INTRODUCTION. CHAPTER I.

During the first years of Hilary’s episcopate, there was civil turmoil in Gaul, but the Church was at peace. While the Eastern ruler Constantius favored the Arians—partly misled by unprincipled advisers and partly guided by an unwise, though honest, desire for compromise in the interests of peace—his brother Constans, who reigned in the West, upheld the Catholic cause, to which the immense majority of his clergy and people were attached. Constans was slain in January 350, by the usurper Magnentius, who, whatever his motives, took the same side. It was certainly the stance that would best conciliate his own subjects; but he went further, attempting to strengthen his precarious throne against the impending attack of Constantius by negotiating with the discontented Nicene Christians of the East. He tried to win over Athanasius, who was, however, too wise to listen; and in any case, he gained nothing by tampering with the subjects of Constantius. Constantius defeated Magnentius, pursued him, and finally slew him on August 11, 353, becoming the undisputed master not only of the East but also of the West, which he proceeded to bring into ecclesiastical conformity with his former dominions as far as he could.

The general history of Arianism and the tendencies of Christian thought at this time have been so fully and admirably delineated in the introduction to the translation of St. Athanasius in this series By Dr. Robertson of King’s College, London. This and Professor Gwatkin’s Studies of Arianism are the best English accounts. that it would be superfluous and presumptuous to go over the same ground. It must suffice to say that Constantius was animated by a strong personal hatred against Athanasius, and that the prelates at his court seem to have found their chief employment in intrigues for the expulsion of bishops whose seats might be filled by their own friends. Athanasius was a formidable antagonist, even to an Emperor, because of his strong position in Alexandria; Constantius was attempting to weaken him by creating the impression that he was unworthy of the high esteem in which he was held.

Even in the East, at this time, the Nicene doctrine was not yet avowedly rejected; still less could the doctrinal issue be raised in Gaul, where the truths stated in the Nicene Creed were regarded as so obvious that the Creed itself had excited little interest or attention. Hilary at this time had never heard it Syn. 91., though nearly thirty years had passed since the Council decreed it. But there were personal charges against Athanasius—of which he has himself given us a full and interesting account The Apologia contra Arianos, p. 100 ff. in Dr. Robertson’s translation.—which had done him, and were to do him, serious injury. They had been disproved publicly and completely more than once, and with great solemnity and apparent finality ten years before at Sardica in 343 A.D. But in a distant province, aided by the application of sufficient pressure, they might serve their turn; if the Emperor could obtain his enemy’s condemnation in a region whose theological sympathies were notoriously on his side, a great step would be gained towards his expulsion from Egypt.

No time was lost. In October 353, a Council was called at Arles to consider the charges. It suited Constantius’ purpose well that Saturninus of Arles, bishop of the most important see in Gaul and the natural president, was both a courtier and an Arian. He did his work well. The assembled bishops believed, or were induced to profess that they believed, that the charges against Athanasius were not made in the interests of his theological opponents, and that the Emperor’s account of them was true. The decision condemning the accused was almost unanimous. Even the representative of Liberius of Rome consented, only to be disavowed on his return; only one bishop, Paulinus of Treves, suffered exile for resistance. He may have been the only advocate for Athanasius, or Constantius may have thought that one example would suffice to terrify the episcopate of Gaul into submission. It is impossible to say whether Hilary was present at the Council or not. It is not probable that he was absent; and his ignorance, even later, on important points in the dispute shows that he may...