{"slug":"stoa0149b.stoa003.opp-lat2","id":"latin:ogl-pl:stoa0149b.stoa003.opp-lat2","title":"Fragmenta ex aliis S. Hilarii operibus","title_source":"Fragmenta ex aliis S. Hilarii operibus","author":"Hilarius Pictaviensis","genre":"other","date":"","tradition":"latin","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-15T06:05:33Z","cost_usd":0.002602},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:stoa0149b.stoa003.opp-lat2","work_id":"stoa0149b.stoa003.opp-lat2","edition":"ogl-pl","language":"","license":"Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/stoa0149b/stoa003/stoa0149b.stoa003.opp-lat2.xml"},"stats":{"passages":4,"english_words":954,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":3779,"commentary_units":24,"commentary_kinds":7,"derived_notes":1,"ambiguities":9,"work_notes":5,"external_links":0,"timeline":5},"summary":{"work":"stoa0149b.stoa003.opp-lat2","abstract":"The Fragmenta ex aliis S. Hilarii operibus is a modern compilation of excerpts drawn from various lost or partially preserved works of Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300–367). The fragments survive only as quotations in later authors or as marginalia, with no continuous treatise underlying them. Their textual history is indirect, and the original context of each excerpt is often lost. The edition, based on the Patrologia Latina, does not identify the source work for individual fragments, making verification of context or textual variants impossible. The fragments are assigned to Hilary on stylistic and doctrinal grounds, but no external witness confirms a precise date for any single passage. They were cited by medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas and by early modern editors, but never circulated as a separate liturgical or canonical text.","historical_context":"Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300–367) was a bishop, theologian, and Doctor of the Church, active in Roman Gaul during the Arian controversy. He wrote numerous exegetical and doctrinal works, many now lost. The fragments collected in this edition derive from treatises that survive only in quotations by later authors (e.g., Augustine, Thomas Aquinas) or in manuscript marginalia. The Patrologia Latina edition (19th c.) gathered these excerpts, but the original works—such as Hilary's lost commentaries on Job—are no longer extant. The fragments were transmitted indirectly, often through medieval florilegia or catenae, and their authenticity is generally accepted on stylistic grounds. The dating of individual fragments is uncertain; they are assigned to the 4th century based on Hilary's lifetime, but no external witness confirms a precise date for any single passage. The edition does not identify the source work for each fragment, so readers cannot verify the original context or check for textual variants in the full treatises from which these excerpts derive.","significance":"These fragments preserve traces of Hilary's exegetical and theological thought from works otherwise lost, offering insights into 4th-century Latin theology, especially on topics like sin, redemption, and the devil. They also illustrate the indirect transmission of patristic texts through medieval quotation and modern compilation. The fragments relate to Hilary's known corpus (e.g., De Trinitate) and to broader patristic traditions, but their fragmentary nature limits their utility for reconstructing Hilary's original arguments.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 300–367","event":"Life of Hilary of Poitiers; original composition of the treatises from which fragments derive."},{"date":"4th–5th c.","event":"Earliest possible quotations of Hilary's works by later authors (e.g., Augustine)."},{"date":"13th c.","event":"Thomas Aquinas cites Hilary's fragments, indicating their medieval circulation."},{"date":"19th c.","event":"Patrologia Latina edition collects the fragments as Fragmenta ex aliis S. Hilarii operibus."},{"date":"Undated","event":"Transmission of fragments via marginalia and florilegia; no continuous manuscript tradition."}],"relations":[{"work":"De Trinitate","relation":"Hilary's major surviving work; fragments may share doctrinal themes.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Tractatus super Psalmos","relation":"Another Hilary work; fragments may reflect similar exegetical methods.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Lost Commentaries on Job","relation":"Some fragments likely derive from these lost treatises.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Patrologia Latina","relation":"Source edition for the fragments; compiled by J.-P. Migne.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Summa Theologica","relation":"Thomas Aquinas cites Hilary's fragments, showing medieval reception.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["The dating of individual fragments is uncertain; they are assigned to Hilary (c. 300–367) on stylistic and doctrinal grounds, but no external witness confirms a precise date for any single passage.","The edition does not identify the source work for each fragment; readers cannot verify the original context or check for textual variants in the full treatises from which these excerpts derive.","The fragments survive only as quotations in later authors or as marginalia; their textual history is indirect, and the original context of each excerpt is often lost.","The Latin text may be corrupt in places (e.g., deponent verbs used passively, ambiguous syntax)."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000502,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:05:33Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/stoa0149b/stoa003/stoa0149b.stoa003.opp-lat2.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"stoa0149b.stoa003.opp-lat2","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":4,"translated":4,"commentary_passages":4,"commentary_units":24,"english_words":954,"source_letters":3779,"commentary_kinds":7},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The edition prints fragments drawn from other works of Hilary, not from a single continuous treatise. The source edition is Ogl-PL, which collects these excerpts from the Patrologia Latina.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"These fragments survive only as quotations embedded in later authors or as marginalia in manuscripts. Their textual history is indirect, and the original context of each excerpt is often lost.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The dating of individual fragments is uncertain. They are assigned to Hilary (c. 300–367) on stylistic and doctrinal grounds, but no external witness confirms a precise date for any single passage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"This edition does not identify the source work for each fragment. Readers cannot verify the original context or check for textual variants in the full treatises from which these excerpts derive.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Hilary’s fragments were cited by medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas and by early modern editors of the Patrologia Latina, but they never circulated as a separate liturgical or canonical text.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: other in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 4 narrative."},{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","text":"1 scriptural phrase match(es) noted: John 1:14."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":4},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"711-712 FRAGMENTA EX ALIIS SANCTI HILARII OPERIBUS IN VETERIBUS MONIMENTIS RELICTA.\n\nEx tractatibus in Job.\n\nI. Tanta enim et tam admirabilis in nos misericordiae Dei bonitas est, ut per quem in Adae offensa generositatem primae et beatae illius creationis amisimus, per eum rursum id quod amisimus obtinere mereamur. Tunc enim diabolus invidens nocuit: nunc autem, cum nocere nititur, vincitor. Movet enim per infirmitatem carnis nostrae omnia potestatis sum tela, cum ad lasciviam accendit, cum ad ebrietatem illicit, cum ad odia stimulat, cum ad avaritiam provocat, cum ad caedes instruit, cum ad maledicta exacerbat. Sed cum per firmitatem animi horum omnium subrepentia incentiva reprimuntur, emundamur a peccato per hujus victoriae gloriam; dictum enim ita est: Aut quomodo se emundabit natus ex muliere (Job. xxv, 4)? Quia non exstante hoste, non erit bellum: cessante deinde bello victoria deerit. Collidentium autem adyersus nos vitiorum victoria non adepta, non erit emundatio ulla vitiorum: quia his insidiis eorporis nostri pirata victo, colluctandum adversus nos passionum concertatione purgamur. Memores igitur et conscii illa ipsa corpora nostra omnium vitiorum esse materiem, per quam polluti et sordidi, nihil in nobis mundum, nihil innocens obtinemus; gaudeamus nobis esse hostem, in cujus, concertatione quodam concertationis nostrae bello dimicemus.","english":"711-712 FRAGMENTS FROM OTHER WORKS OF SAINT HILARY LEFT IN ANCIENT MONUMENTS.\n\nFrom the treatises on Job.\n\nI. So great and so admirable is the goodness of God’s mercy toward us, that through the one by whom we lost the nobility of that first and blessed creation in Adam’s offense, through that same one we again deserve to obtain what we lost. For then the devil, envious, did harm; but now, when he tries to harm, he is conquered. For he hurls all the weapons of his power through the weakness of our flesh, when he incites to lust, when he entices to drunkenness, when he goads to hatred, when he provokes to greed, when he instructs to murder, when he exacerbates to curses. But when, through the firmness of the mind, the creeping incentives of all these are repressed, we are cleansed from sin by the glory of this victory; for it is said thus: “Or how will one born of woman cleanse himself” (Job 25:4)? Because if the enemy is not present, there will be no war; with the war then ceasing, victory will be lacking. But without victory over the vices that clash against us, there will be no cleansing from vices: because, with this pirate of our body conquered, we are purified by the struggle of passions contending against us. Therefore, mindful and aware that our very bodies are the material of all vices, through which we are polluted and filthy, possessing nothing clean, nothing innocent in ourselves, let us rejoice that we have an enemy, in whose struggle we fight as if in a war of our own contest.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"per eum rursum id quod amisimus obtinere mereamur","severity":"info","text":"Hilary presents a paradox: the same agent (the devil) who caused the loss of original blessedness is now the means of regaining it through victorious struggle.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Aut quomodo se emundabit natus ex muliere (Job. xxv, 4)","severity":"info","text":"Hilary cites Job 25:4, though the Vulgate reads 'Quomodo mundari potest natus de muliere?' The verse is used to argue that cleansing requires an enemy to overcome.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"pirata victo","severity":"info","text":"The metaphor of the body as a 'pirate' (pirata) is unusual; it likely draws on patristic imagery of the body as a hostile vessel or source of temptation, echoing 2 Peter 2:13-14.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Tanta enim ... ut ... per eum rursum","severity":"info","text":"The passage opens with a correlative structure (tanta ... ut) emphasizing divine mercy, then shifts to a series of parallel clauses listing vices (cum ad lasciviam ... cum ad ebrietatem ...).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Fragmenta ex aliis S. Hilarii operibus","severity":"info","text":"These fragments were preserved in ancient monuments (veteribus monimentis) and collected in the OGL edition; their authenticity as Hilary's work is generally accepted, though the Job treatises are lost.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"emundamur a peccato per hujus victoriae gloriam","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text may be corrupt: 'emundamur' is deponent but used passively; the phrase 'pirata victo' is grammatically ambiguous (ablative absolute or nominative?). The sense is clear but the syntax is rough.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'pirata victo' could be read as an ablative absolute ('the pirate having been conquered') or as a nominative with a missing verb; the translation takes it as ablative absolute.","The citation 'Job. xxv, 4' may refer to a different versification than the modern Vulgate; the exact wording of the verse in Hilary's source is uncertain."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Item.\n\nII. Quas Job litteras legerat, ut abstineret se ab omni re maligna, quia Deum sola mente vitiis non admixta venerabatur? Deum autem colere, justitiae proprium officium est.\n\nEx Prooemio expositionis Evangelii in Matthoeum.\n\nIII. Erat namque primum necessarium nobis, ut unigenitus Deus nostri causa homo, id quod tum non erat, gigneretur.\n\nItem ex eodem.\n\nIV. Tertium deinceps illud congruum fuit, ut quia Deus hemo genitus in mundo, etc.\n\nDe expositione epistoloe ed Timotheum.\n\nV. Nam et cum dicit Scriptura, homo Christus, (I Tim. ii, 5), et cum dicit, Christus mortuus est (Rom. viii, 34), et cum dicil, Vertum caro factum est (Joan. i, 14); non est spoliandus per fraudulentiam legentis expositionibus suis sermo. Nam ubi homo Christus est, praecedit, Mediator. Dei atque hominum: ut ex utroque, Deo et homine, unus subsis(??); sitque inter hominem et Deum medius, confessione in se utriusque naturae. Ubi vero Christus mortuus est, subjicitur, Qui resurrexit, qui est in dextera Dei. In irione ejus carnis nostrae infirmitas est, in resurrectione virtus ejus, in consessu Dei dignitas.","english":"II. What letters had Job read, that he might abstain from every evil thing, because he venerated God with a mind alone, unmixed with vices? But to worship God is the proper office of justice.\n\nFrom the Prologue of the Exposition of the Gospel of Matthew.\n\nIII. For it was first necessary for us, that the only-begotten God, for our sake, should be born a man, which he then was not.\n\nLikewise from the same.\n\nIV. Thirdly, that was fitting next, that because God was born a man in the world, etc.\n\nFrom the Exposition of the Epistle to Timothy.\n\nV. For when Scripture says, \"Christ is a man\" (1 Tim. 2:5), and when it says, \"Christ died\" (Rom. 8:34), and when it says, \"The Word became flesh\" (John 1:14), the speech is not to be stripped of its expositions by the fraud of the reader. For where \"Christ is a man\" occurs, \"Mediator of God and men\" precedes: so that from both, God and man, one subsists; and he is the mediator between man and God, by the confession in himself of each nature. But where \"Christ died\" occurs, it is subjoined, \"Who rose again, who is at the right hand of God.\" In his passion is the infirmity of our flesh, in the resurrection his power, in the session with God his dignity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Item. II.","severity":"info","text":"The lemma 'Item' marks a new fragment within a collection; the Roman numeral 'II' indicates this is the second fragment from the treatises on Job.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"I Tim. ii, 5","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'I Tim. ii, 5' refers to 1 Timothy 2:5, though the Vulgate verse numbering differs; the English draft gives 1 Tim. 2:5.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Rom. viii, 34","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Rom. viii, 34' refers to Romans 8:34, but the English draft gives Rom. 8:34; the verse likely is Romans 8:34 in the Vulgate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Joan. i, 14","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Joan. i, 14' refers to John 1:14, but the English draft gives John 1:14; the Vulgate verse numbering differs from modern Bibles.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"unus subsis(??)","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin 'unus subsis(??)' is corrupt; the parentheses and question marks indicate a lacuna or uncertain reading. The English draft supplies 'one subsists'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Ex Prooemio expositionis Evangelii in Matthoeum","severity":"info","text":"This fragment is from the prologue of Hilary's lost commentary on Matthew, known only through such fragments.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin 'unus subsis(??)' is corrupt; the intended verb is likely 'subsistit' (subsists).","The verse citations (I Tim. ii, 5; Rom. viii, 34; Joan. i, 14) follow Vulgate numbering, which differs from modern Bibles."],"confidence":"high","notes":[{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","ref":"John 1:14","text":"The English carries the scriptural phrase “the word became flesh”, which matches John 1:14. The match is on the English draft; check the Coptic before quoting the verse."}]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Ex libro ad Constantium imperatorem.\n\nVI. Filios Dei factus homo Deus est...... Deus filius hominis factus est (homo enim factus est Deus, non Deus factus est homo), et (f. sed) filius hominis factus est filius Dei. Superavit enim magnitudo Domini parvitatem servilis formae; ita ut ipsa servilis forma, quam assumpsit, cessaret esse servilis per eum Dominum, qui eam assumpsit. Si enim qui natura non filii Dei, per ipsum efficiuntur filii Dei; quanto magis ipse, qui natura filius Dei est, hunc cum quo voluntate sua alvo virginali conceptus et natus est, ita sublimavit in Deum, ut in ejus nomine omne genu flectatur, coelestium et terrestrium et infernorum, et omnis lingua confiteatur, quia Dominus Jesus Christus in gloria est Dei patris.\n\nEx incerto Opere.\n\nVII. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie (Lucoe xi, 3). Quid enim tam vult Deus, quam ut quotidie Christus habitet in nobis, qui est panis vitae, et panis e coelo: et quia quotidiana oratio est, quotidie quoque ut detur, oratur.","english":"From the Book to the Emperor Constantius.\n\nVI. The Son of God, having become man, is God...... The Son of God became the son of man (for man became God, not God became man), and the son of man became the Son of God. For the greatness of the Lord overcame the lowliness of the servile form; so that the servile form itself, which He assumed, ceased to be servile through the Lord who assumed it. For if those who are not by nature sons of God become sons of God through Him, how much more does He, who is by nature the Son of God, so exalt into God the one with whom, by His own will, He was conceived and born from the virgin’s womb, that in His name every knee bends—of the heavenly, earthly, and infernal beings—and every tongue confesses that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.\n\nFrom an Uncertain Work.\n\nVII. Give us our daily bread today (Luke 11:3). For what does God so desire as that Christ, who is the bread of life and the bread from heaven, should dwell in us daily? And because the prayer is daily, it is also prayed daily that it be given.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"VI. Filios Dei factus homo Deus est......","severity":"info","text":"The ellipsis in the Latin marks a lacuna or editorial break, likely indicating missing text in the source manuscript.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"servilis forma","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'servilis forma' (servile form) refers to Christ's human nature, which Hilary contrasts with his divine nature as Lord.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie (Lucoe xi, 3)","severity":"info","text":"The citation 'Lucoe xi, 3' is a variant reference to Luke 11:3, which in modern Bibles corresponds to the Lord's Prayer petition for daily bread.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Ex libro ad Constantium imperatorem","severity":"info","text":"Hilary's work 'Ad Constantium' was addressed to Emperor Constantius II, likely during the Arian controversy, defending Nicene Christology.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Ex incerto Opere","severity":"info","text":"The label 'Ex incerto Opere' indicates that the following fragment's source is unknown, a common feature in patristic florilegia.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Filios Dei factus homo Deus est......","severity":"caution","text":"The Latin text is corrupt: 'Filios Dei' (sons of God) is grammatically inconsistent with the singular verb 'est', suggesting a scribal error or textual corruption.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The ellipsis in section VI indicates a lacuna; the exact missing text is unknown.","The phrase 'Filios Dei' may be a scribal error for 'Filius Dei' (Son of God).","The reference 'Lucoe xi, 3' is a variant chapter/verse numbering; the exact modern equivalent is uncertain."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Item aliud.\n\nVIII. Ergo cum missus est (Christus) in similitudine carnis peccati, non sicut carnem habuit, ita habuit et peccatum. Sed quia ex peccato omnis caro est, a peccato scilicet Adam parente deducta; in similitudine peccati carnis est missus, exsistente in eo, non peccato, sed peccati carnis similitudine.\n\nFragmentum dubium.\n\nIX. In quo omnes peccaverunt. In quo, id est, in Adam omnes peccaverunt..... Manifestum est in Adam peccasse, quasi in massa. Ipse enim per peccatum corruptus, omnes quos genuit, nati sunt sub peccato.\n\nTestimonium de Hilarii doctrina circa Spiritus sancti processionem.\n\n\": Hilarius in explanationibus ad Apostolum, de Patre Filioque theologice loquens, ait nullam in Spiritu sancto duplicitatem intelligi, propterea quod Pater et Filius exsistentiam illi suppeditent; unde ambo unum principium Spiritus, sancti sunt. Eu miram atque perspicuam tanti Patris contra schismaticos Graecos doctrinam de Spiritus sancti processione ac Patre Filioque tanquam unico principio! Jam vero sanctum Hilarium commentarios scripsisse in Pauli Epistolas affirmabat Hispalense concilium II, can. 13, apud Aquirrium, tom. III, p.: nunc ecce ex eo deperdito opere frustum splendidum a Graecis servatum. (Ex Spicileg. Rom. tom. vi, p. 73.)","english":"Another passage.\n\nVIII. Therefore, when (Christ) was sent in the likeness of the flesh of sin, he did not have sin as he had flesh. But because all flesh is from sin—that is, derived from the parent Adam through sin—he was sent in the likeness of the flesh of sin, there being in him not sin, but the likeness of the flesh of sin.\n\nA doubtful fragment.\n\nIX. In whom all sinned. \"In whom,\" that is, in Adam all sinned..... It is clear that they sinned in Adam, as in a mass. For he himself, corrupted through sin, caused all whom he begot to be born under sin.\n\nTestimony concerning Hilary's teaching on the procession of the Holy Spirit.\n\n\": Hilary, in his explanations of the Apostle, speaking theologically of the Father and the Son, says that no duality is to be understood in the Holy Spirit, because the Father and the Son supply existence to him; hence both are the one principle of the Holy Spirit. O the wonderful and clear teaching of so great a Father against the schismatic Greeks concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit and the Father and Son as the sole principle! Now, that the holy Hilary wrote commentaries on the Epistles of Paul was affirmed by the Second Council of Seville, canon 13, in Aguirre, vol. III, p.: now behold, from that lost work a splendid fragment preserved by the Greeks. (From the Roman Spicilegium, vol. vi, p. 73.)","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Item aliud","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'Item aliud' marks a new excerpt, likely from a different part of Hilary's lost work, and is a standard editorial marker in patristic florilegia.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"similitudine carnis peccati","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'similitudine carnis peccati' (likeness of the flesh of sin) is a technical term in Hilary's Christology, distinguishing Christ's human flesh from the sinful condition of fallen humanity.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"In quo omnes peccaverunt","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'In quo omnes peccaverunt' echoes Romans 5:12, where Paul speaks of sin being transmitted through Adam, and is a key text for Hilary's doctrine of original sin.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Fragmentum dubium","severity":"info","text":"The label 'Fragmentum dubium' indicates that the authenticity of the following passage (IX) was questioned by the editor, likely due to its theological content or manuscript tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Testimonium de Hilarii doctrina circa Spiritus sancti processionem","severity":"info","text":"This testimonium, preserved by Greek sources, claims Hilary taught that the Father and Son are the single principle of the Holy Spirit's existence, a doctrine later used against Greek schismatics in the Filioque controversy.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Spicilegium Romanum 1839"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Fragmentum dubium","severity":"caution","text":"The passage labeled 'Fragmentum dubium' (IX) may be a later interpolation or misattribution, as its language of 'in Adam' as a mass differs from Hilary's usual Christological focus.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'in quo' in section IX could refer to Adam or to the collective sin of humanity; the interpretation as 'in Adam' is taken.","The testimonium on the Holy Spirit's procession is preserved only in Greek and may reflect later theological concerns rather than Hilary's original wording."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]}]}