Apologetica ad reprehensores libri de Synodis responsa

521-522 Saint Hilary’s Apologetic Responses to the Critics of the Book on Synods. I. On the passage: “And although not without some scandal to the ears… the Easterners resisted the Anomoeans.” If this statement had been carefully weighed, perhaps the rationale of my entire treatise would not have been suspect. For I did not conceal that there was something there which could only be heard with scandal. II. At the beginning of number 13, after the recitation of the first decree of the Synod of Ancyra. All the expositions (of the Synod of Ancyra, which are described in this book), if they contain any fault, contain it within themselves; otherwise, they are considered to have nothing objectionable in their public face. But because I knew that only these had been brought to Sirmium (i.e., only these were delivered). III. This passage refers to: “The exposition of similar substance, which is called homoiousion, in a faithful and pious understanding.” I think no one needs to be reminded, in this place, to consider why I said “PIOUS UNDERSTANDING OF SIMILAR SUBSTANCE,” except that I also understood an impious one: and therefore I said “similar,” not only “equal,” but also “the same,” so that I might neither disapprove of the similarity which you, brother Lucifer, wished to be proclaimed, and yet I would admonish that the only pious understanding of similarity is that which proclaims the unity of substance.

IV. In the manuscripts, this passage is continuously joined with the preceding one and pertains to this number: "O you men, zealous for apostolic and evangelical doctrine... how great a hope for the restoration of true faith have you brought!" In this matter, however, that by praising them I am brought into ill repute by some, I have been little understood. For I did not say that they brought true faith, but rather THE HOPE FOR THE RESTORATION OF TRUE FAITH: so that, just as they were heard, we too might be heard on this account against Valens and Ursacius, and a flattering tone of address, adapted to them, would do nothing other than escape the ugliness of insolent reproaches, since I was about to reveal, more bitterly and even more shamefully in what follows (especially number 91), the hidden scandals of the interpretations. V. This is fitted to number 80: "But I ask you, most holy men, that you kindly consider my concerns." In your prudence, weigh what it is to ask most holy men to hear the speaker with goodwill, and whether it is the same person who flatters and who rebukes. This is said for this reason, because I was about to reveal what had been kept silent at present by them (the Legates sent to Sirmium) (numbers and 91); yet not in such a way that I would seem to slander them in matters that could be defended as excusable.

VI. This pertains to this number: "And I, though unwilling, will respond," etc. It could be known clearly enough, Lord Brother Lucifer, that I was unwilling to make mention of the *homoeusion*. But because you were preaching the likeness of the Son to the Father, its demonstration had to be set forth by me without fault. VII. This number is subjoined: "You think one should subscribe to the Synod of Samosata... Let us subscribe also to the Synod of Nicaea." Did I not here also, when reading about the *homoeusion*, warn the reader that it ought to be accepted only if referred to the unity of substance? VIII. This number is set before the eyes of the critics: "And the nakedness of the *homoeusion* moves me (with scandal)," etc. Can anyone think that I wish to accept the *homoeusion*, concerning which I have treated these things? IX. Related to this, after examples of things that deceive by external likeness have been adduced. Was I here also neglectful of likeness? X. This number agrees with these: "For, sparing them, I say nothing yet of those things which were decreed at Ancyra with scandal.

Am I thought to remove suspicion from these men, or to praise those whom I spare? For to spare, and to spare with delay, is nothing wicked or remiss. XI. In the manuscripts, the tenth [section] continues into that number 91: "That the *homoeusion* may be proven, we do not disapprove the *homousion*"; likewise also in that same number: "It is impious what you dare," etc. Do I here suffer a similar substance to be anything other than one? Which, if it is not first confessed as one, it would then be impious to proclaim it as similar afterwards. XII. After these, the number is subjoined: "I neither know nor understand the *homoeusion*, except only from the confession of similar essence," etc. Do I seem to have been able to prove what I did not know (by accepting the *homoeusion* for a non-substantial similarity)? Not at all. But because the catholic faith ought to believe similarity only through unity; so that it mentions similarity only to exclude fusion, not to introduce a division of unity: for that reason I said that, although I did not know the names *homousion* and *homoeusion*, I nevertheless received similarity through unity. This very point the following sentence immediately resolves.