St. Hilary of Poitiers
St. Hilary of Poitiers (about 310-367) being ordained a bishop
Born in Poitiers, France at the beginning of the fourth century into a noble family he was well educated in “profane learning” but was persuaded by his own curiosity about the creation around him to study Sacred Scripture. Finally, creation made sense to him and he realized there was a single divine Creator God. He learned that he would suffer if he did not lead a virtuous life and simply could not accept that everything around him was the product of random acts of nature. He was baptized about 345 A.D. and elected a bishop in Poitiers, Gaul (France) in 353 or 354.
Hilary recalls that when he read the verse where God tells Moses "I AM WHO I AM" (Exodus 3:14): "I was frankly amazed at such a clear definition of God, which expressed the incomprehensible knowledge of the divine nature in words most suited to human intelligence." He also found God’s power, love and beauty defined in the Psalms and Prophets and learned the lessons of salvation history. He realized too how very much God was concerned and cared for him.
When he discovered his Savior, Jesus Christ, in the Gospels he was convinced. After becoming a Christian, he was soon ordained and then became Bishop of Poitiers about 350 A.D. Respected for his learning and virtue, he soon got into trouble for his opposition to the Arian heresy and his refusal to go along with the condemnation of Bishop and Saint Athanasius, which the Emperor favored, so he Hilary was exiled to the East, where he continued to oppose Arianism, a heresy that denied the divinity of Christ.
Hilary was learned and zealous for the faith, taking on with his pen and in speech heretical error. In 356, for example, he had opposed the Arian errors of Saturinus, Bishop of Arles at the Council of Béziers in south France, where the Arian bishops dominated. They reported him to the Emperor Constantius, himself an Arian, who had him exiled to the distant coast of Phrygia in modern Turkey.
After appearing at a Council in the East in the city of Selucia, where he once again represented the orthodox doctrines of the Gallic bishops, he met opposition from the Anomoeans (extreme Arians), who once again prevailed on the Emperor to exile him, this time, back to his home diocese of Poitiers in Gaul in 361. After three years in the Orient the Roman Emperor had sent him back to Poitiers. On the way he preached against the Arian heresy in Greece and Italy. The persecution of orthodox Catholics finally ended with the death of Emperor Constantius in 361 A.D.
While in exile, he wrote the Book of Synods, in which he commented on confessions of faith and other documents being produced in the East for the bishops of Gaul. His influence is seen in the fact that a synod of bishops in Paris adopted the language of the Nicene Council with regard to defining Christ. St. Hilary wrote, “God knows not how to be anything other than love; he knows not how to be anyone other than the Father. Those who love are not envious, and the one who is the Father is so in his totality. The name admits no compromise, as if God were father in some aspects and not in others.”[1] Pope Benedict XVI wrote, “Several ancient authors believe that this anti-Arian turning point of the Gaul episcopate was largely due to the fortitude and docility of the bishop of Poitiers.”[2]
He wrote an allegorical exegesis of the Gospel of Matthew in 356, entitled, Commentarius in Evangelium Matthaei, which is the oldest Latin commentary on this Gospel extant. He also produced a commentary on the Psalm, Tractatus super Psalmos and wrote a theological work on the Trinity, De Trinitate and many historical works and hymns. His work, In Constantium declared the Emperor Constantius an anti-Christ, because of his persecution orthodox Christians and his attempt to coerce bishops to accept the Arian position. Pope Pius IX made St. Hilary of Poitiers a Doctor of the Church in 1851. Some quotations from his works may be seen below:
Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . there is no need to speak, because we are bound to confess him, proceeding as he does, from Father and Son. [The Trinity, 2:29 (c. A.D.357)][3]
First it must be remembered that God is incorporeal. He does not consist of certain parts and distinct members, making up one body. For we read in the Gospel that God is a spirit; invisible, therefore, and an eternal nature, immeasurable and self-sufficient. It is also written that a spirit does not have flesh and bones. Of these the members of a body consist, and of these the substance of God has no need. God, however, who is everywhere and in all things, is all-hearing, all-seeing, all-doing, and all-assisting [Commentary on the Psalms129 (130): 3 (c. A.D. 365)[4]
We speak in an absurd and godless manner about the divinity of Christ’s nature in us—unless we have learned it from Him. He himself declares: ‘For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him” (John 6:56-57). It is no longer permitted us to raise doubts about the true nature of the body and blood, for, according to the statement of the Lord Himself as well as our faith, that is indeed flesh and blood. And these things that we receive bring it about that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is not this the truth? Those who deny that Jesus Christ is the true God are welcome to regard these words as false. He Himself, therefore, is in us through his flesh, and we are in Him, while that with which we are with Him is in God. [On the Trinity, Book 8, Chapter 14, ML 10, 247, FCXXV, 286][5]
But, He who emptied Himself is not another person or a distinct person from Him who receives the form of a slave [see Philippians 2:7] To be able to receive does not belong to Him who does not exist, since to receive is a characteristic of Him who subsists. Hence the emptying of the form is not the destruction of the nature, because He who empties Himself is not wanting in His own nature and He who receives remains. And since it is He Himself who empties and receives, we find indeed a mystery in Him, because He empties Himself and receives Himself, but no destruction takes place so that He ceases to exist when He empties Himself or does not exist when He receives. Hence, the emptying brings it about that the form of a slave appears, but not that the Christ who was in the form of God does not continue to be Christ, since it only Christ who has received the form of a slave. Since He who emptied Himself that the abiding Spirit Christ might be the same Man Christ, the change of the outer appearance in the body and the assumption of a nature did not move the nature of the Godhead that remains, because it is one and the same Christ who changes and assumes the outward appearance. [On the Trinity, Book IX, chapter 14, ML. 10, 293, FC XXV, 334-335][6]
[1] Great Christian Thinkers by Pope Benedict XVI, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011, p. 74.
[2] Ibid., p. 73.
[3] Quoted in The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin, San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2010 p. 139.
[4] Ibid., p.106.
[5] Quoted in The Teachings of the Church Fathers, ed. by John R. Willis, S.J. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002 pp. 404-405.
[6] Ibid., p. 331.
Born in Poitiers, France at the beginning of the fourth century into a noble family he was well educated in “profane learning” but was persuaded by his own curiosity about the creation around him to study Sacred Scripture. Finally, creation made sense to him and he realized there was a single divine Creator God. He learned that he would suffer if he did not lead a virtuous life and simply could not accept that everything around him was the product of random acts of nature. He was baptized about 345 A.D. and elected a bishop in Poitiers, Gaul (France) in 353 or 354.
Hilary recalls that when he read the verse where God tells Moses "I AM WHO I AM" (Exodus 3:14): "I was frankly amazed at such a clear definition of God, which expressed the incomprehensible knowledge of the divine nature in words most suited to human intelligence." He also found God’s power, love and beauty defined in the Psalms and Prophets and learned the lessons of salvation history. He realized too how very much God was concerned and cared for him.
When he discovered his Savior, Jesus Christ, in the Gospels he was convinced. After becoming a Christian, he was soon ordained and then became Bishop of Poitiers about 350 A.D. Respected for his learning and virtue, he soon got into trouble for his opposition to the Arian heresy and his refusal to go along with the condemnation of Bishop and Saint Athanasius, which the Emperor favored, so he Hilary was exiled to the East, where he continued to oppose Arianism, a heresy that denied the divinity of Christ.
Hilary was learned and zealous for the faith, taking on with his pen and in speech heretical error. In 356, for example, he had opposed the Arian errors of Saturinus, Bishop of Arles at the Council of Béziers in south France, where the Arian bishops dominated. They reported him to the Emperor Constantius, himself an Arian, who had him exiled to the distant coast of Phrygia in modern Turkey.
After appearing at a Council in the East in the city of Selucia, where he once again represented the orthodox doctrines of the Gallic bishops, he met opposition from the Anomoeans (extreme Arians), who once again prevailed on the Emperor to exile him, this time, back to his home diocese of Poitiers in Gaul in 361. After three years in the Orient the Roman Emperor had sent him back to Poitiers. On the way he preached against the Arian heresy in Greece and Italy. The persecution of orthodox Catholics finally ended with the death of Emperor Constantius in 361 A.D.
While in exile, he wrote the Book of Synods, in which he commented on confessions of faith and other documents being produced in the East for the bishops of Gaul. His influence is seen in the fact that a synod of bishops in Paris adopted the language of the Nicene Council with regard to defining Christ. St. Hilary wrote, “God knows not how to be anything other than love; he knows not how to be anyone other than the Father. Those who love are not envious, and the one who is the Father is so in his totality. The name admits no compromise, as if God were father in some aspects and not in others.”[1] Pope Benedict XVI wrote, “Several ancient authors believe that this anti-Arian turning point of the Gaul episcopate was largely due to the fortitude and docility of the bishop of Poitiers.”[2]
He wrote an allegorical exegesis of the Gospel of Matthew in 356, entitled, Commentarius in Evangelium Matthaei, which is the oldest Latin commentary on this Gospel extant. He also produced a commentary on the Psalm, Tractatus super Psalmos and wrote a theological work on the Trinity, De Trinitate and many historical works and hymns. His work, In Constantium declared the Emperor Constantius an anti-Christ, because of his persecution orthodox Christians and his attempt to coerce bishops to accept the Arian position. Pope Pius IX made St. Hilary of Poitiers a Doctor of the Church in 1851. Some quotations from his works may be seen below:
Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . there is no need to speak, because we are bound to confess him, proceeding as he does, from Father and Son. [The Trinity, 2:29 (c. A.D.357)][3]
First it must be remembered that God is incorporeal. He does not consist of certain parts and distinct members, making up one body. For we read in the Gospel that God is a spirit; invisible, therefore, and an eternal nature, immeasurable and self-sufficient. It is also written that a spirit does not have flesh and bones. Of these the members of a body consist, and of these the substance of God has no need. God, however, who is everywhere and in all things, is all-hearing, all-seeing, all-doing, and all-assisting [Commentary on the Psalms129 (130): 3 (c. A.D. 365)[4]
We speak in an absurd and godless manner about the divinity of Christ’s nature in us—unless we have learned it from Him. He himself declares: ‘For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him” (John 6:56-57). It is no longer permitted us to raise doubts about the true nature of the body and blood, for, according to the statement of the Lord Himself as well as our faith, that is indeed flesh and blood. And these things that we receive bring it about that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is not this the truth? Those who deny that Jesus Christ is the true God are welcome to regard these words as false. He Himself, therefore, is in us through his flesh, and we are in Him, while that with which we are with Him is in God. [On the Trinity, Book 8, Chapter 14, ML 10, 247, FCXXV, 286][5]
But, He who emptied Himself is not another person or a distinct person from Him who receives the form of a slave [see Philippians 2:7] To be able to receive does not belong to Him who does not exist, since to receive is a characteristic of Him who subsists. Hence the emptying of the form is not the destruction of the nature, because He who empties Himself is not wanting in His own nature and He who receives remains. And since it is He Himself who empties and receives, we find indeed a mystery in Him, because He empties Himself and receives Himself, but no destruction takes place so that He ceases to exist when He empties Himself or does not exist when He receives. Hence, the emptying brings it about that the form of a slave appears, but not that the Christ who was in the form of God does not continue to be Christ, since it only Christ who has received the form of a slave. Since He who emptied Himself that the abiding Spirit Christ might be the same Man Christ, the change of the outer appearance in the body and the assumption of a nature did not move the nature of the Godhead that remains, because it is one and the same Christ who changes and assumes the outward appearance. [On the Trinity, Book IX, chapter 14, ML. 10, 293, FC XXV, 334-335][6]
[1] Great Christian Thinkers by Pope Benedict XVI, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011, p. 74.
[2] Ibid., p. 73.
[3] Quoted in The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin, San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2010 p. 139.
[4] Ibid., p.106.
[5] Quoted in The Teachings of the Church Fathers, ed. by John R. Willis, S.J. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002 pp. 404-405.
[6] Ibid., p. 331.
