233 Ib, viii, 45, 47, ix. 14, &c.
234 This `evacuation 0' or `exinauition 0' is represented in Tr. in Ps. lxvii. 4 by the more precise metaphor of a vessel drained of its liquid contents.
235 Hilary has devoted his Homily on Psalm lxviii. to this subject. In §25 he asks, `How could He exist in the form of God? 0' There are many equally emphatic statements throughout his writings.
236 Baltzer and Schwane have been followed in this matter, in opposition to Dorner.
237 Trin. ix. 38 habitus demutatio, and similarly Ib. 14.
240 Trin ix. 14, concursus utriusque formae.
241 It is very characteristic that it lies outside Cyprian's vocabulary and range of ideas.
242 Trin,. ix. 38 in., and especially Ib. 39. The unity of glory departed through His obedience in the Dispensation.
243 Trin. xi. 48; cf. the end of this section and xii. 6.
244 Cf Baltzer, Christologie, p. 10f., Schwane, p. 272 f. Other explanations which have been suggested are quite inadmissible Dorner p. 407, takes the passage cited above about `substance 0' too seriously, and wavers bettween the equally impossible interpretations of `countenance 0' and `personality. 0' Forster (l.c. p. 659) understands the word to mean `mode of existence. 0' Wirthmuller, cited by Schwane, p. 273, has the courage to regard `form of God 0' and `form of a servant 0' as equivalent to Divinity and humanity.
245 Trin. xii. 6, decedere ex Deo in hominem. Perhaps it should be decidere, as in Tr. in Ps. Ixviii. 4.
247 Trin. xi. 48, `emptying Himself 0' might have been a single act; `hiding Himself within Himself 0'was a sustained course of conduct.
248 Genus is fairly common, though much rarer than natura; pars occurs in Trin. xi. 14, 15, and cf. ib'. 40. Elementa is, I think, somewhat more frequent.
249 Trin. xi. 40. Natura assumpti corporis nostri natura paterna divintatis invecta. Conversly, Trin. ix, 54, nova natura in Deum illata. But such expressions are rare; hominem ad sumpsit is the normal phrase. In Tr. in Ps. Ixviii 4, he speaks as if the two natures had been forced to coalesce by a Power higher than either. But, as we have seen. in this part of the Homily Hilary's language is destitute of theological exactness.
251 E.g. Trin. ix. Il, 39 x. 16. The expression utriusque,natura persona in Trin. ix. 14 is susceptible of another interpretation.
253 Trin. x. 22, quia totus hominis filius totus Dei filius sit.
254 Cf. Gore's Dissertation's, p. 138 f. But, Hilary, though he shares and even exaggerates the general tendency of his time, has also a strong sense of the danger of Apollinarianism
255 Homo assumptus is constantly used, and similarly homo noster for our manhood, e.g. Trin. ix. 7. This often leads to an awkwardness of which Hilary must hae been fully conscious, though he regarded it as a less evil than the use of an abstract term.
257 Tr. in Ps. ii. 11, from St. John iii. 13.
258 Trin. x. 47 f.; Tr. in Ps. cxxxviii. 3.
260 Trin. x. 24. The purpose of the Old Testament Theophanies, it will be remembered, was the same. God appeared as man, In order to make men familiar with the future reality and so more ready to believe. See Trin. V. 17.
262 Trin. ii. 26 f., iii. 18f. and often, especially in the Comm. in Matt.
266 Comm. in Matt. iii. 2; Trin. x. 45;. The freedom of Christian martyrs from pain is frequently noticed in early writers.
268 Hilary was undoubtedly influenced more than he knew by the Latin words, pati and dolere, the one purely objective, the other subjective. By a line of thought which recalls that of Mozley concerning Miracles he refuses to argue from our experience to that of Christ. That He suffered, in the sense of having wounds, and death inflicted upon Him, is a fact; that He was conscious of suffering is an inference, a supposition (putatur dolere quia patitur, Tr. in Ps. cxxxviii. 3, fallitur ergo humaneastimationis opinio putans hunc dolere quod patitur, Trin. x.47, and one which we are not entitled to make. In fact, the passage last citied states that He has no natura dolendi; so also x, 23, 35, and cf. Tr. in Ps liii. 12. Or as Hilary puts it, Trin. x. 24, He is subject to the nature passionum not to their iniurie.
275 Ib. 23. These instances of His power are used as a direct proof of Christ's incapacity of pain. Hilary is willing to confess that He could feel it, if it be shewn that we can follow Him in these respects.
279 Ib, xxxi. I-7. These were not immature speculations, abandoned by a riper judgment. The explanation of `even unto death 0' is repeated, and that concerning the cup implied, in Trin. x. 36, 37
280 Trin. x. 41. Westcott and Hort insert it within brackets. Even if the passage be retained, Hilary has an explanation which agrees with his theory.
282 loc. cit., Tr. in Ps. liii. 7
283 In Tr. in Ps. liii. 7, there is also the moral purpose. He prays humbly. His prayer expresses no need of His own, but is meant to teach us the lesson of meekness.
284 Trin. x. 45. Yet Hilary himself is not always consistent. In the purely homiletical writing of Tr. in Ps. lxviii. 1, he dwells upon Christ's endurance of pain. His argument obliged Him to emphasize the suffering; it was natural, though not logical, that he should sometimes insist also upon the feeling.
285 Harnack, Dogmengesch. ii. 30I n.
286 The words are Forster's, op. cit. p. 662, and are accepted as representing their opinion by Bardenhewer, Patrologie, p. 382, and Blaltzer, Christologie, p. 32.
287 Strom. vi. ,f 71. Bigg, Christian Platonists, p. 71, gives other sources, by which Hilary is less likely to have been influenced, from which he may have derived this teaching. This is not the only coincidence between him and Clement.
288 Trin ii. 2, in vitium vitio coarctamur alieno.
289 Tr. in Ps. Ixviii. 4. The unity is also strongly put in Trin. viii. 13 x. 6I.
290 Trin. x. 34. This was Hilary's deliberate belief. But in earlier life he had written rashly of the Holy Spirit (i.e. God the Son) surrendering His humanity to be tempted, and Of the cry upon the Cross `testifying the departure of God the Word from Him 0' (Comm. in Matt.iii, xxxiii. 6). This, if it had represented Hilary's teaching in that treatise would have proved it heretical ; but the whole tenour of the commentary proves that this was simply carelessness. In the Homilies on the Psalms he also writes somewhat loosely on occasion; e.g. liii. 4 fin., where he mentions Christ's former nature, i.e. the Divinity, and ib. 5, where he speaks of `Him Who after being God (ex Deo) had died as man. 0' But only malevolence could give an evil interpretation to these passages, delivered as they were for the edification of Hilary's flock, and with no thought of theological accuracy. It is, indeed, quite possible that they were never revised, or even intended, for publication by him.
291 E.g. Trin. ix. 6, and often in the Homilies on the Psalms, as cxxxviii. 13.
295 Trin. x. 63. Similarly in Tr. in Ps. Ixvii. 2l, he speaks of `the passion, the cross, the death, the burial of God. 0'
298 Tr. in Ps. cxli. 4. There is no evidence that the text is corrupt, though the words as they stand are rank Appololinarianism and the more significant as dating from the maturity of Hilary's thought. But here, as often, we must remember that the Homilies are familiar addresses.
299 Trin. x. 52. We must remember not only that heretical distinctions had been made, but that Christ is the name of the Son in pretemporal relation to the world (see p. Ixvii.), as well as in the world.
301 Cf. Gore, Dissertations, p. 211. It is in relation to the self emptying that Hilary uses such definite language : Trin. xi. 48, intra suam ipse vacuefactus potestatem.... Se ipsum intra se vacnefaciens Continuit; xii. 6, se evacuavit in sese.
303 Trin. ix 22, A se dividuus
305 Trin. ix. 6, 0n earth Christ is Deus and homo; in glory He is totus Deus and totus homo.
306 E.g. Discourses against the Arians, iii. 53, p.422 of the translation in this series.
307 Bp. Westcott on Cyril of Alexandria in St. John's Gospel (Speaker's Commentary), p. xcv.
308 Dorner, I. ii. 415. The liberty has been taken of putting `Himself 0' for `itself 0' On the same page Dorner speaks of `ever increasing return of the Logos into equality with Himself. 0' This is a contradiction of his own explanation. God has become God-man. He could not again become simply the Logos. The key to Hilary's position is the double nature of Christ. The Godhead and the Manhood are aspects in revelation, abstractions in argument. That which connects them and gives them reality is the one Person, the object of thought and faith.
309 Tr. in Ps. cxviii., Iod, 6, cxxix. 5.
311 Isai. xlv. 12, the Old Latin, translated from the LXX., having the singular. This characteristic piece of exegesis is in Tr. in Ps. cxviii., Iod, 5; cf. ib. 7, 8.
313 Tr. in Ps. cxviii., Koph, 8.
314 Ib. Ii. 16. naturam in se universa carnis adsumpsit, ib. Iiv. 9, universitatis nostrae caro' est factus ; so also Trin. xi. 16 in., and often.
315 This latter is the argument of Trin. viii. 73f.
316 Trin ii. 24; in Him there is the universi generis humani corpus because He is homo factus ex virgine.
318 Comm. in Matt. iv. 12 ; habitatio, as is often the case in late Latin with abstracts, is collective. Hilary also speaks of Christ as gerens nos, Trin x. 25, which recalls the gestans of Tertullian and the portans of Cyprian.