speaks of Christ’s Divinity as ‘the theotes which we call deitas.’ In his later writings he con- sistently uses divinitas, except in the few instances where he is almost forced, to avoid intol- erable monotony, to vary it with deitas; and in his commentary he would not have used either of these words, still less would he have used both, unless he were feeling his way to a fixed technical term. Another witness to the early date of the work is the absence of any clear sign that Hilary knew of the existence of Arianism. He knows, indeed, that there are heresies which impugn the Godhead of Christ31, and in consequence states that doctrine with great precision, and frequently as well as forcibly. But it has been pointed out32 that he discusses many texts which served, in the Arian strife, for attack or defence, without al- luding to that burning question: and this would have been impossible and, indeed, a derel- iction of duty, in Hilary’s later life. And there is one passage33 in which he speaks of God the Father as ‘He with (or ‘in’) Whom the Word was before He was born.’ The Incarnation is spoken of in words which would usually denote the eternal Generation: and if a candid reader could not be misled, yet an opportunity is given to the malevolent which Hilary or, indeed, any careful writer engaged in the Arian controversy would have avoided. The Commentary, then, is an early work, yet in no respect unworthy of its author. But though he had developed his characteristic thoughts before he began to write it, they are certainly less prominent here than in the treatises which followed. It is chiefly remarkable for its display of allegorical ingenuity. Its pages are full of fantastic interpretations of the kind which he had so great a share in introducing into Western Europe34. He started by it a movement which he would have been powerless to stop; that he was not altogether satisfied with the principle of allegory is shewn by the more modest use that he made of it when he composed, with fuller experience, the Homilies on the Psalms. It is, perhaps, only natural that there is ix little allegorism in the De Trinitate. Such a hot-house growth could not thrive in the keen air of controversy. As for the Commentary on St. Matthew, its chief influence has been in- direct, in that St. Ambrose made large use of it in his own work upon the same Gospel. The consideration of Hilary’s use of Scripture and of the place which it held in his system of theology is reserved for the next chapter, where illustrations from this Commentary are given. About the year 350 Hilary was consecrated Bishop of Poitiers. So we may infer from his own words35 that he had been a good while regenerate, and for some little time a bishop, 31 So especially xii. 18. There is similarly a possible allusion to Marcellus’ teaching in xi. 9, which, however, may equally well be a reminiscence of some cognate earlier heresy. 32 Maffei’s Introduction, §15. 33 xxxi. 3, penes quem erat antequam nasceretur 34 See Ebert, Litteratur des Mittelalters, i. 139. 35 Syn. 91; regeneratus pridem et in episcopatu aliquantisper manens. The renderings ‘long ago’ and ‘for some time’ in this translation seem rather too strong. 16 The Life and Writings of St. Hilary of Poitiers.