Roman Catholic apologists are fond of quoting Book II of Hilary of Poitiers’ On the Trinity in Pneumatological debates about the Filioque. They commonly quote Par 29 of the book which they allege states, “we are bound to confess Him, proceeding, as He does, from Father and Son.”
There is a major problem with this–the Latin says something completely different:
Patre et Filio auctoribus
This states that the “Father and Son [are the Spirit’s] Authors.” To those that are not informed, they may feel that this “saves” the passage from a Filioquist interpretation. In fact, this statement is in reality 1,000 times worse. Taken literally and out of context, it would mean that the Filioque cannot be interpreted in the sense Saint Maximus taught. Instead, it would be teaching that the Father and Son originated the Spirit. Several scholars over the years have pointed this out, for example here, here, and here (p. 205-206). For this reason, my initial comments on Hilary were that I suspected that he, unlike Augustine, was a true Filioquist.
I disclose the preceding to reveal my bias–that I went into researching this presuming that Hilary had a heretical Pneumatology. I am grateful that upon further study, I have concluded that this is incorrect.
The Disputed Passage. As follows is something I found nowhere else–a complete translation of all the relevant parts of the paragraph. I did this translation myself (using something called a “Latin Dictionary” and my NY-Regents level Spanish) and ran it by someone else who read Latin. I disclose it here in full so someone on the grounds of my translation of Latin itself (and not appeals to authority or ad hominems) could scrutinize what it states. This translation is as literal as possible. The Latin can be found in Migne PL Vol 10. Col 69:
De Spiritu autem sancto nec tacere oportet, nec loqui necesse est: sed sileri a nobis, eorum causa qui nesciunt, non potest.
Of the Holy Spirit, nor [is it] proper [to be] silent, nor is it necessary [for us] to speak; but we keep silent who do not know the cause, [because we are] not able.
Loqui autem de eo non necesse est, qui Patre et Filio auctoribus, confitendus est
You [the Semi-Arians] do not need to talk about, [whether] it is confessed [that], the Father and the Son [are the Spirit’s] Authors.
Et quidem puto, an sit, non esse, tractandum. Est enim; quando quidem donator, accipitur, obinetur; et qui confessione Patris et Filii connexus est, non potest a confessione Patris et Filii separari…
And, indeed, I judge [it] cannot be discussed. For, [He] is given, received, indwelt; and it is confessed [that He] is connected [to the] Father and the Son [and] cannot be confessed [that He is] separate from the Father and the Son….
Unde quia est, et donator, et habetur, et Dei est, cesset hinc sermo ealumniantium.
And it is so–[He is] given, received, and of God; so stop [your] untrue talk.
Cum dicunt per quem sit, et ob quid sit, vel quails sit:
When you [i.e. the Semi-Arians] reply, “By which [He] is, and because what [He] is [i.e. why does He exist?], or what [He] is [i.e. what is His nature]?”
si responsio nostra displicebit dicentium, Per quem omnia, et ex quo omnia sunt, et quia Spiritus est De, donum fidelium; displiceant et Apostolu et Prophetae.
If they are displeased [with] our answer, “’By whom [are] all things and from Whom [are] all things’ [cf 1 Cor 8:6]; And about the Spirit [He] is given [to the] faithful,” [they are] displeased with the apostles and prophets.
As one can see, the entire thrust of the passage has nothing to do with teaching the Filioque. It is literally saying the Semi-Arians speculate that the Father and Son are the Authors of the Spirit (something which may be surprising as the Filioque was added to the Creed to deal with Arians century later). To the contrary, Hilary of Poitiers emphatically refuses to speculate on grounds he cannot find it in the Scriptures itself and feels that it is a mystery he cannot answer. This is a typical trope throughout the On the Trinity and is easy to miss if someone has not read the book cover to cover. Hilary is a Biblicist and repeatedly criticizes those for their unbiblical speculations and presents himself as defending the teaching of the Scriptures.
How so many scholars so badly handle this passage, I can only speculate. I presume they were not reading the passage in context and further they were relying upon the extremely misleading popular English translation bearing almost no similarity with the Latin, which is as follows:
There is no need to speak, because we are bound to confess Him, proceeding, as He does, from Father and Son. For my own part, I think it wrong to discuss the question of His existence. He does exist, inasmuch as He is given, received, retained; He is joined with Father and Son in our confession of the faith, and cannot be excluded from a true confession of Father and Son; take away a part, and the whole faith is marred…Wherefore since He is, and is given, and is possessed, and is of God, let His traducers take refuge in silence. When they ask, Through Whom is He? To what end does He exist? Of what nature is He? We answer that He it is through Whom all things exist, and from Whom are all things, and that He is the Spirit of God, God’s gift to the faithful. If our answer displease them, their displeasure must also fall upon the Apostles and the Prophets
Hilary’s Pneumatology found elsewhere. I would dispute Scienscki (a Fordham educated Orthodox scholar) in his assertion that Hilary taught the same doctrine that was fundamentally the same as the modern Western view of the Filioque. For one, we see that Hilary refuses to even speculate on causal origins for the Spirit.
Second, we have no indication that Hilary has anything other than the Orthodox Pneumatological view of origin. Book XIII contains “the meat” of Hilary’s speculations (which are more of a torturous, Biblicist exegesis in the most minimalistic sense) on the topic. For example:
He says, When that advocate has come, “Whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth Who proceeds from the Father, He shall testify of Me.” The Advocate shall come and the Son shall send Him from the Father, and He is the Spirit of truth Who proceeds from the Father…He will send from the Father that Spirit of truth which proceeds from the Father; He therefore cannot be the Recipient, since He is revealed as the Sender. (Par 19)
Hilary simply iterates that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and then is sent to believers (i.e. the “Temporal Procession.”) This is no more than an affirmation of the confession he made in Book II, “And it is so–[He is] given, received, and of God; so stop [your] untrue talk.”
In the next paragraph, Hilary criticizes the Semi-Arians for “their licence of speculation, some of them holding that the Paraclete Spirit comes from the Father or from the Son.” This is ironic, because just as my translation above shown, Hilary does not take kindly to Arian assertions that the Spirit comes from the Son. It also shows my translation is fundamentally correct, as he again critizes the Semi-Arians for their speculation on exactly the same issue.
Some Filioquists may take issue with this by pointing out later in the paragraph Hilary states:
Accordingly He receives from the Son, Who is both sent by Him, and proceeds from the Father. Now I ask whether to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father. But if one believes that there is a difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the Father, surely to receive from the Son and to receive from the Father will be regarded as one and the same thing. (Par 20)
This is when the vagueries of the term procedit in Latin complicate theological explanation. After all, “proceed” in Latin can just as easily refer to a temporal procession as it does to an eternal one. So, what does Hilary have in mind when he says that for us to receive the Spirit from the Son “is the same thing as to proceed from the Father?”
It appears later in the same paragraph, Hilary tries to explain the difference between eternal and temporal procession:
For the Spirit of truth proceeds from the Father and is sent from the Father by the Son. All things that the Father has are the Son’s. (Par 20)
The point is simple. The temporal procession is shared between the Father and Son because they are the same essence. Yet, the eternal procession of the Spirit is not said to follow the same logic. We see this stated implied here and elsewhere:
The Spirit of Truth proceeds from the Father, He is sent by the Son and receives from the Son. But all things that the Father has are the Son’s, and for this cause He Who receives from Him is the Spirit of God but at the same time the Spirit of Christ. (Par 27)
As we can see, the Spirit is the “Spirit of Christ” in a causally different way. The statement “for this cause” clearly shows that the specific reason why the Holy Spirit may be referred to as the “Spirit of Christ” is because of the temporal procession. There is no indication that the eternal procession is in view, something Hilary forbids one speculating about twice.
Conclusion. Belaboring the point further is pointless, so I will end succinctly. Hilary’s On the Trinity simply does not teach the Filioque. In fact, he states things that mitigate against it. Hilary is admittedly scanty in his speculations on the topic as he appears unaware of an authoritative Scripture or interpretation from tradition. What we can surmise, however, is that he affirms the literal rendering of John 15:26 and appears to view the procession invoked there as causitive, differentiating between this and the temporal procession–but only in a vague way.
Help Grow the Orthodox Church in Cambodia!
Has this article blessed you? Please bless the Moscow Patriarchate’s missionary efforts in Cambodia to bring the Gospel to a people who have not heard it!
$1.00
I may be wrong, and my Latin is rusty, but I think that ‘confitendus est’ is a gerundive, which means it carries the sense of ‘it must’, i.e. ‘it must be acknowledged’. Nor do I see any ‘whether’ in the sentence. ‘Loqui autem de eo non necesse est’ means ‘However, it is not necessary to speak about him [or, possibly, about this].’ If I were translating it, I would say: “However, it is not necessary to speak about Him, Who must be acknowledged to have the Father and Son as auctores’); whether that is Orthodox (even from a Roman Catholic point of view) depends on what St. Hilary meant by ‘auctor’. But I do not trust my translation; possibly it could mean ‘…about this, that it must be acknowledged …’ I think it would take a genuine expert to translate the sentence accurately.
I am neither a Latin expert, which is why I put everything up to allow for more easy scrutiny. Being that in Par 20 of book 8 Hilary criticizes the Semi-Arians for “their licence of speculation, some of them holding that the Paraclete Spirit comes from the Father or from the Son,” this accords with the translation I give above as well as the sense of how the passage continues, with Hilary asserting it is a topic no one should speculate.
Just as a side note “whether” is in brackets, indicating there is no such Latin word but something we must infer for the sentence to make sense. For example, if we understand the gerundive to mean “should” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerundive) the sentence would be if I remove all the brackets:
You do not need to talk about, should it be confessed, the Father and the Son […] Authors.
Where is the assertion that the Spirit’s auctores are the Father and Son? Even if it is “must” the beginning, “you do not need to talk about” frames the whole question so as to assert that one should not speculate. Then he proceeds for the rest of the paragraph to say one should not speculate. Then, he says in a later book the same thing.
It would seem the argument should really be over the translation of “Loqui autem de eo non necesse est.” I do not need to be a Latin expert to see that “non necesse est” literally means “it is not necessary.” So, whatever Hilary is critiquing, it is over something that is “not necessary.”
I am happy that so many people are interesting in parsing the Latin here, because my hope is someone who is an expert will actually look at the whole paragraph in question and confirm or deny the overall sense of my translation and tell us how they would render it.
“Confitendus” is masculine and agrees with “Spiritus” – it the Spirit Who is being confessed, and not something about the Spirit. Your version would also require a subjunctive – so “confitendus est” would become “an confitendum sit”, though even that probably isn’t exactly right (it’s been a while since I studied Latin).
Ty. I will get a real translator on this one !
Here is a translation from a Latin PHD (he gets paid to teach Latin) who will remain unnamed. He thought the Latin was strange and contained “typos.” I have not looked carefully at his translation, but I may have to issue a retraction as I think the rhetorical thrust is different. But allow me to compare everything. In the meantime, here it is:
But we should not be silent about the Holy Spirit, nor is it necessary to speak: but it is not possible for us to be silent, for the sake of those who do not know.
But it is not necessary to speak about him, who must be confessed, since the Father and the Son are reporters [about him].
And indeed, I think that we ought not to discuss whether he exists. For he does exist: when the giver [of the Spirit] is accepted, [the Spirit] is met with. (??) And he who has been joined by the confession of the Father and the Son cannot be separated from the confession of the Father and the Son.
Therefore, since he is, and is considered to be the giver, and of God (??), let the speech of calumniators cease from this point.
When they say through whom He is, and on account of what he exist, or of what sort he is: if our reply displeases them when we say, “Through whom are all things and from who are all things,” and “because the Spirit is the gift of God for those who have faith,” then the apostles and prophets will also displease them.”
The Migne version isn’t a critical edition, so may well contain what appear to be typos. The expert translation looks very accurate to me. Its rendering of the key sentence backs up the alternative translation in the notes to the NPNF version, inasmuch as “on the evidence of the Father and the Son” is a more idiomatic way of saying “with the Father and the Son as reporters”. Translating it this way blows the filioquist reading of St Hilary right out of the water.
Mark, in some respects you are right. For example, to say the Father and Son prove the Spirit’s existence by “reporting” or “confessing” His existence is consistent with the next sentence:
And indeed, I think that we ought not to discuss whether he exists. For he does exist: when the giver [of the Spirit] is accepted, [the Spirit] is met with. (??) And he who has been joined by the confession of the Father and the Son cannot be separated from the confession of the Father and the Son.
However, I find the objection here, that the Arians allegedly reject the Holy Spirit’s existenceto be inconsistent with Par 20 of Book 8, which to be perfectly honest, only came to my mind *after* I did my own 2nd grade level translation–
For the present I forbear to expose their licence of speculation, some of them holding that the Paraclete Spirit comes from the Father or from the Son. For our Lord has not left this in uncertainty, for after these same words He spoke thus — I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. When He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He shall guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak from Himself: but whatever things He shall hear, these shall He speak; and He shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father has are Mine: therefore said I, He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you. John 16:12-15 Accordingly He receives from the Son, Who is both sent by Him, and proceeds from the Father.
It would seem that the Arian objection is not whether the Spirit exists at all, but how He exists. In the CCEL translation of Book 2 Par 29:
I think it wrong to discuss the question of His existence…When they ask, Through Whom is He? To what end does He exist? Of what nature is He?
So, I might try to clear one more thing up in Latin as I am extremely close to issuing a retraction and re-working the article. It will probably be best to keep this article up, and issue a separate retraction. I feel ashamed and saddened that my own ignorance of the Latin may call into question what stills appears to be a correct interpretation of what Hilary is saying. For that, I apologize.
I assume that the Arians weren’t rejecting the Holy Spirit’s existence per se, but rather His existence as a divine hypostasis. Accordingly, their speculations about the Spirit’s origin don’t have anything to do with how one divine hypostasis originated from another, but relate to the origination of a created Holy Spirit.
Interesting: “their licence of speculation, some of them holding that the Paraclete Spirit comes from the Father”
I hope I say this respectfully, but is it really any good to post this analysis of St Hilary’s pneumatology? You produced a homemade translation from Latin… without actually knowing Latin but rather using a dictionary and your knowledge of Spanish… and discovered something that conveniently nobody else saw. I think your analysis of St Augustine was fantastic, but I think you might see how this one is more difficult to take seriously.
By the way, does Dr Siescienski say that St Hilary agrees with Catholic filioquism? In his own book he calls it “open to question” and “unclear”. I don’t know if I shared that part here before or not.
I was going by what Dr Siescienski says in his article, linked in my article.
But yes, I am not going to go to the mats and assert my Latin translation is the best (which is why I disclosed good reasons why it may not be), but I think this more literal translation makes more sense–the Latin is there for others to scrutinize. 🙂
I can’t see the link to his article, would you mind sharing it again please? It’s disturbing if Siescienski thinks that St Hilary agrees with Florence. I don’t say this about Dr Siescienski’s own orthodoxy, but rather I don’t find it evident that St Hillary agrees with Catholic filioquism. I would agree with his original conclusion that it’s not clear at all what St Hilary’s words imply.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20474812?read-now=1&seq=18#page_scan_tab_contents
p. 205-206 Let me know if I am misrepresent Scienscki
I think the NPNF translation is pretty accurate.
I always prefer to read NPNF translations on ccel.org rather than on New Advent, as CCEL gives the translator’s notes, which can be illuminating. Although the translator regards the filioquist sense as the obvious one, he notes that “on the evidence of the Father and the Son” is also a possible translation. This makes more sense given the context of the passage, which has to do with how we know that the Spirit exists and who He is.
Going with the NPNF translation but opting for the alternative rendition of the key expression given in the footnotes offers a simple and elegant response to the charge that Hilary is a filioquist.
But how does the Latin say, “confess Him on the evidence of Father and Son?” That is a total botching of the word “auctores.”
Loqui autem de eo non necesse est, qui Patre et Filio auctoribus, confitendus est
Literally:
It is not necessary to speak about Him Who ought to be confessed with the Father and the Son as authorities.
“On the authority of” might be better than “on the evidence of”.
Hey Craig, this is a pretty good article. Sorry for commenting this late in the discussion, but I thought it would be interesting to share Siecienski view on the matter from his Filioque book. It seems he changed his view compared to his previous one on the thesis about St. Maximus’ letter. In fact, the translation for the critical latin passage he suggests could be right is pretty similar to the one your PhD friend shared. It goes like this:
“ The problem is that while this text can be understood to mean that “we are bound to confess Him, proceeding, as he does, from Father and Son,” a better reading might be “confess him on the evidence of the Father and the Son.” (Filioque The History of a Doctrinal Controversy, pg 53)
Anyway, the conclusion for the topic at hand would be the same: Hillary’s pneumatology is orthodox.
Perhaps. This is an article I have kept up, plus the retraction, because I find it still informative but my own reading of the Latin (which is obviously defective) prevents me from stating Hilary was Orthodox in this as confidently, though I always give the saints the benefit of a doubt.
Apologies, like the gentleman above said I’m commenting this late in the discussion. But if I might add my ha’penny’s worth on the translation of Loqui autem de eo non necesse est, qui Patre et Filio auctoribus, confitendus est.
In Mediaeval Latin, as opposed to classical Latin, the meaning of auctor is usually causer, founder, originator or something like that (I take it the gentleman with a PhD was a classical scholar, hence his issues with the “debased” Mediaeval syntax). I would therefore suggest it might be accurate to render it:
But it is not necessary to speak of him: of whom it must be acknowledged that the Father and to the Son are the causes.
(And before anyone questions any theological implication of saying causes (plural) rather than cause (singular), Hilary had to use the plural to make the Latin agree. I believe there is no question of him denying the monarchia of the Father by saying this. Personally I’d read this as compatible with Cappadocian thought.)
John, I agree with your rendering of the Latin (personally), which is why I find the passage problematic to the Orthodox. It can certainly be read according the the Roman Catholic view. Granted, Hilary is not clear enough, but I think the simpler explanation, given to the stress he puts on the word “auctor,” is he is talking about the Spirit’s origin. We can use mental gymnastics to say that he is really saying something Orthodox somehow, but this would not be the simplest explanation.
I appreciate your honesty Craig.