calls on those who read this text to fight against Constantius because as a heretic he has invalidated his authority as emperor. In Hilary's extant works, he does not call for rebellion against a “true” emperor.