Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T11:28:31.150Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Photinian Opponents in Hilary of Poitiers's Commentarium in Matthaeum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2007

CARL L. BECKWITH
CARL L. BECKWITH
Affiliation:
Beeson Divinity School, Samford University, 800 Lakeshore Drive, Birmingham, AL 35229, USA; e-mail: clbeckwi@samford.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since the end of the nineteenth century scholars have been divided on the identity of Hilary of Poitiers's opponents in his Commentarium in Matthaeum. As he wrote the treatise in the early 350s, it is assumed that his opponents, if real and not contrived, must be ‘Arian’. What has not been sufficiently considered is whether Hilary may be addressing other fourth-century theological positions. In this article it will be argued that two key passages from the commentary, generally used to indicate an awareness of ‘Arian’ ideas, actually suggest an engagement with the theological views commonly associated with Photinus of Sirmium.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 58 , Issue 4 , October 2007 , pp. 611 - 627
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007
CaP

Hilary, Collectanea antiariana parisina (fragmenta historica)

JECS

Journal of Early Christian Studies

Although we possess only one work from Hilary's early career, his Commentarium in Matthaeum, written in the early part of the 350s,Footnote 1 no scholarly consensus has been achieved on his knowledge of the fourth-century Trinitarian debates prior to the Synod of Béziers in 356.Footnote 2 The focus of the scholarly debate has been on Hilary's familiarity with ‘Arianism’. For example, Friedrich Loofs and E. W. Watson, toward the end of the nineteenth century, held that no ‘Arian’ ideas could be found in the commentary.Footnote 3 Their thesis was challenged in 1944 by Pierre Smulders, who argued that Hilary possessed quite a developed awareness of ‘Arianism’ at this early stage of his career, even suggesting that he was familiar with Arius' Thalia.Footnote 4 Smulders would later abandon the Thalia as a possible source for Hilary's knowledge of ‘Arianism’ but not before other scholars, persuaded by his efforts, claimed numerous passages in the commentary as responses to ‘Arian’ errors.Footnote 5 Indeed, by 1960, Paul Galtier was proposing that the entire commentary was written with the errors of Arius in mind.Footnote 6 The overstatement of Hilary's awareness of ‘Arian’ ideas led to a return to the nineteenth-century view by scholars such as Jean Doignon and Daniel Williams.Footnote 7 These scholars contend that Hilary is so indebted to the Latin theological tradition at this early stage of his career that the opponents in the commentary are not contemporary antagonists but historical constructions derived from Tertullian, Cyprian and Novatian.

When we turn to the commentary, both of these positions seem to be overstated. Hilary's commentary does not reveal an overwhelming, or at least conclusive, knowledge of ‘Arian’ ideas; nor, at the same time, does Hilary's use of the Latin theological tradition for his own theological constructions indicate that he is not addressing contemporary antagonists. Indeed, part of the problem with Hilary's commentary seems to be the expectations and questions brought to it. So much attention has been devoted to the question of ‘Arian’ opponents in the commentary that we have not asked whether perhaps Hilary is refuting other fourth-century theological positions. In what follows it will be argued that two key passages from Hilary's commentary, generally used to indicate an awareness of ‘Arian’ ideas, actually suggest an engagement with the theological views of Photinus of Sirmium.

Commentarium in Matthaeum

Hilary conceals the identity of his opponents in his commentary by using nondescript words. He refers to ‘irreligious people’, ‘depraved men’ or simply ‘heretics’.Footnote 8 These general descriptions make it more difficult to determine who his actual opponents are. If we look at Hilary's basic theological vocabulary, we see him using ‘substance’ language throughout the commentary to explain the relationship between the Father and the Son.Footnote 9 For the most part this basic vocabulary does not reveal a response to contemporary antagonists any more than it shows his indebtedness to the Latin theological tradition. However, when we look in the commentary for comments on opponents and substance language, we discover two important occasions where Hilary offers a more specific description of the people denying the divinity of Christ.Footnote 10

In Matthaeum 12.17–18

The first such comment occurs with Hilary's discussion of Matthew xii.31: ‘Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.’ In the immediate context of the Gospel, explains Hilary, Christ is talking about the Pharisees. But just as the Pharisees blasphemed the Holy Spirit, so too do those ‘who deny to Christ what is of God, and take away the substance of the Father's divinity (spiritus) existing in him’.Footnote 11 The words from the Gospel of Matthew reveal, insists Hilary, a present and future meaning. Christ's words apply immediately to the Pharisees who refused to confess that Christ is God despite observing how his works exceeded human power. At the same time, argues Hilary, his words are directed at those in the future who would distort the faith. Hilary explains, ‘Truly Christ refuted every distortion of the faith in the future; that is to say, those who take away from the Lord his dignity and communion with the substance of the Father and set forth various schemes of heresy.’Footnote 12 He continues with a description of certain people espousing a middle course that, on the one hand, denies Christ communion with the Father's substance and, on the other hand, venerates him as the Son of God. He explains, ‘But to take a middle course and to confer upon Christ something, while denying what is greatest, to venerate him as God, while stripping him of communion with God, this is blasphemy against the Spirit.’Footnote 13 By taking this middle course, Hilary continues, ‘you destroy his nobility (generositatem), which you are forced to confess in name [only], refusing to him communion with the Father's substance’Footnote 14. What we have, then, are opponents who confess Christ as Son of God in name but not true God and therefore deprive him of his nobility and communion with the Father's substance.

In 1944 Pierre Smulders noted the similarity between Hilary's description of his opponents and Arius' Thalia.Footnote 15 According to Athanasius, Arius asserted that ‘the Word is not the true God’; ‘though he is called God, he is not true God’ but ‘by participation of grace, he, as others, is called God in name only’.Footnote 16 Since there is no convincing way to demonstrate that Hilary was familiar with Arius' Thalia at this stage of his career, Smulders abandoned this idea. More recently, he has proposed that Hilary's remarks may indicate familiarity with an ‘Arian’ creed derived from an eastern synodical letter of 347 that would have been used at the Synod of Arles in 353 and the Synod of Milan in 355.Footnote 17 As mentioned above, Hilary argues that his opponents commit blasphemy against the Spirit by destroying the Son's nobility (‘generositas’) and by refusing him communion with the Father. Similarly, notes Smulders, Hilary characterises the teachings of the ‘Arians’Footnote 18 in his historical work, Adversus Valentem et Ursacium, as ‘blaspheming Christ by depriving him of the nobility (generositas) of the Father's infinity’.Footnote 19 Since the word ‘generositas’ is quite rare in Hilary's writings to designate the Son's nature, Smulders has suggested that the use of this term in the commentary may indicate an allusion to the ‘Arian’ creed from 347. Although the parallel is striking, Smulders' historical reconstruction, as he himself admits, is quite hypothetical.Footnote 20 Moreover, his conclusion seems overly ambitious. There is no way to demonstrate that Hilary's use of ‘generositas’ signals familiarity with an otherwise unknown ‘Arian’ creed circulating in the west.Footnote 21 Indeed, the most we could conclude from this parallel between the commentary and Hilary's later historical work is that he has a limited awareness of contemporary ‘Arian’ slogans.

A more fruitful proposal has been made by Daniel Williams. He observes an ‘exegetical connection’ between Hilary's discussion in the commentary and the events at the Synod of Cologne in 346.Footnote 22 Since the genuineness of the Cologne acta has been questioned, Williams only raises this connection as a possibility and does not develop it.Footnote 23 According to the acta, Eufrata, bishop of Cologne, was unanimously condemned for denying that Christ is God.Footnote 24 The presiding bishop at the synod, Maximinus of Trier, states that Eufrata has ‘blasphemed the Holy Spirit to such an extent that he denies Christ is God’.Footnote 25 Maximinus ends by quoting Matthew xii.31. All the bishops charge Eufrata with denying that Christ is God and a number of them characterise his denial as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.Footnote 26

We also learn from the acta that Eufrata had been condemned by an assembly of five bishops prior to the Synod of Cologne.Footnote 27 Valerianus of Auxerre, who mentions this earlier gathering, also reveals a great deal more about Eufrata's theological commitments. According to Valerianus, Eufrata denies the pre-existence of Christ, that he revealed himself to the prophets and that he was with God the Father (‘cum deo patre’)Footnote 28 before the creation of the world. Finally, Eufrata teaches that Christ was a mere man.Footnote 29 The charges levelled by Valerianus either present a polemical exaggeration of Eufrata's position or suggest that his theological sympathies closely resembled those of Photinus of Sirmium. The possible connection between Eufrata and Photinian ideas is particularly interesting when we recall that Photinus had only recently emerged as a named heretic in the Nicene-‘Arian’ debates at the so-called Third Synod of Antioch in 344. Moreover, according to Athanasius, Eufrata himself was charged with delivering the western Serdican encyclical from 343 to Constantius' imperial residence in Antioch. This chronology places Eufrata in Antioch at the same time as Photinus is, for the first time, condemned by name at a gathering of eastern bishops. Finally, we know that the materials issued by the Synod of Antioch were brought to the west and presented at the Synod of Milan in 345.

The Synod of Antioch in 344 issued the so-called creed of long lines (‘Ekthesis Makrostichos’), which is a restatement of the fourth Antiochene Creed from 341 with additional anathemas and those added at Serdica (Philippopolis) in 343. It has been noted rightly that the Antioch statement is the most sympathetic presentation of the eastern (Eusebian) position and ‘breathed the spirit of appeasement’.Footnote 30 In a lengthy explanation appended to the creed, the bishops unequivocally distance themselves from the teaching associated with Arius that had been condemned at Nicaea, carefully avoid ousia or hypostasis language, and positively express their faith in the theological language of three pragmata and prosopa, all the while maintaining their subordinationist position. After rejecting the teaching of Paul of Samosata that Christ, a mere man, became God by advance (ἐκ προκοπη̑ς), the bishops offer a lengthy paragraph on the teachings of Marcellus of Ancyra and Photinus of Sirmium, whom they mockingly refer to as ‘Scotinus.’ They begin by anathematising those who ‘make a pretence of saying that he (the Son) is but the mere word of God and non-existing, having his being (τò εἶναι) in another – now as if pronounced (προφορικòν), as some speak, now as mental (ἐνδιάθετον) – holding that he was not Christ or Son of God or mediator or image of God before ages; but that he first became Christ and Son of God, when he took our flesh from the Virgin’.Footnote 31 The bishops continue by insisting that the Son appeared to the patriarchs and prophets and, in these latter times, became man. Finally, they assert that the Son is like in all things (ὅμοιον κατὰ πάντα) to the Father. The explanation ends with a note of hope that all in the west might know their faith and the false teachings of the heretics.

Four pieces of evidence link the materials from Antioch to a synod held in Milan in 345. First, Athanasius reports that Eudoxius, Martyrius and Macedonius of Cilicia, among others, brought the materials from Antioch to Italy soon after the synod.Footnote 32 Second, Liberius of Rome, in a letter to the Emperor Constantius in 353, reports that Demophilus, Eudoxius, Martyrius and Macedonius refused to condemn Arius at a synod held in Milan in 345 and walked out of the council in a rage.Footnote 33 Third, Valens and Ursacius, in their signed statement to Julius of Rome at the Synod of Rome in 347, refer to materials they presented at the Synod of Milan in 345 that condemned Arius and his accomplices.Footnote 34 Finally, Hilary reports that the bishops assembled at the Synod of Milan in 345 condemned Photinus.Footnote 35 A large number of bishops would again gather, reports Hilary, to condemn Photinus at the Synod of Rome in 347.

We do not possess a great deal of information about the Synod of Milan in 345 but we do know, from repeated statements by Hilary, that the western bishops were quite familiar with Photinus' teachings and condemned him. Moreover, despite the fact that Athanasius had severed communion with Marcellus of Ancyra prior to the synod, the bishops at Milan issued no statement regarding him.Footnote 36 We may also gather from the above evidence that the westerners were not willing to accept the moderate subordinationist position advanced in the materials from Antioch and demanded that the four eastern bishops, presumably also Valens and Ursacius, reject various ‘Arian’ teachings as construed by the western bishops. The eastern delegation refused and, according to Liberius, walked out in a rage. Since Valens and Ursacius held sees in the jurisdiction of Constans, they soon reconsidered their opposition and supported the western bishops at the Synod of Rome in 347.

When we reconsider the events at the Synod of Antioch in 344, and the moderation of their materials, we rightly wonder if they were not motivated by the presence of Eufrata to condemn, for the first time in these debates, the teachings of Photinus by name. It is often presumed that Eufrata must have been committed to the western orthodox position in order to be charged with the task of delivering the materials from the western council of Serdica to Constantius in Antioch.Footnote 37 There is really no reason to assume that Eufrata's understanding of orthodoxy was markedly different from that of Marcellus and of Photinus; views that the west had not, at this stage, formally condemned. By the mid-340s, however, the western bishops were no longer willing to endure the scandal of Photinus and his teachings. With the condemnation of Photinus at the Synod of Milan in 345 and Rome in 347, Eufrata may have found himself beyond the acceptable limits of western orthodoxy. As such, if Eufrata were perceived as embracing the theological position of Photinus, it comes as no surprise that he would have been condemned at the Synod of Cologne in 346.Footnote 38

Although the chronology for Eufrata's condemnation fits nicely with the theological developments of the 340s and the escalating western sensitivity to any association with Photinian ideas, we cannot demonstrate, beyond dispute, that the acta are genuine. What is beyond dispute, however, and of greater interest to this essay, is that the characterisation of Eufrata's teachings by Valerianus of Auxerre accurately reflects Photinus of Sirmium's theological commitments at a time when the west was no longer willing to endure the scandal of his teaching. When we return to the question of Hilary's opponents in this section of the commentary, there seem to be significant parallels suggesting that he has in mind contemporary antagonists sympathetic to the theological position of Photinus who resemble, in some measure, the characterisation of Eufrata's beliefs by Valerianus. The bishops assembled at Cologne condemn Eufrata for denying that Christ is God despite acknowledging him as the Son of God.Footnote 39 They charge him with blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Likewise, Hilary's opponents in the commentary acknowledge Christ as God in name but deny him communion with the substance of the Father. Their denial, insists Hilary, is blasphemy against the Spirit.

If it is granted that Hilary's opponents in this section are sympathetic to Photinian ideas, it is worth noting that Hilary does not offer an effective refutation of their position. He lacks the theological refinement and scriptural warrant to offer a positive defence of the eternal distinction between the Father and the Son. Hilary's inability to offer a convincing argument against these opponents is all the more striking when we turn to the second comment in the commentary against certain unnamed opponents. As we will see, these opponents also appear to be sympathetic to Photinus' theological position. This time, however, Hilary has found the appropriate theological vocabulary and scriptural warrant to refute their position.

In Matthaeum 31.1.2–3

The second extended comment on the heretical teachings of some unnamed opponents occurs with Hilary's discussion of Matthew xxvi. Here Hilary deals extensively with certain opponents who exploit the sufferings of Christ in order to undermine his divinity. These opponents, Hilary tells us, appeal to four particular verses in Matthew xxvi: ‘My soul is sorrowful to the point of death’ (xxvi.28); ‘Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me’ (xxvi.39); ‘The Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak’ (xxvi.41); and ‘Father, if this cup cannot pass without my drinking it, your will be done’ (xxvi.42).Footnote 40 These opponents, argues Hilary, ‘want distress to adhere to his divinity (spiritui) on account of the infirmity of his body’. If their argument were true, then the Son's incarnation would have destroyed his communion of substance with the Father. Hilary continues with a reflection on eternity, aeternitas, a term he uses throughout his works to designate the shared substance between the Father and the Son. Hilary writes, ‘if the assumption of flesh corrupts that power of the incorruptible substance with a share of its helplessness, eternity would be the recipient of a nature of weakness’.Footnote 41 Indeed, Hilary continues, ‘eternity would be subjected to corruption and it would fall into a weakness that would completely affect it’. Such an assertion would mean, ‘it [eternity] would become what it is not’.Footnote 42 Hilary then offers a more comprehensive definition of what he means by eternity. God is eternal which means that he is without temporal measure. Moreover, explains Hilary, ‘eternity continues into infinity’.Footnote 43 For the first time, Hilary correlates aeternitas and infinitus; a correlation that would be fully integrated into his theological method for approaching the mystery of God and his articulation of the Son's eternal generation in De trinitate.Footnote 44

Hilary throughout this section assumes that Christ is the true Son of God who is of the same substance as the Father. His opponents, however, emphasise the sufferings of Christ in order to deny the co-eternity of the Son and Father and hence their consubstantiality. They argue, explains Hilary, that the Son ‘proceeded neither from the eternity nor was brought forth from the infinity of the Father's substance, but through him who created all things, he was made from nothing, such that he was taken up ex nihilo, had a beginning from things made, and was established in time’.Footnote 45 Hilary refutes the suggestion that the Son is not co-eternal with the Father by paraphrasing, for the first and only time in the commentary, the beginning of the prologue to the Gospel of John: ‘in the beginning the Word was God and he was with God from the beginning’.Footnote 46 Hilary then proceeds in a somewhat cumbersome sentence to insist that the Son is of the same substance as the Father. He writes, ‘he (the Son) was born from him who is, and in him who was born there was that which he is with whom he was, before he was born; namely, that the one who generated and the one who is begotten have the same eternity’.Footnote 47

A great deal of scholarly attention has been given to this awkward sentence. For the most part, it is argued that Hilary fails to give an adequate account of the eternal generation of the Son.Footnote 48 His brief comment here in chapter 31 is usually read in the context of a lengthier one from chapter 16 of the commentary to demonstrate their shared inadequacy. In chapter 16, Hilary asserts that if the Father is always Father, then the Son is always Son. He then explains how the Son is eternal: ‘from the eternity of God … proceeded God the Son who possesses eternity from the eternity of his Father’. Hilary continues, ‘the Son of God is God from God, [they are] one God in two, since he has received divinity – theoteta, in Latin deitas – from his eternal Father, from whom he proceeds in birth. Moreover, he received what he is and the Word is born because he always existed in the Father, and so the Son is both eternal and born, since what is born in him is not another thing than what is eternal’.Footnote 49 Admittedly, Hilary appears to struggle with how to express the eternal generation of the Son from the Father without suggesting that the Son derives his eternity from the Father in the course of his generation.Footnote 50 It is rightly asked, however, if the argument from chapter 31 should be understood in the same way as Hilary's comment in chapter 16. There are, in fact, two significant improvements made by Hilary in his later discussion. The correlation of the words aeternitas and infinitus and the use of the beginning of John's prologue provide for Hilary the conceptual apparatus and scriptural warrant needed to articulate the eternal generation of the Son in language free of temporal suggestions.

With all of this in mind, let us return to Hilary's awkward statement. He writes, ‘he (the Son) was born from him who is, and in him who was born there was that which he is with whom he was, before he was born; namely, that the one who generated and the one who is begotten have the same eternity’.Footnote 51 If we follow the scholarly consensus on this comment and read it as addressing the eternal generation of the Son in the same terms as chapter 16, Hilary's two improvements in this section accomplish little for him. For this reason, we must ask if perhaps Hilary's comment has been unfairly read in the context of chapter 16 instead of his discussion in chapter 31? His opponents in this chapter, we recall, are concluding that since the Son of God experiences human weakness, he must not be co-eternal with God the Father. This is the subject of Hilary's efforts in 31.2 where he argues that the incarnation could not have introduced weakness to the Son. If it had, then the Son would be something that he cannot be. When Hilary moves to 31.3, we discover the real assertion of his opponents; namely that Christ was born in time and ex nihilo. With this in mind, why would Hilary conclude this section by suggesting a two-staged existence of the Son before the incarnation when the point being disputed is whether or not the incarnation affected the divine substance of the Son and whether the texts from the Gospel of Matthew suggesting human weakness underwrite such an argument. Perhaps instead Hilary is attempting to assert, somewhat clumsily, that Christ, the Word, is the only-begotten Son of the Father, generated from the infinity of the Father's eternity, eternity from eternity, who suffers no loss to his divinity because of the incarnation despite the presence of human weakness in the verses from Matthew xxvi. Indeed, Hilary proceeds in the rest of the chapter to give a proper, soteriological explanation of the passages from the Gospel of Matthew, cited above.Footnote 52

To be sure this is a very generous reading of Hilary's efforts. My reading, however, attempts to highlight how Hilary's two improvements to his discussion in chapter 31 could provide for him the necessary tools to meet the challenges of his opponents in a way that he could not previously accomplish in the commentary. Moreover, these improvements may assist us in identifying Hilary's opponents. According to Hilary, his opponents argue that the Son ‘proceeded neither from the eternity nor was brought forth from the infinity of the Father's substance, but through him who created all things, he was made from nothing, such that he was taken up ex nihilo, had a beginning from things made, and was established in time’.Footnote 53 Such ideas certainly fit with the Nicene-‘Arian’ conflicts of the fourth century. For example, Paul Burns has suggested that a general correspondence exists between Hilary's description of his opponents and the first anathema attached to the creed issued by the eastern bishops from the Council of Serdica (Philippopolis) in 343.Footnote 54 We know that the creed issued by these bishops circulated in the west soon after the council and that Hilary eventually came into possession of it.Footnote 55 He reproduces their encyclical and creed in his fragmented historical work, Adversus Valentem et Ursacium, and the creed only in his later De synodis. From Hilary's historical work, the first anathema attached to the creed reads, ‘But those who say the Son is out of what was not or from another substance and not from God, or who say that there was a time or age when the Son was not, these the holy and catholic Church condemns as heretics.’Footnote 56 Daniel Williams has recently disputed whether Hilary could have possessed the eastern Serdican material at this early stage.Footnote 57 I am not sure we even need to make this historical connection. As demonstrated above, the materials from the Synod of Antioch in 344 were presented to the Synod of Milan in 345. The creed issued by the Synod of Antioch is the so-called fourth creed from the Dedication Council of Antioch in 341 with additional anathemas and those added at Serdica (Philippopolis) in 343.Footnote 58 As such, the above correspondence with the eastern Serdican anathema would have more likely come from the materials from Antioch, with which, as demonstrated above with Eufrata, the western bishops were certainly familiar.

Another possible source for Hilary's opponents in this section of the commentary is Photinus of Sirmium. If we briefly look at De fide, bk ii there is a description of opponents that resemble, in Hilary's mind, the heresy propounded by Photinus of Sirmium.Footnote 59 He writes,

Thus, Ebion [Photinus], assuming a beginning entirely from Mary, produces not a man from God, but God from man. The Virgin would not have received the pre-existing Word that was in the beginning with God and was God, but would have brought forth flesh through the Word. He [Photinus] says that the nature of the only-begotten God did not exist before in the Word, but was [only] a sound uttered by a voice. Likewise some teachers in this present age, who advance that the form, wisdom, and power of God come forth ex nihilo and in time – lest if the Son were from the Father, God would be diminished – are very disturbed that the Son's birth from the Father may weaken him, and for this reason come to the assistance of God in the creation of the Son, making him from non-existent things, so that the Father, since nothing is born from him, may continue within the perfection of his own nature.Footnote 60

The first thing we observe here is Hilary's conflation of Photinian and ‘Arian’ ideas. Next, we note that the disputed text behind Photinus' teaching is the beginning of John's prologue.Footnote 61 According to Ambrosiaster, Photinus would deliberately change the punctuation of the first two verses of the prologue to read as follows: ‘In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat. Verbum hoc in principio erat apud Deum.’Footnote 62 By placing a period after ‘Deus erat’, Photinus eliminates the phrase ‘Deus erat Verbum’ and strengthens his own argument that the Word was ‘in Deo’ in the beginning, as the ‘utterance of a voice’, not ‘apud Deum’ as an eternally distinct Person.Footnote 63 When we return to Hilary's text, we find that he too is aware of Photinus' efforts to alter the structure of John's prologue and argue that the Word was ‘in Deo’ and not ‘apud Deum’. This is how Hilary puts it: ‘You [Photinus] will say: “The Word is the utterance of a voice, a pronouncement of what is to be done, an expression of thoughts.” This was with God and was in the beginning, because the expression of thought is eternal, since he who thinks is eternal.’Footnote 64 Given the more balanced rhetoric in this quote compared with Hilary's general caricature of Photinus' theology, it is tempting to think that Hilary is here referring to a Photinian text. From this quote, we see that Photinus is asserting the eternity of the Word as the utterance of a voice or expression of thought but not the eternal self-subsistence of the Word. Hilary continues by drawing attention to Photinus' distortion of John's prologue. He writes,

Now even if as an uneducated hearer you dismissed the first clause, ‘In principio erat Verbum,’ why do you complain of what follows: ‘Et Verbum erat apud Deum?’ Did you hear ‘in Deo’ [and not ‘apud Deum’] in order to interpret it as the utterance of a hidden thought? Or has the difference between ‘to be in’ (inesse) and ‘to be with’ (adesse) escaped your simplicity? For indeed, what was in principio is declared to be ‘with’ another (cum altero), not ‘in’ another (in altero).

Hilary ends by quoting the very phrase altered by Photinus, ‘Et Deus erat Verbum’, and explains, ‘This Verbum is a res, not a sound; a natura, not an utterance; God, not non-being.’Footnote 65

In the above comment from De fide, Hilary connects Photinus' teaching with some ‘in this present age’, who are presumably ‘Arians’, perhaps those in the circle of Saturninus of Arles at the Synod of Béziers. Hilary characterises these opponents as advancing that the Son comes forth ex nihilo and in time from the Father. What is striking, then, is that both the opponents in De fide and the opponents in the In Matthaeum demonstrate a profound concern for the perfection of the Father's nature and seek to create an ontological division between the Father and Son by either distorting the beginning of John's prologue or arguing that the Son was born in time and ex nihilo.

When we return to the question of Hilary's opponents in chapter 31 of the commentary, it seems entirely likely that they are those advocating either the position of Photinus or one that closely resembles it, as perceived by Hilary. Perhaps, the most suggestive piece of evidence is Hilary's introduction of the beginning of John's prologue and his attempt to give a proper explanation of its meaning. In the commentary, Hilary refutes the suggestion that Christ is not co-eternal with the Father by paraphrasing the first two verses of John's prologue: ‘in the beginning the Word was God and he was with God from the beginning’.Footnote 66 Hilary's paraphrase is significant. He asserts that the Word was God and the Word was ‘apud Deum’. Both of these phrases, as we have seen, are explicitly used by Hilary to refute the theological position of Photinus in De fide. The first rejects Photinus' distortion to the grammar of John's prologue and the second emphasises that the Word was ‘apud Deum’ not ‘in Deo’. Admittedly, Hilary's efforts in the commentary are not as nicely worked out as they are in De fide but the presence of the first two verses from John's prologue strongly suggests an attempted rebuttal of Photinian opponents. Indeed, in De fide, Hilary only cites these first two verses of the prologue when discussing Photinus.Footnote 67 On one occasion he even uses this verse to distinguish between the teaching of Photinus and Sabellius (Marcellus of Ancyra?).Footnote 68 Although dating from after his exile, Hilary only uses these verses from John's prologue in De synodis in connection with Photinus.Footnote 69 On one occasion he writes, ‘I will not hear, “Christ was born of Mary,” unless I also hear, “In principio erat Verbum et Deus erat Verbum.”’Footnote 70 Again, Hilary emphasises the very clause altered by Photinus. What we have then is the exclusive use of the beginning of John's prologue by Hilary to refute the teachings of Photinus in the commentary, De fide and De synodis.

Scholarship on Hilary's early career has focused on whether or not he demonstrates any knowledge of ‘Arianism’ in his Commentarium in Matthaeum. Although I think ‘Arian’ slogans and ideas are present in the commentary, these cases are far more suggestive than conclusive. On the other hand, when we look in the commentary for opponents espousing the theological commitments of Photinus of Sirmium – someone who was very much a concern for western bishops during the mid-340s and early 350s – we find something more conclusive. Hilary does seem to have a limited awareness of Photinian ideas in In Matthaeum 12.17–18. What we do not find in this early section of the commentary, however, is a carefully considered refutation of the Photinian position. It is only when we turn to the end of the commentary and In Matthaeum 31.2–3 that we see Hilary defending his understanding of Christian orthodoxy by constructing a theological and scriptural argument to refute Photinus' position. The correspondence between the teachings of the opponents in the commentary and De fide, the chronology of Photinus' condemnation in the west and the exegetical use of the beginning of John's prologue, not only indicate that Hilary has in mind Photinian ideas in this section of the commentary but also demonstrate a development in his theological vocabulary and use of Scripture to make a stronger refutation of the Photinian position. The debate concerning ‘Arian’ ideas in the commentary will no doubt continue. What should not continue, however, is the notion that Hilary is not engaged with contemporary antagonists at this early stage of his career.

References

1 For various suggestions on the dating of the commentary see Casamassa, A., ‘Nota sul “Commentarius in Matthaeum” di S. Ilario di Poitiers', Scritti patristici i (1955), 214Google Scholar; J. Doignon, Hilaire de Poitiers avant l'exil, Paris 1971, 166–8; C. Kannengiesser, ‘Hilaire de Poitiers (S.)’, in Dictionnaire de spiritualité, vii/1, Paris 1969, col. 469; C. F. A. Borchardt, Hilary of Poitiers' role in the Arian struggle, The Hague 1966, 17; P. Burns, The Christology in Hilary of Poitiers' Commentary on Matthew, Rome 1981, 14, 24f., and ‘Hilary of Poitiers' road to Béziers: politics or religion?’, JECS ii (1994), 282; P. Smulders, Hilary of Poitiers' preface to his Opus historicum, Leiden 1995, 107; and D. H. Williams, ‘Defining orthodoxy in Hilary of Poitiers' Commentarium in Matthaeum’, JECS ix (2001), 160 n. 36. Most scholars propose around 352 as a date but, as Williams rightly points out, there are no internal or external pieces of evidence to date the commentary precisely.

2 On Hilary's condemnation at the Synod of Béziers in 356 see Beckwith, Carl L., ‘The condemnation and exile of Hilary of Poitiers at the Synod of Béziers (356)’, JECS xiii (2005), 21–38Google Scholar.

3 E. W. Watson, ‘Introduction’, Select works: St Hilary of Poitiers (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2nd ser. ix), p. viii; F. Loofs, ‘Hilarius von Poitiers', in A. Hauck (ed.), Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, Leipzig 1900, 58.

4 P. Smulders, La Doctrine trinitaire de S. Hilaire de Poitiers, Rome 1944, 39–40.

5 See Cassamassa, ‘S. Ilario di Poitiers', 214; M. Simonetti, ‘Note sul commento a Matteo di Ilario di Poitiers', Vetera Christianorum 1 (1964), 55 n. 51; and Kannengiesser, ‘Hilaire de Poitiers (S.)’, col. 473.

6 Paul Galtier, Saint Hilaire de Poitiers: le premier docteur de l’église latine, Paris 1960, 22.

7 Doignon, Hilaire de Poitiers avant l'exil, 159–420; Williams, ‘Defining orthodoxy’, 151–71.

8 Williams, ‘Defining orthodoxy’, 159; Galtier, Saint Hilaire, 22. The Latin text used for the In Matthaeum is taken from Sur Matthieu, ed. Jean Doignon, SC ccliv, cclviii, Paris 1978, 1979. All citations of the text correspond to the book, chapter and line numbers used in these volumes. All translations, unless otherwise noted, are my own.

9 For example, In Matthaeum 4.14.18–24; 5.15.6–8; 8.8.12–13; 11.12.5–10; 12.17.11–16; 23.8.12–17; 31.2.8–12; 31.3.1–6. Hilary's language parallels Tertullian's Adversus Praxean 19, 24, and Novatian's De trinitate 31. See Simonetti, M., ‘Ilario e Novaziano’, Rivista di cultura classica e medievale vii (1965), 1034–47Google Scholar; W. Wille, Studien zum Matthäuskommentar des Hilarius von Poitiers, Hamburg 1969, 63–72; Doignon, Hilaire de Poitiers avant l'exil, 356–65; and Burns, Christology, 67–82. I will make no attempt to reproduce the numerous parallels between Hilary and the Latin theological tradition, which has been ably done by the scholars mentioned in this note.

10 For the central role of these sections in scholarship on Hilary's commentary see, among others, Smulders, La Doctrine trinitaire, 73ff.; Galtier, Saint Hilaire, 26–33; Burns, Christology, 18–20, 67ff; R. P. C. Hanson, The search for the Christian doctrine of God: the Arian controversy, 318–381, Edinburgh 1988, 472–3; and Williams, ‘Defining orthodoxy’, 162–8.

11 ‘quam Christo negare quod Dei sit et consistentem in eo paterni Spiritus substantiam adimere’: In Matthaeum 12.17.12–13. ‘Spiritus’ was used as a synonym for the divine substance in the Latin theological tradition. In Christological discussions, the term became a common correlative to indicate the divine component in Christ. See Burns, Christology, 68–72, esp. n. 8; Smulders, La Doctrine trinitaire, 76 n. 15; and McDermott, John, ‘Hilary of Poitiers: the infinite nature of God’, Vigiliae Christianae xxvii (1973), 177Google Scholar n. 16.

12 ‘In futurum vero omnem fidei perversitatem coarguit, eorum scilicet qui dignitatem et communionem paternae substantiae Domino detrahentes in diversa haereseos studia efferbuerunt’: In Matthaeum 12.18.6–9.

13 ‘Ceterum medium se agere et Christo aliqua deferre, negare quae maxima sunt, venerari tamquam Deum, Dei communione spoliare, haec blasphemia Spiritus est’: ibid. 12.18.23–6

14 ‘per malevolentiam mentis et sensus generositatem eius, quam confiteri es coactus in nomine, abnegata paternae substantiae communione, decerpas’: ibid. 12.19.29–30.

15 For the Thalia parallels see Smulders, La Doctrine trinitaire, 39–40 n. 102.

16 Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos i.6 (PG xxvi.21–2).

17 Smulders, Hilary of Poitiers, excursus ii, esp. p. 105. Smulders's argument is an expansion of Klaus Martin Girardet, ‘Constance II, Athanase et l’édit d'Arles (353): à propos de la politique religieuse de l'empereur Constance ii’, in C. Kannengiesser (ed.), Politique et théologie chez Athanase d'Alexandrie, Paris 1974, 63–91.

18 Literally, ‘the two Ariuses’ (‘Arrios duos’), which Coustant (PL x.653) suggests means Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia. See Smulders, Hilary of Poitiers, 104; Lionel Wickham, Hilary of Poitiers: conflicts of conscience and law in the fourth-century Church, Liverpool 1997, 60.

19 CaP, B II.9.6, CSEL lxv.149.14–15; Smulders, Hilary of Poitiers, 104–5; Williams, ‘Defining orthodoxy’, 162–3.

20 One difficulty with Smulders's reconstruction is his selective use of Hilary's fragments from his historical work. He focuses on CaP B II.9.4 (CSEL lxv.147–8), to establish his argument. In this section Smulders concludes that Hilary is alluding to a 347 rescript or creed, authored by Valens and Ursacius, that would have been circulated in the west at Arles and Milan. He does not discuss CaP B II.9.1 (CSEL lxv.146.5–8: ‘verum inter … ammoveri’), which appears to be Hilary's introduction to the section under discussion. Here Hilary refers to ‘an assembly at Sirmium’ that condemned Photinus. Hilary seems to be suggesting that the fraudulent creed derived from the assembly at Sirmium; a point that Smulders does not address. If this is true, then Smulders's dating seems unlikely. Sirmium was in western control until the death of Constans in 350 and Valens and Ursacius, who recanted their condemnation of Athanasius to Julius of Rome in 347 and were received into catholic communion, did not switch their allegiance to the eastern bishops until after the emperor's death. As such, any creed authored by them, supported by eastern bishops and associated with Sirmium, is more likely to derive from the Synod of Sirmium in 351: Smulders, Hilary of Poitiers, 99–107, 144; T. D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: theology and politics in the Constantinian empire, Cambridge, Ma 1993, 109–20.

21 The connection between ‘generositas’ and the so-called 347 creed is purely hypothetical. There is no evidence linking the two. Indeed, there is no evidence that an eastern synodical letter of 347 ever existed: Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 231–2.

22 The acta survive only in a tenth-century manuscript but were known in the eighth century. Since the account of Eufrata in these acta differs from what we know about him from Athanasius some scholars have dismissed the acta as an eighth-century forgery: Duchesne, L., ‘Le Faux Concile de Cologne (346)’, Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique iii (1902), 16–29Google Scholar. For a continuation of the debate started by Duchesne see Monchamp, ‘Pour l'Authenticité des actes du concile de Cologne de 346’, Bulletins de l'Academie royale de Belgique v (1902), 245–88; Quentin, D. H., ‘Le Concile de Cologne des 346 et les adhésions gauloises aux letters synodales de Sardique’, Revue bénédictine xxiii (1906), 477–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des conciles, i/2, Paris 1907, 830–4.

23 Williams concludes that Eufrata was condemned ‘for a form of subordinationist adoptionism which was creating discord among western churches, as the western creed of Serdica and the case of Photinus of Sirmium confirm’: ‘Defining orthodoxy’, 165.

24 ‘Concilium Coloniae Agrippinae’, SC ccxli, ed. Jean Gaudemet (Conciles gaulois de IV siècle), preface: ‘Eufrata, qui Christum Deum negat’.

25 ‘Maximinus episcopus dixit: ‘ … [Eufrata] qui in Spiritum sanctum eatenus blasphemauit, quod Christum <Deum> negat’: ibid. ch. i. It is worth noting that according to Maximinus’ biographer he was a native of Poitiers: Lupus Servatus, Vita Maximini, PL cxix.668B.

26 For the charge of blasphemy against the Spirit see ‘Concilium Coloniae Agrippinae’, chs iv, v, vii.

27 ibid. chs. viii, x.

28 As will be discussed below, similar phrases are associated with Photinus of Sirmium by Hilary, Epiphanius and Ambrosiaster.

29 ‘Concilium Coloniae Agrippinae’, ch. viii.

30 J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian creeds, London 1960, 279–81. For similar assessments see Joseph Lienhard, Contra Marcellum: Marcellus of Ancyra and fourth-century theology, Washington, DC 1999, 178; Hanson, Search, 309–12; and Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 87–8.

31 Athanasius, De synodis, 26.5, PG xxvi.591D, trans. J. H. Newman, Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids, Mi 1991, 2nd ser. iv. 463–4 (translation amended).

32 ibid. 26, PG xxvi.590.

33 CaP A vii.4, CSEL lxv.91.

34 ibid.ii.6–7, CSEL lxv.143–5. The statement or letter is also preserved in Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos 58, and Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica iii.24.

35 CaP B ii.5.4, CSEL lxv.142.

36 Hilary continues in his narrative to report that Marcellus renounced his teachings without any pressure from the synod: ibid. B ii.8.1–3, CSEL lxv.146–7.

37 We might recall here that Eufrata delivered the materials from Serdica to Antioch with another bishop, Vincentius of Capua. A few years later, in 353, Vincentius would be sent by Liberius of Rome to the Synod of Arles. To Liberius’ shame, Vincentius accepted the decisions of the council, which condemned Athanasius and endorsed the materials from the Synod of Sirmium in 351. For Liberius’ letter to Ossius of Cordoba in which he discusses Vincentius’ actions at Arles see CaP B vii.6, CSEL lxv.167. It should be noted that Vincentius was not alone in capitulating to the demands of the ‘Arians’ at Arles. Fortunatianus of Aquileia also signed the Serdican material and changed course at Arles by signing the condemnation of Athanasius. For the Serdican signatures see CaP B ii.4, CSEL lxv.132–9.

38 With all of this in mind, if the view that this synod was a forgery were to be accepted, we would have to acknowledge that the forger demonstrates a remarkable sensitivity to the theological developments of the 340s; indeed, an accuracy that hardly seems possible from the pen of an eighth-century monk.

39 ‘negando Christum Deum Dei filium’: ‘Concilium Coloniae Agrippinae’, chs xiv, vii.

40 In Matthaeum 31.2.3–8.

41 ‘Volunt enim ex infirmitate corporis aerumnam Spiritui adhaerere ac si virtutem illam incorruptae substantiae imbecillitatis suae sorte adsumptio carnis infecerit et aeternitas naturam fragilitatis acceperit’: ibid. 31.2.8–12. Hilary uses ‘aeternitas’ throughout his theological works to indicate the shared substance between the Father and the Son. The larger soteriological point, which is emphasised throughout De trinitate (especially bk i) and anticipated at In Matthaeum 22.31, is that if the Son is not divine, we do not share in his eternity. That is to say, there is no hope of eternal life and we are left to despair over our own mortality.

42 ‘et corruptioni subdita erit et incidet in eam totius infirmitatis adfectio. Erit ergo quod non erat’: In Matthaeum 31.2.13–15.

43 ‘Deus autem sine mensura temporum semper est: et qualis sit, talis aeternus est. Aeternitas autem in infinito manens’: ibid. 31.2.18–20.

44 For a nice reflection on the place of divine infinity in Hilary's thought see E. P. Meijering, Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Leiden 1982, 183–4. For a detailed analysis of Hilary's development of divine infinity see McDermott, ‘The infinite nature of God’, 172–202.

45 ‘Sed eorum omnis his sensus est, ut opinentur metum mortis in Dei filium incidisse qui adserunt non de aeternitate esse prolatum neque de infinitate paternae substantiae exstitisse, sed ex nullo per eum qui omnia creauit effectum, ut adsumptus ex nihilo sit et coeptus ex opere et confirmatus ex tempore’: In Matthaeum 31.3.1–6.

46 Hilary does allude to John i.14 at In Matthaeum 2.5, and to John i.11 at In Matthaeum 12.24.

47 ‘scirent Verbum in principio Deum et hoc a principio apud Deum et natum esse ex eo qui erat et hoc in eo esse qui natus est quod is ipse est penes quem erat ante quam nasceretur, eamdem scilicet aeternitatem esse et gignentis et gigniti’: ibid. 31.3.12–16.

48 Without question Hilary's understanding and articulation of the eternal generation of the Son gains more clarity by the time he writes De trinitate: McDermott, ‘The infinite nature of God’, 172–202; Loofs, ‘Hilarius von Poitiers’, 59; Smulders, La Doctrine trinitaire, 82–3.

49 ‘Est autem haec vera et inviolabilis fides, ex Deo aeternitatis, cui ob id quod semper filius fuerit, semper et ius patris et nomen sit, ne, si non semper filius, non semper et pater sit, Deum filium profectum fuisse, cui sit ex aeternitate parentis aeternitas. Nasci autem eum voluntas eius fuit cuius in virtute ac potestate inerat ut nasceretur. Est ergo filius Dei ex Deo Deus, unus in utroque; theotetam enim, quam deitatem Latini nuncupant, aeterni eius parentis, ex quo nascendo est profectus, accepit. Accepit autem hoc quod erat et natum est Verbum quod fuit semper in Patre, atque ita Filius et aeternus et natus est, quia non aliud in eo natum est quam quod aeternum est’: In Matthaeum 16.4.5–17. For comments on this passage see McDermott, ‘The infinite nature of God’, 178–9, and Williams, ‘Defining orthodoxy’, 160–1.

50 For the general consensus on this conclusion see Smulders, La Doctrine trinitaire, 78–9; McDermott, ‘The infinite nature of God’, 178–9; Hanson, Search, 469 n. 41; and Williams, ‘Defining orthodoxy’, 160–1.

51 ‘scirent Verbum in principio Deum et hoc a principio apud Deum et natum esse ex eo qui erat et hoc in eo esse qui natus est quod is ipse est penes quem erat ante quam nasceretur, eamdem scilicet aeternitatem esse et gignentis et gigniti’: In Matthaeum 31.3.12–16.

52 For example at In Matthaeum 31.4 Hilary explains that the reason for Christ's sadness is his concern for the disciples. At 31.5 Hilary explains that the phrase ‘fear unto death’ does refer to Christ's own death but that is not the cause of his fear. Christ's fear is that his disciples will fall. His fear is confirmed, notes Hilary, by Peter's denial. Hilary then makes an interesting distinction between ‘propter mortem’ and ‘usque ad mortem’. If Christ feared ‘because of death’, then death would have been the cause of the fear. Since he said ‘unto death’, death is not the cause of the fear but the end of the sadness (cf. De trinitate x.36f.). Finally, Hilary explains in 31.7 that Christ's concern is again for his disciples. Christ wants his disciples to suffer in the same way that he will, namely, ‘without the despair of hope, without a sense of sorrow, and without the fear of death’. For a discussion of these texts see Burns, Christology, 90–1, and Williams, ‘Defining orthodoxy’, 170–1.

53 In Matthaeum 31.3.1–6.

54 This encyclical was issued by the eastern bishops who refused to join the westerners at Serdica as long as Athanasius and Marcellus, among others, were present. They met, it is supposed, in the nearby town of Philippopolis but refer to their synodical letter as coming from the Synod of Serdica; an attempt, no doubt, to claim legitimacy over the western encyclical from Serdica. For the conflicting historical evidence regarding the date, and for various scholarly opinions, see H. H. Hess, The canons of the Council of Sardica, AD 343, Oxford 1958, 140–4, and H. C. Brennecke, Hilarius von Poitiers und die Bischofsopposition gegen Konstantius II, Berlin 1984, 27–9. For Burns's suggestion see Christology, 85.

55 For a review of the evidence see Williams, ‘Defining orthodoxy’, 166.

56 ‘illos vero, qui dicunt ex id, quod non fuit filium aut ex alia substantia et non ex deo aut qui dicunt fuisse aliquando tempus vel saeculum, quando non fuit filius, haereticos damnat sancta et catholica ecclesia’: CaP A 4.2.29, CSEL lxv.72; cf. ‘Eos autem, qui dicunt de non exstantibus esse filium Dei, vel ex alia substantia, et non ex Deo, et quod erat aliquando tempus aut saeculum quando non erat, alienos novit sancta et catholica Ecclesia’: De synodis 34, PL x.508A.

57 Williams, ‘Defining orthodoxy’, 165–7.

58 For the use of the so-called fourth creed from Antioch 341 by the eastern bishops during the 340s and early 350s see Kelly, Creeds, 263–74, and Lienhard, Contra Marcellum, 166–72.

59 It is difficult to know exactly what Photinus taught beyond some type of adoptionism. What is clear, however, is that Hilary considers Photinus a prime opponent and threat throughout De trinitate, De synodis and his historical work, Adversus Valentem et Ursacium. A study is certainly needed on the thought of Photinus and his place in these fourth-century debates. For some comments on him see M. Simonetti, Studi sull'Arianesimo, Rome 1965, 135–59, and La crisi ariana nel IV secolo, Rome 1975, 202–6, and Lienhard, Contra Marcellum, 152–6, 176–80.

60 ‘ut Hebion omne initium ex Maria concedens, non ex Deo hominem, sed ex homine Deum proferat: neque subsistens antea quod in principio apud Deum erat Deus verbum virgo susceperit, sed carnem genuerit per verbum: quia in verbo antea, non existentis unigeniti Dei naturam dicat, sed sonum vocis elatum; ut aliqui huius nunc temporis praedicatores, qui ex nihilo adque a tempore formam et sapientam et virtutem Dei provehunt, ne si ex Patre sit Filius, Deus sit inminutus in Filium, solliciti nimium ne Patrem Filius ab eo natus evacuet: adque idcirco Deo in Fili creatione subveniant, eum ex non extantibus conparando, ut intra naturae suae perfectionem Pater, quia nihil ex eo sit genitum, perseveret’: De trinitate ii..4.5–17. The Latin text used for De trinitate is that of Pierre Smulders (CCL lxii, lxiiA) reproduced, with slight revision, in SC cccciii ccccviii, cccclxii, Paris 1999–2001. All citations of the text correspond to the book, chapter and line numbers used in the SC volumes. All translations, unless otherwise stated, are my own.

61 Augustine notes that John i.14 was used to distinguish catholic truth from the false teaching of Photinus: Confessions vii.19.

62 Ambrosiaster, Questiones Verteris et Novi Testamenti xci.10, PL xxxv.2285. See Speller, Lydia Agnew, ‘New light on the Photinians: the evidence of Ambrosiaster’, JTS xxxiv (1983), 99–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 See also Epiphanius, Panarion 71.4.2 (Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 37.253): , . See also Panarion 71.2.2 where Epiphanius gives Photinus' understanding to Genesis i.26: .

64 ‘Dices enim: “Verbum sonus vocis est et enuntiatio negotiorum et elocutio cogitationum.” Hoc apud Deum erat et in principio erat, quia sermo cogitationis aeternus est, cum qui cogitat sit aeternus’: De trinitate ii.15.1–4.

65 ‘Nam etsi sententiam primam rudis auditor amiseras: In principio erat verbum, de sequenti quid quaereris: Et verbum erat apud Deum? Numquid audieras “in Deo”, ut sermonem reconditae cogitationis acciperes? Aut fefellerat rusticum, quid esset inter inesse et adesse momenti? Id enim quod in principio erat non in altero esse sed cum altero praedicatur’: De trinitate ii.15.15–21, 23–6. Hilary concludes, ‘Dicit namque: Et Deus erat verbum. Cessat sonus vocis et cogitationis eloquium. Verbum hoc res est, non sonus; natura, non sermo; Deus, non inanitas est.’

66 ‘scirent Verbum in principio Deum et hoc a principio apud Deum’: In Matthaeum 31.3.12–13

67 Hilary does quote the whole of St John's prologue at De trinitate i.10. He also emphasises in his comment on the prologue that ‘Verbum [est] Deum et apud Deum’. Hilary makes the connection between the phrases ‘apud Deum erat Deus verbum’ and Photinus at i.16 when he offers a brief description of the heretics he opposes.

68 De trinitate ii.23. Marcellus uses the beginning of St John's prologue to demonstrate ‘the eternity of the Word’: Markell von Ankyra: Die Fragmente; Der Brief an Julius von Rom, ed. Markus Vinzent, Leiden 1997, 10 (fr. 6), 58 (fr. 68).

69 In addition to what follows see also De synodis 46.

70 ‘Non enim ego audio, Christus ex Maria natus est; nisi et audiam, In principio erat Verbum et Deus erat Verbum’, ibid. 70, PL x.526C.