Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:00:35.607Z 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: [email protected]
Get access 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.

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

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

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.