Italian Gorini (cited in the recent edition of Dom Ceillier), are severe upon Hilary and profess to regard the emperor's rescript as only stating explicitly a principle always recognized. But the Gallicans, as Quesnel and Tillemont, strongly defend Hilary.
It must be said for him that his conviction, that the see off Arles gave him metropolitical power over the whole of Gaul, was based upon no small amount of cogent testimony. The case in favour of this has been ably summed up by Natalis Alexander (H. E. § v. c. v. art. 8), and by the Rev. W. Kay in a note to the Oxf. trans. of Fleury (Lond. 1844). But if it hold good for the case of Chelidonius, it is not equally clear for that of Projectus. That Hilary should escape from Rome, when he found the secular authority employed to detain him, was only natural and justifiable. That he should take soldiers with him in making his visitations may be reasonably ascribed (as Fleury suggests) to the disturbed state of the country. As regards Projectus, he may have strayed beyond the ill-defined limits of his province and most certainly violated canonical rule. But there is no reason to doubt that Hilary, in so acting, really believed that Projectus would not recover, and wished to provide against an emergency. As for Hilary's exceeding freedom of language in. the presence of Leo, which greatly shocked Leo and probably others among the audience, it must be remembered that the bp. of Arles was always wont to speak very plainly. Moreover, as a friend of Hilary, the prefect Auxiliaris subsequently observed, "Roman ears were very delicate."
Those who are willing to accept pleas on behalf of Hilary do not thereby commit themselves to unreserved censure on pope Leo. The encouragement to interference in the affairs of S. Gaul was undeniably very great. Strong as was the case for the jurisdiction of Arles over most of the Gallican sees, the authority over Narbonensian Gaul had long been claimed for the bp. of Vienne. A contest between Patroclus of Arles and Proculus of Marseilles had already been carried to a former bp. of Rome, Zosimus, in 422 (some 22 years before the case of Hilary), though the result had not been encouraging to the partisans of Rome, since Zosimus misjudged it and his successor Boniface referred it back to the prelates of Gaul. But Leo, though at times dwelling more upon St. Peter's confession of faith than on his personal position, in all his letters bearing on the contest with Hilary repeats continually the text (Matt. xvi. 18) on which other bishops of Rome had dwelt so much, and appeals to it as if no other interpretation had ever been heard of, and as in itself his sole and sufficient justification.
Leo's recourse to the emperor's aid has been severely censured; and Tillemont declared concerning the famous law of June 6, 445, that "in the eyes of those who have any love for the church's liberty or any knowledge of her discipline, it will bring as little honour to him whom it praises as of injury to him whom it condemns" (Tillem. Mém. eccl. t. xv. art. xx. p. 83). Baronius (as Tillemont naturally adds) is fully justified in appealing to this act of Valentinian as a proof of the powerful aid lent by the emperors towards establishing the greatness and authority of the pope.
Of the remaining four years of Hilary's life, after his return to Gaul, we know little more than that they were incessantly occupied with the discharge of his duties. Practically the acts of Leo do not appear to have affected his position (see Hallam, Middle Ages, vol. ii. c. vii. pt. i. and Fleury), and Hilary never acknowledged their validity; though an appeal to Leo was made after Hilary's death for the restoration of its ancient metropolitical rights to Arles. The attempts of Hilary through friends to conciliate Leo availed little. But when, after the death of Hilary (May 5, 449), the prelates of the provinces announced to Leo that Ravennius had been elected and duly consecrated, Leo wrote an acknowledgment which sounds like a virtual retractation of his imputations on the motives and character of Hilary and most justly entitled him a man "of holy memory."
Writings.—Waterland (Critical History of the Athanasian Creed) argues that Hilary of Arles was the author of the (so-called) Creed of St. Athanasius, but this remains only an ingenious conjecture. Among other doubtful works assigned to Hilary must be classed certain poems on sacred subjects: (1) Poema de septem fratribus Maccabaeis ab Antiocho Epiphane interfectis. (2) A poem, more frequently attributed to Prosper Aquitanus and generally included in his works, entitled Carmen de Dei Providentiâ. (3) Carmen in Genesim. This poem (which, like the two preceding, is in hexameters) has been more often ascribed to the earlier Hilary, bp. of Poictiers. The Benedictine editors reject it with some indignation from the genuine works of Hilary of Poictiers; remarking, however, that this does not involve its attribution to Hilary of Arles. But despite faults—theological, grammatical, and metrical—the poem is curious as a real attempt at that blending of the Christian and classic elements of literature displayed in after-ages so brilliantly, though after all with questionable success, by such able scholars as the Jesuit Casimir and the Presbyterian Buchanan.
We have the authority of Hilary's biographer for asserting that he did compose some poetry (versus), wrote many letters, an explanation of the Creed (Symboli Expositio—this is a main element in Waterland's argument) and sermons for all the church's festivals (Homiliae in totius Anni Festivitates). These were apparently extant when Honoratus wrote. Two only survive: (1) Epistola ad Eucherim Episcopum Lugdunensem. (2) Vita Sancti Honorati Arelatensis Episcopi. This may be read in the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum, for Jan. 16.
[J.G.C.]
Hilarius (18) (Hilarus), bp. of Rome from Nov. 19 (or 17, Bolland.), 461, to Sept. 10, 467, succeeding Leo I., after a vacancy of nine days. He was a native of Sardinia and, when elected pope, archdeacon of Rome. He had been sent, when a deacon, as one of the legates of pope Leo to the council at Ephesus called Latrocinium (449), and is especially mentioned in the Acts of the council as having protested against the deposition of Flavian. After the council, Flavian having died from the violent
