A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

HILARUS or HILARIUS, Bishop of Rome.

HIlarus, or rather Hilarius a 1.1 an Arch-Deacon of the Church of Rome in the Popedom of St. Leo, was one of the Legats, which this Pope sent into the East about the affair of Euty∣ches. * 1.2 He was present in that quality in the Sham-Council of Ephesus, and because he would not consent to the Condemnation of Flavian, he made his escape into Italy. It was at this time, that he wrote his first Letter to Pulcheria the Empress, in which he lets her know, that the Pope, and all the Western Bishops disallowed all that was done in the Council. He remained in the Office of an Arch-Deacon till the Death of St. Leo. We have a Letter of his Written in 457 to Victorius, in which he desires the resolution of such difficulties, as arose about Easter-day. This Let∣ter, as we have said, is at the beginning of Victorius's Paschal Cycle.

Arch-Deacons having had a share in the Government of the Church, it hath been thought, that no fitter Person could be chosen to succeed the Bishop than they: Upon which account it is, that they have ordinarily been pitched upon. Hence it was, that after the Death of Saint Leo, Hilarius was chosen into his place. He was ordained November 17. in the year 461. We have a Letter of his to Leontius Bishop of Arles, dated Jan. 25. Anno. 462, wherein he tells him of his Election, and desires him to let all the Bishops of his Countrey know it, that they may joyn their Prayers with his for the good of the Universal Church. This Letter is unfitly put in the 5th place, since it is dated before any that Hilary wrote, when he was Bishop. He therein put him in mind, that those who are observers of Tradition, are sensible what respect hath been given all along to St. Peter and his See. Leontius, to whom this Letter is written, before he received it, had written a Letter to Pope Hilary, which he sent by Pappolus, seeking the Popes favour, that he might procure his own Settlement in all those Rights, which St. Leo had attempted to take from the Bishop of Arles. Hilary returned him a very obliging Answer, telling him, That he had w•…•…ten to him already, doing thereby as the Ordi∣nary Custom, and Mutual Charity required of him. ••e sent him likewise a Copy of the preceding Letter, to shew him, that he had not been defective 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is Duty. He tells him, That he hoped to have a frequent Correspondence with him by Letter, and promises, that he will observe the Canons, and use his utmost power to cause others to observe them, and to procure the Peace and Agreement of all the Bishops. This Letter, which is the Fifth, is without date, but it seems to be written soon after the former.

Hilarius soon gave proof of his Care and Vigilance. A Person named Hermes, a Man Unworthy of the Priesthood, had procured himself to be ordained Bishop of Biterrae, and being thrust out of that Bishoprick, he Usurped the Diocess of Narbon. The Pope having intelligence of it, wrote first to Leontius to inform him of that affair; this appeareth by the 7th Letter, dated Nov. 3. 462. He soon after propounded it to a Council of Rome held in November in 462, at which Faustus, and Auxa∣nius two French Bishops were present. It was resolved in this Council, that the Usurpation of Her∣mes was disorderly, and therefore they deprived him of the Right of Ordaining Bishops of his Pro∣vince, which was granted to the Bishop of Uzetia during his Life. Pope Hilary sent this Decree to the Bishops of the Provinces of Vienna, Lyons, the two Provinces of Narbon, and the Province of the Sea-Alps, and at the same time exhorts them by the eighth Letter to hold Councils every Year, which should be Summoned by Leontius Bishop of Arles. He adds also in that Letter, That no Bi∣shop nor Clergyman, may go out of his Province without having the Letters of his Metropolitan; and in case he will not grant him them thro' hatred or enmity to him, He may address himself to the Bishop of Arles, who shall not give any leave but upon good reasons. He declares further, that upon the complaint of the Bishop of Arles, who had Complain'd that his Predecessor had left the Churches subject to him to others, he had communicated that business to them, that they might examine it. In fine, he admonishes them not to suffer the goods of the Church to be alienated, if the alienation be not allowed of by a Council. This Letter bears date December 3. 462.

The Rights which Pope Hilary was about to restore, in favour of the Bishop of Arles, seemed to receive some Check by the attempt of Marcian Bishop of Vienna. There had been for a long time a Con∣test between the Bishops of Vienna, and Arles, about their Prerogative. The Popes had sometimes fa∣voured the one, and sometimes the other. Saint Leo, who had at first very much opposed the preten∣sions of the Bishop of Arles, upon the account of his displeasure, which he had against Hilary, was af∣terward reconciled to him; and had ordered by his 51 Letters, that the Arch-bishop of Vienna should content himself with having the Rights of a Metropolitan over four Cities, viz. Valentia, Tarantesta, Geneva, and Gratianople, and that all the other Cities should be subject to the Metropolis of Arles. Saint Mamertus, whether it was that he would not obey this order, or that he thought that Leontius would not take it ill, ordained a Bishop of Dia. Pope Hilary having heard of it by an Officer, wrote

immediately to Leontius, blaming him for not giving him notice of this action, and commanded him to have the matter examined in a Synod; and give him a relation of it in a Synodal Letter. The Letter of Hilary to Leontius is the Ninth, and is dated Octob. 10. Anno. 463.

Leontius, and the Bishops assembled in his Synod, returned answer to Pope Hilary, that it was true, that Mamertus had ordained a Bishop of Dia. But it appears by the Popes answer, that they spoke of that action with much moderation, not shewing themselves troubled at all at it. The Pope did not take it in the same manner, but looked upon it as an Unpardonable crime. He accused St. Mamer∣tus of Pride, Presumption, Treachery, and a Sinful attempt, and threatned to deprive him of all his Privileges, and out him of all the Right he had over his four Churches, if he did maintain what he had done as Lawful, and persisted to do the like for the future. And as to the Bishop of D••••, whom he had ordained, he enjoyned him to accept the Confirmation of Leontius Bishop of Arles, who ought regularly to have ordained him, and gave Ver••••us a Commission to deliver these Orders forthwith, and see that they be put in Exec••tion. All this is contained in the fourth Letter of this Pope sent to Leon∣tius, and the other Bishops of his Synod, which is dated Feb. 24. Anno. 464. He wrote also a little time after another Letter to the Bishop of the Provinces of Vienna, Lyon, Narbonne, the Paenine-Alpes, in which he repeats and confirms, what he had said in his former Letter, for the upholding the Rights of the Church of Arles, and orders the Bishops of those Provinces to come to the Synods, to which they shall be called by the Bishop of Arles.

In the Year 465, the Church of Rome had the Honour to be consulted by Ascanius Bishop of Tarra∣co, and other Bishops of his Province, who wrote two Letters to Hilary, about two important Matters which fell out in their Countrys. They speak in both of them with a great deal of Respect and Sub∣mission to the Holy See. In the first, having told him, that they resorted to him as to the Successor of St. Peter, whose Primacy ought to be feared, and loved by all Christians. Cujus Vicarii principa∣tus, sicut emine••, est ••etue••dus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 omnibus & ••mandus; to receive found Answers from a place, where things are not judged of erno••••ou••ly, or with prejudice; but after a truly Episcopal deliberation, I say, after this compliment, they tell him, that Silv••••••s Bishop of Calaguris, which is a City of their Pro∣vince farthest dist••nt from the Metropolis, ••••d ventured to ordain a Bishop in a certain City against the Consent of the People, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 take a Pri••st of another Bishop, and make him Bishop against his Will. That the Bishop of Casar••••gusta had opposed these his undertakings, and had caused the Neigh∣bouring Bishops to separate from him, but that had not reduced him, he continued in his Obstinacy, and Schism. Whereupon they desire the Pope to Command them, what he thought fit to be done by them upon this occasion, that being assisted by his Authority and Counsel, they might know how they ought to deal with the Bishop who ordained, and the Bishop who was ordained. The 2d Letter from the same Bishop is about another business; it begins also with a Compliment to the Pope, and goes on with a Request, which these Bishops made to him to confirm the Choice, which they had made of Bishop Irenaeus, to fill up the See of Barcino, which was vacant by the death of Nundinarius. They shew him that they followed the judgment of his Predecessor in so doing, who had named him for his Successor, and had also the approbation of the People and Clergy, and that they had considered the good of that Church. They added, that they had complained to him sometime since, of the attempts of Syl∣vanus, but had received no Answer, and therefore desired him to give them an Answer of all together.

These Letters being delivered to him at the time, when he had assembled the Bishops at Rome for the Anniversary Solemnity of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Exaltation, he read them in a full Counsel, and the Bishops disco∣vered by their Acclamation and Consent, that they condemned the actions of Sylvamis, and did not approve of the Ordination of Irenaeus, because it was performed contrary to the Rules of the Church. 1. Because it was never allowed any Bishop to choose his Successor. 2. Because Irenaeus being Bishop of another Church, could not be Translated to Barcino. This being decreed after this manner, the Pope wrote two Letters, one to Ascanius, and the Bishop of the Province of Tarrraco, and the other parti∣cularly to Ascanius; in which he declares, pursuent to the Judgment of his Colleagues, and the deter∣mination of the Canons, that Sylvanus had offended in celebrating Ordinations without the Authority and consent of the Bishop of Tarraco h's Metropolitan; that Irenaeus ought to relinquish the Church of Barcino, and that Ascanius ought to ordain some other Person, every way fitly qualified for that See; That as to those Bishops th••t had been ordained without his Consent, he might let them alone, if they have not been twice Married, or have not Married a Widow; That he should take special Care, that there be not two Bishops in one and the same Church; That he ought not to ordain any ignorant or lame Person, no more than those that have done Penance; That he ought not to hearken so much to the Prayers of the People, as to depart from the Will of God, or the Laws of the Church to please them. Lastly, he subjoyns that if Irenaeus will not quit the See of Barcino, he deserves to be wholly deprived of the Episcopal Dignity. This Council was held in the Month of November, Anno. 465, and the Popes Letters are Written at the end of December in the same Year.

Ingenuus Bishop of * 1.3 Ebre••••umim, who was present at this Council of Rome, reminded Pope Hilary, that what he had ordained at the Request of Auxanius in the Council held Anno. 462. and confirmed in another in 464, was prejudicial to the Metropolitical Right, which he claimed in the Province of the Sea-Alpes. The Pope respecting this his Remonstrance, wrote to Leontius, Veranus, and Victurus, French Bishops to regulate this matter according to the Laws of the Church, and the Constitutions of his Predecessor, not having regard to those Declarations, which have been obtained of him fraudu∣lently, when they are found opposite to the Holy Canons and Decrees of his Predecessors. Wherefore he confirmed the Metropolitical Right of the Bishop of Ebredunum, and Ordained, that what had been Decreed by St. Leo touching the Bishopricks of Cemele and Nice, should be exactly observed. So that it was the Ambition of the Bishops that gave the Popes an Opportunity of Greatning their own Au∣thority

every day, and making them subject to him, by favouring the Pretensions sometimes of the one, and sometimes of the other. The Style of Pope Hilary is not so florid as St. Leo's, but it is Ele∣gant, and easie to be understood. He was very knowing in the Laws and Discipline of the Church, and enlarged his Authority to make them observed. As we have not observed the Common Order of his Letters, but placed them according to time, it is convenient to compare Ours, with the Ancient, as in this Table.

I. The Letter to the Empress Pulcheria, Written Anno. 451. In the Acts of the Council of Chalce∣•…•…,	Part 1. Chap. 24.
II. The Letter to Victorius, Written Anno. 456. At the beginning of Victorius's Paschal Cycle.	The Ancient Figures.
III. The Letter to Leontius Bishop of Arles, Written Jan. 25. Anno. 462	V.
IV. Another Letter to the same Person, Written a little after.	VI.
V. A Third Letter to the same Person about the affair of Hermes, Written Nov. 3. Anno. 462.	VII.
VI. A Letter to the Bishops of the Provinces of Vienna, Lyon, both Narbonns, and the Paenine-Alpes upon the same Subject, Decem. 3. 462.	VIII.
VII. A Fourth Letter to Leontius about the business of St. Mamertus, Oct. 10. 463.	IX.
VIII. A Letter to the Bishops Victurius, Ingenuus, Idatius, &c. about the same business, February 24. 464.	XI.
IX. A Letter to the Bishops of the Provinces of Vienna, Lyon, both Narbonns, and Alps, upon the same Subject, Written sometime after the former.	X.
X. A Letter to the Bishops of the Province of Tarraco, about the Ordination of Irenaeus, dated January 3. 465,	II.
XI. A Letter to Ascanius Bishop of Tarraco, upon the same Subject, Written at the same time.	III.
XII. A Letter to Leontius, Veranus, and Victurus, about the business of Ingenuus Bishop of Ebredunum, Written in the same year.	IV.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Or rather Hilarius.] He is commonly called Hi∣larus, and so his Name is found written in the anci∣ent Marble Inscriptions. He is named in St. Leo's Letters, and in that of Nicholas first, to the Emperor Michael. Hilarius Marcellinus in his Chronicon calls him after the same manner. 'Tis probable, that he is called Hilarus corruptly only.
• * 1.2

  Hilarus.
• * 1.3

  Ambrun