Baring-Gould’s sources: Roman Martyrology. The ancient one attributed to S. Jerome, Hrabanns and Usnardus, Ado and Notker. Authority: — A life written by a contemporary, either S. Honoratns, Bishop of Marseilles, or by Ravennus, his successor in the see, and mention in the letters of S. Leo the Great and his own writings.] S. Hilary was born of noble parents in the year 401, and was a relative of S. Honoratus of Arles, who was then in the island of Lerins, abbot of the commnnity he had there founded. Honoratus left his retirement to seek his kinsman Hilary, and draw him to embrace the same life, but all his persuasion was at first in vain. “ What floods of tears/7 says S. Hilary, “ did this true friend shed to soften my hard heart ? How often did he embrace me with the most tender and compassionate affection, to obtain of me a resolve that I would consider the salvation of my soul. Yet, by an unhappy victory, I resisted his persuasion.” “Well, then,” said Honoratus, “I will obtain of God what you will not now grant to me.” And he left him, that in his island sanctuary he might pray for his relation. Three days after, S. Hilary had changed his mind, and went to Lerins to place himself under the discipline of Honoratus. “On one side,” he says, “ I thought I saw God calling me, on the other the world seducing me with its charms and pleasures. How often did I embrace and reject, will and not will the same thing. But in the end Jesus Christ triumphed in me.”

Aspiring to perfection, lie sold all his estates to his brother, and distributed the money among the poor. In 426 S. Honoratus was chosen to the archbishopric of Arles, and S. Hilary followed him to the city; but soon the longing came upon him to return to the islet of Lerins, and he left Arles and rejoined the monastic community there. But God, who had other designs for him, did not suffer him to enjoy long his beloved retirement S. Honoratus recalled Hilary to Arles, and he remained with the archbishop till his death, which took place in 428 or 429. Then he set out on his return to the peaceful isle of Lerins. But the citizens of Arles, apprized of his departure, sent messengers after him, who overtook him, brought him back, and he was forthwith elected, confirmed, and consecrated archbishop, though only twenty-nine years of age.1 He presided in the council of Riez in 439, in the first council of Orange in 441, in the council of Vaison in 442, and in the second council of Arles in 443. His impetuous character precipitated him into actions of more than questionable canonicity, on account of which he fell into disfavour with S. Leo the Great, pope of Rome (April nth). He was accustomed to make visitations, accompanied by his friend, S. Germain of Auxerre, not improbably beyond the doubtful or undefined limits of his metropolitan [the archbishop who heads a group of dioceses] power. During one of these visitations, charges of disqualification for the episcopal office were exhibited against Celidonius, bishop, according to some accounts, of Besangon. Hilary hastily summoned a council of bishops, and pronounced sentence of deposition against him. On the intelligence that Celidonius had gone to Rome to appeal against this decree, Hilary set forth, it is said, on foot, crossed the Alps, and travelled without horse or sumpter-mule to the Great City. He presented himself before Leo, and with respectful earnestness entreated him not to infringe the ancient usages of the Gallic Churches. Leo proceeded to annul the sentence of Hilary 3 He was designated as bishop by his predecessor. The messengers, accompanied hy soldiers, sent to bring him back did not know him. A dove settled on bis head, and they recognized him by that sign. 6". Hilary.

and to restore Celidonius to his bishopric. He summoned Hilary to rebut the evidence adduced by Celidonius, to disprove the justice of his condemnation. So haughty was the language of Hilary, “ that,” says the writer of his life, “no layman would dare to utter, no ecclesiastic would endure to hear such words.” He inflexibly resisted the authority of the pope, confronting him with the bold assertion of his own unbounded metropolitan power. Hilary thought his life in danger, or he feared he should be seized and compelled to communicate with the deposed Celidonius. He stole out of Rome, and though it was the depth of winter, found his way back to Arles. The accounts of S. Hilary, hitherto reconcilable, now diverge into strange contradiction. The author of his life represents him as having made overtures of reconciliation to Leo, as wasting himself out with toils, austerities, and devotions, and dying before he had completed his forty-first year. He died, visited by visions of glory, in ecstatic peace; his splendid funeral was honoured by the tears of the whole city; the very Jews were clamorous in their sorrow for the beneficent prelate.

The counter-statement fills up the interval before the death of Hilary with other important events. Leo addresses a letter to the bishops of the province of Vienne, denouncing the impious resistance of Hilary to the authority of S. Peter, and releasing them from all allegiance to the see of Arles [a bishop’s “see” is his diocese, named from his seat (Latin sedes)]. For hardly had the affair of Celidonius been decided by the see of Rome than a new charge of breach of canonical discipline was brought against Hilary. The bishop Projectus complained that, while he was afflicted with illness, Hilary, to whose province he did not belong, had consecrated another bishop in his place, and this in such haste that he had respected none of the canonical forms of election; he had awaited neither the suffrage of the citizens, the testimonials of the more distinguished, noi the election of the clergy. In this, and in other instances of irregular ordinations, Hilary had called in the military power, and tumultuously interfered in the affairs of many churches. It is significantly suggested that on every occasion Hilary had been prodigal of the last and most awful power possessed by the Church, that of excommunication. But we have only the statement of his enemies, and we do not know how highly-coloured the charges were, and how some of his acts may have been falsified. Hilary was commanded by S. Leo to confine himself to his own diocese, was deprived of the authority he claimed over the province of Vienne, and forbidden to be present at any future ordination. At the avowed instance of Leo, also, the Emperor Valentinian promulgated an imperial edict, denouncing the contumacy of Hilary against the primacy of the apostolic throne. He and all the bishops were warned to observe this perpetual edict, which solemnly enacted that nothing should be done in Gaul [roughly modern France and Belgium], contrary to ancient usage, without the authority of the bishop of the Eternal City.