INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I.

We have seen that Magnentius had tried to enlist Athanasius on his side against the Arian Emperor. Constantius was merely a new ruler over Gaul and had no claim to its loyalty through services rendered. He might reasonably interpret Hilary’s words as a threat that the orthodox in Gaul would, if their wishes were ignored, support an orthodox pretender to the throne. There was also a specific reason for suspicion. At this very time, Constantius had just conferred the government of the West upon his cousin Julian, who was installed as Cæsar on November 6, 355. From the beginning, Constantius likely distrusted Julian, and Julian certainly distrusted Constantius. Thus, it might well seem that the materials were ready for an explosion—that a disloyal Cæsar would find ready allies in discontented Catholics.

It is no wonder that Hilary’s letter had no effect on the policy of Constantius. It is somewhat surprising that several months passed before he was punished. In the spring of 356, Saturninus presided at a Council held at Béziers, which Hilary, as he tells us, was compelled to attend. We do not know in what this compulsion consisted. It may simply have been a summons that he could not refuse with dignity, knowing as he must have that charges would be brought against him. We know little of the proceedings of the Synod. The complaints against Hilary concerned his conduct, not his faith. His faith was, of course, above suspicion, and it was not the policy of the court party to attack orthodoxy in Gaul. He seems to have been charged with inciting popular discontent; this, as we have seen, was an accusation that his own letter had rendered plausible. He tried to raise the question of the Faith, challenging the doctrine of his opponents. But though a large majority of the council of Gallic bishops would certainly sympathize with him, he had no success. Their own positions were not threatened; Hilary, like Paulinus, was accused of no doctrinal error. If these victims of Constantius had raised no questions concerning their neighbors' faith and made no objections to the Emperor’s tyranny, they might also have lived out their days in peace. The tone of the episcopate in Gaul was, in fact, by no means heroic. If we may trust Sulpicius Severus ¹ Chron. ii. 39., in all these Councils the opposition was prepared to accept the Emperor’s word regarding Athanasius and to excommunicate him, if the general question of the Faith might be discussed. But the condition was evaded, and the issue was never frankly raised. If it was cowardly, it was not unnatural that Hilary should have been condemned by the Synod, and condemned almost unanimously. Only Rodanius of Toulouse was punished with him; the number of sufferers would certainly have been greater had there been any strenuous protest against the injustice. The Synod sent their decision to the Cæsar Julian, their immediate ruler. Julian took no action; he may have felt the matter was too serious for him to decide without referring it to the Emperor, but it is more likely he had no wish to outrage the dominant Church sentiment of Gaul and alienate sympathies he might need in the future. In any case, he refused to pass a sentence he must have known would be in accordance with the Emperor’s desire; and the vote of the Synod condemning Hilary was sent to Constantius himself. He acted upon it at once, and in the summer of the same year, 356, Hilary was exiled to the diocese—the civil district comprising several provinces—of Asia.

We now come to the most important period of Hilary’s life. He was already, as we have seen, a Greek scholar and a follower of Greek theology. He was now to come into immediate contact with the great problems of the day in the very field where they were being constantly debated. He was well prepared to take his part. He had formed his own convictions before he was acquainted with homoousion (the belief that the Son is of the same substance as the Father), homoiousion (the belief that the Son is of similar substance), or the Nicene Creed.