LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.
Class
ST. HIPPOLYTUS
AND
THE CHURCH OF ROME.
Just Published. 3 Vols. Price 36^.
MISCELLANIES,
LITERARY AND RELIGIOUS
BY CHR. WORDSWORTH, D.D.
BISHOP OF LINCOLN.
Being Selections from his Works.
Content*.
VOL. I. Pompeian Inscriptions Athens and Attica Notes in
Greece Notes in France Notes at Paris Amiens and St. Theudosia :
Story of her Canonization Notes in Italy, and at Rome The Court
of Rome and Kingdom of Italy : Its ill-advised policy : Offer from
a Cardinal Alexander Lycurgus Archbishop Longley : Greek and
Latin Translation of the Letter of the Lambeth Conference, 1867
The Vatican Council : Answer to Pius IX Whether the Babylon of
the Apocalypse is the Church of Rome The Old Catholics at Cologne
Erasmus.
VOL. II. On the Inspiration and On the Interpretation of the Bible
The Revision of the Authorized Version The New Lectionary
Table of Proper Psalms and Lessons The Book of Common Prayer
The Holy Sacraments Infant Baptism Holy Communion Non-
communicating Attendance Confirmation Confession Ascension
Day and Rogation Days Day of Intercession Special Forms of
Prayer: Bishop of Truro Church Music On Hymns; The Holy
Year, &c. Religious Faith and Worship in Art Cemeteries ; Crema-
tion and Burial On the Intermediate State of the Soul.
VOL. III. Religion in Science : Newtonian System Classical
Studies; Theocritus: Horace: Augustan Legislation " Ethica et
Spiritualia" Moral and Spiritual Maxims The Spread of Infidelity
Destiny and Decline of Mohammedanism Bishop Sanderson
Ecclesiastical Legislation and Jurisdiction Diocesan Synods Church
Patronage and Simony Clerical Non-residence Marriage and Divorce
Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Clerical Celibacy Sister-
hoods and Vows English Cathedrals : Statutes of Lincoln Cathedral
Mission at Lincoln, 1876 Pastoral to Wesleyan Methodists Burials
Question Labour and Capital Capital Punishment Continuity of
the Church of England : St. Hugh, Bishop of Lincoln Welcome to
the Church ot America Brasenose and Lincoln Colleges : Letter to
Oxford Commissioners Greek and Latin Translation of the Letter of
the Hundred Bishops at the Lambeth Conference, 1878 Letter to the
Archbishop of Cyprus.
[C-61.]
RIVINGTONS,
<%fortj, antJ Cambridge.
STATUS :
I>ug up in the Ager Vemnus at Rome
near the Chapel of S 1 Lawrence outside the walls,
in the year 1551, in the Pontificate of Jbpe Rue W.
See "below Chap.IV^ P 29
Inscription on the "back of Hie Statue of S*Hippoljtus
presenting a list of some of his writings
OYC
I AC
A A M OYC
TACTPIMYOON
YF1EP TOY KATA ICO
ANHN
EYATrEAlOY KA1 AflO
KAAY^ECOC
PIEPI XAPICMATCON
AHOCTOAIKH F1APAAO -
C I C
XPONIKCON
HPOC EAAHNAC
KAI nPOC P1ATCONA
H KAI HEPI TOYRANTOC
nPOTPEHTIKOC HPOCCE
BHPEINAN
AHOAEIZIC XPONCON
TOY RACXA
KATA ENTCO HINAKI
ScoAAncriACACTAC TPA
_4>AC
HEPI OYKAI CAPKOC
ANACTACE03C
REPI TATAOOY KAI
nOOENTO KAKON
On these titles of writings of S'Hippolytm; seeFabricM in his
Edition ofHippolYtus Vol.J p.73-B9. CaveHist. Lt.Lp.lM-106.
And see below Chap-SSI-
ST. HIPPOLYTUS
AND
THE CHURCH OF ROME
IN THE
earlier $art of tbe Cfrirfc Cmturp.
FROM THE NEWLY-DISCOVERED "REFUTATION OF ALL
HERESIES.'*
BY
CHR. WORDSWORTH, D.D.
N
BISHOP OF LINCOLN.
SECOND, AND GREATLY-ENLARGED EDITION.
RIVINGTONS,
WATERLOO PLACE, LONDON,
anfl Cambridge.
MDCCCLXXX.
PREFACE.
THE present Volume is a new work rather than a
new edition.
The additions which form about half of it refer
mainly to what has been written on the subject of it
by learned men after the publication of the former
edition ; and in the other half new materials have
been inserted.
Since that time I have also examined the Manu-
script, which was discovered in a monastery of Mount
Athos in 1842, and which is now at Paris ; and I
have collated that portion of the Manuscript which
relates to the history of the Church of Rome in the
earlier part of the third century, and which is
inserted, with a Translation and Notes, in the present
Volume.
Events which have taken place at Rome since the
publication of the first edition of this work, especially
221646
vi PREFACE.
in 1854 and 1870, have given additional importance
to the questions considered in this volume ; which is
now put forth in a hope, that it may, with the divine
blessing, serve, in some degree, to the elucidation of
an interesting, but not well-known, portion of Church
History, and also to the maintenance and advance-
ment of Christian Faith and Unity.
EASTER, 1880.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
PAGE
The recent discovery of the " Philosophumena ; or, Refutation of all
Heresies" . . I
CHAPTER II.
Who -was its Author ? Was Origen ? 7
CHAPTER III.
Another name considered Caius . . . . . . .16
CHAPTER IV.
Another name suggested St. Hippolytus. His Statue at Rome . 29
CHAPTER V.
Objections to this Suggestion considered ...... 44
CHAPTER VI.
Narrative in the newly-discovered Manuscript concerning the Church
of Rome in the Atithor's own time ; with 7ranslation and Notes . 61
The Author's Address to the Heathen 101
CHAPTER VII.
Some Objections to the veracity of his Narrative considered . .130
CHAPTER VIII.
Other Objections to the Author's veracity considered . .146
viii CONTENTS.
PAGE
CHAPTER IX.
On Novatianism ; and on the relation of St. Hippolytus to it ; and
on the Hymn of the Christian Poet Prudentius on the Martyrdom
of St. Hippolytus. On the ancient Statue of St. Hippolytus . 158
CHAPTER X.
Further remarks on Novatian and Novatianism ; and on the rela-
tion of St. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria to them and to
St. Hippolytus . . . 173
CHAPTER XL
Silence of Ancient Church Historians. Objections from it considered 181
CHAPTER XII.
Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus -io8
CHAPTER XIII.
Ancient Lists of Works of St. Hippolytus ..... 233
CHAPTER XIV.
Orthodoxy of St. Hippolytus . . . . . . . .241
CHAPTER XV.
Episcopal See of St. Hippolytus 255
CHAPTER XVI.
On the "-Development of Christian Doctrine,"" as tested by the
writings and acts of St. Hippolytus 271
CHAPTER XVII.
On the present Claims of the Roman Church to Supremacy and In-
fallibility ', as tested by the writings and acts of St. Hippolytus . 281
CONTENTS. ix
PAGE
APPENDIX A.
A Fragment of a Work of St. Hippolytus ..... 306
APPENDIX B.
Evidence that the recently. discovered Treatise was known to and used
by Theodoret in theffth century 309
APPENDIX C.
A Conjecture on a passage in the Ancient Acts of the Martyrdom of
St. Poly carp, disciple of St. John 317
APPENDIX D.
On a passage of St. Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Try p ho
the Jew 318
ILLUSTRATIONS.
Statue of St. Hippolytus ..... . FRONTISPIECE i
Inscription on the back of the Statue of St. Hippolytus FRONTISPIECE 2
Specimens of the Paris MS. of the Refutation of all
Heresies ........ To face p. 61
CHAPTER 1
The Recently Discovered " Philosophtimena '; of,
Refutation of all Heresies?
THE discovery of a theological work, dating from so
early a period as the first half of the third century,
is an important 'event in the History of the Christian
Church. It is one which We have been permitted to
see.
A learned Greek, Minoi'des Mynas, having been
despatched by M. Villemain, Minister of Public In-
struction in France under King Louis Philippe, with a
commission to make researches in Greek Monasteries
for ancient MSS., brought back some literary treasures
of this description from Mount Athos in the year 1842.
Some of these were deposited in the Royal Library at
Paris ; and among them was a Greek MS. written in
the earlier part of the fourteenth century, on paper,
containing 137 leaves, which was first carefully
examined by M. Emmanuel Miller, already known to
the world from his official position in that national
collection, and distinguished by the courtesy with
which he has promoted the designs of foreigners
B
2 THE RECENTL Y FOUND PHILOSOPHUMENA ;
desirous of access 1 to its literary riches, and by the
publication of some remains of ancient Literature.
The work in question was prepared for publication
under the editorial superintendence of M. Miller, who
states that it was written by a certain Michael, as
appears from a Greek sentence at the close of the MS. :
it was first printed at the instance and under the en-
couragement of the Delegates of the University Press
at Oxford, where it appeared in the year 1851 rather
more than sixteen centuries after its composition.
This Volume, thus resuscitated, has been found to
possess special claims to public attention. It is
valuable from its antiquity, and from its contents : it
is valuable as a philosophical work, and also as a
theological and historical one.
It consisted, when perfect, of Ten Books. Of those
ten, the second and third, and the commencement of
the fourth, do not appear to be now extant. The
first Book is not contained in the Parisian MS., but
had been already known to the world from a MS. of
Cardinal Ottoboni, and from three other MSS., and
had been printed in the Benedictine edition of the
works of Origen. 2
The design of its Author was to give an account in
the first four Books, of the various systems of ancient
Philosophy, physical and ethical. 3 This portion was
1 To which the present writer had occasion to bear testimony some
years since. Diary in France, pp. 90. loi, 2nd edit. 1846.
2 Vol. i. pp. 872 909, ed. Paris, 1733. It was first printed from a
Medicean MS. in vol. x. p. 579, of Gronovii Thesaurus Ant. Graec.
3 The following is the Author's description of his own work, lib. x.
OR, REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES. 3
intended to be introductory to the rest. The writer
then proceeds to treat of the various heresies in order
of time, which had appeared in the Christian Church,
from the first promulgation of the Gospel, down to his
own age. Here then, in the fifth book, the work
becomes theological, and here it is his purpose to show
that (as St. Irenaeus 4 and Tertullian 5 had observed)
the dogmatic systems of heretics had their foundation,
not in Scripture, but in the schools of Heathen
Metaphysics. He disputes their claim to originality,
and treats them as plagiarisms from Pagan Philosophy.
The circumstances now stated, with regard to the
materials of which this work is composed, will suggest
the reason why it bore a double title. It is inscribed
" PHILOSOPHUMENA ; or, a REFUTATION of all HERE-
SIES." 6 The former of these two titles describes the
contents of the first four Books the second title
designates the succeeding five ; and both titles are
applicable to the last or tenth Book, which is an
Epitome of the others ; and concludes with a declara-
tion of the truth, in an address to the Gentile world.
In the sixth and seventh Books the Author is
p. 311 : <TVfjur(pi\ap6vTS ra irdvTwv rcav trap "E\\T)<ri aotyuv S^/xaro eV
rfffffapa-i /3fj8\fois, ret Se TOIS aipfffidpxais eV TreVre, vvv -rbv irepl
ah-nOeias \6yov Iv evl (Cod. eVo) 4iriSei^ofifv, ava.KetyaXaio'bp.ivoi irp&Tov
TO iratri SeSo/cTj/ueyct.
4 S. Iren. ii. xiv. 2.
& Haereticorum Patriarchs Philosophi, says Tertullian c. Hermogen.
c. 8, illi sapientise professores de quorum ingeniis omnis hasresis
animatur. De Anima, c. 3. 23. De Prsescr. Haeret. c. 30. See also
S. Jerome, Epist. 84, where he speaks of Tatian and others, who had
traced heresies to philosophical sects.
6 (pi\offo^ov^va, ^ Kara iraawv alpeffewv
B 2
4 THE RE CENTL Y FO UND PHIL OSOPHUMENA ;
often treading on the same ground as that traversed
by St. Irenaeus in his work on Heresies, to whom he
acknowledges his obligations (p. 202. 222), and from
whom he frequently transcribes, either verbatim, or
with some modifications. And here we may observe,
in passing, is a circumstance which imparts a peculiar
value to the newly-discovered Treatise. In some
instances it presents to us the original Greek of
Irenaeus, where till now we possessed only the Latin
Version. The recovery of this work is a recovery, in
part, of the text of Irenaeus. In some places, it will
enable a future Editor or Irenaeus to restore Irenaeus
to himself. 7
The last two Books of this Volume are those which
impart to its discovery an historical importance, which
it is not easy, at present, adequately to appreciate.
Time alone can show in all its bearings the impor-
tance of this work, composed sixteen centuries ago,
and discovered in the nineteenth century in a
monastery of Greece, by a Greek sent from Paris by
the French Government, and presented to the world
for the first time, under the editorship of a French
scholar, in an English University. Time, it is pro-
bable, will prove that the hand of a wise and
merciful Providence may be seen in its preservation,
and also in its publication at the present juncture in
the history of the Church and the World.
7 Some evidence of this maybe seen in p. 203 of the Philosophumena,
and following pages. See also the passages cited in the Ecclesiastic,
LXVII. p. 47.
OR, REFUTA TION OF ALL HERESIES. 5
On what grounds, it may be inquired, are such
anticipations based ? Because this newly discovered
work unfolds, in the ninth Book, a portion of ancient
Church-History with which hitherto we have had
comparatively but little acquaintance, from the lack
of materials for an accurate knowledge with respect
to it. The writer lived at a period prior to that of our
most ancient Ecclesiastical Historians. He was
anterior to Eusebius by a century. He does much to
fill up a chasm in the Annals of the Western Church.
And the portion of Church- History with which he
deals is one of great importance, on account of its
relation to certain questions of Christian Doctrine and
Church Discipline, which possess more than ordinary
interest, and exercise more than common influence, at
the present time.
The writer places us at Rome ; he describes, with
graphic minuteness, events which took place in the
Church of Rome in the second and third centuries
after Christ. His work was composed soon after the
Episcopate of Callistus who died A.D. 223. 8 He does
not speak on hearsay ; but as an eye-witness. And
not only so, he represents himself as occupying an
important position in the Church of Rome at that
time, and as taking a prominent part in the events
which he narrates. In a word, we have here a
Bishop of the Roman Church, in the third century,
presenting us with a Memoir of his own Time.
Inasmuch as this portion of the work is of a special
8 See Philosophumena, pp. 291, 292. ed. Miller.
6 THE RECENTLY FOUND PHILOSOPHUMENA.
character, and forms a substantive whole, and possesses
peculiar claims on public attention, it appeared to
deserve consideration, whether it might not be
detached from the rest, and offered separately to the
English reader in his own language, as well as in the
original Greek.
Hence the present publication.
The Author of the newly-discovered work might
now be left to speak for himself, and to recite his own
history ; and it would be irrelevant and almost pre-
sumptuous to anticipate him, even by a brief summary
of his narrative. But, as has been already observed,
we have here an Author professing to be a Roman
Bishop, and presenting us with a " History of his own
Time." Have we here a Roman Huet ? Have we,
some may say, a Roman Burnet of the third century ?
Is his recital trustworthy ? This is an important
question. The reply must depend on the writer's
character. And to determine this, we must ascertain,
who is the Author ? what is the evidence of his
veracity ?
This let us endeavour to do.
CHAPTER II.
The Philosophumena ; or, Refutation of all Heresies
its Author.
THE copies of the edition, printed at Oxford in 1851,
of the Treatise * before us bear in their exterior the
name of ORIGEN on their back. The learned Editor,
M. Miller, and some other erudite scholars, maintain that
it was written by Origen. Some of the copyists, also,
who transcribed it many centuries ago, assigned it to
Origen. And we read, also, the words " doctrine of
Origen," noted by an ancient hand in the margin of
the Volume. 2 And the first book of it, which (as
was before observed) had been already known to the
world, has been ascribed to him in no less than four
MSS., and had been admitted into Editions of that
Father's Works. 3
Is it then from the pen of ORIGEN ?
1 The title is,'Clpiyevovs (pi\offo(pov/j.va, 4) KO.TCI, iraffuv ofpeVewi' e\eyx os -
Origenis Philosophumena, sive Omnium Haeresium Refutatio : e Codice
Parisino mine primum edidit Emmanuel Miller. Oxonii, e Typographeo
Academico, 1851, p. 339.
2 P. 334. 'n,piy4vr)S Kal 'CLpiyevovs 5<$|a.
3 Origenis Opera, ed. Car. Delarue, iv. voll. Paris, 1733. Vol. I.
PP. 873909.
8 THE PHILOSOPHUMENA;
To this question we would reply in the nega-
tive.
I. It has been a common practice, in ancient and
modern times, to ascribe works, especially anony-
mous works, to illustrious persons. A book, wan-
dering about the world without a name, is, and ever
has been, an unattractive thing. Such Books had a
tendency to acquire for themselves the name of a
creditable author, just as, in course of time, nameless
pictures assume the name of some well-known
Master. The same motives which tempted some
persons, who possessed more leisure than honesty, to
compose works, and then to father them on great
men, induced copyists and dealers in Manuscripts to
assign celebrated names to the works which they
themselves had transcribed or had purchased, and
exposed to sale. 4 The name of Origen was the
likeliest to occur to a person who was in quest of an
Author for the present Treatise. Origen lived at the
time from which this Treatise dates, and at which
its Author flourished. Origen wrote in Greek. Origen
was also a voluminous Writer. He was well versed
in systems of Philosophers, as well as in theories of
Heretics ; and, therefore, it would appear probable,
that any anonymous Greek treatise such as that
before us might be more safely assigned to Origen
than to any one else ; and that it would pass under
his name without further inquiry. A list of works,
erroneously assigned to Origen, may be seen in the
4 See Bentley, Dissert, on Phalaris, pp. 6 8, ed. Lond. 1777.
OR, REFUTA TION OF ALL HERESIES ITS A UTHOR. 9
" Origeniana " of Huet, 5 who states various reasons
for such an ascription. We shall have occasion to
observe hereafter, that another anonymous work,
similar in some respects to the present, was from the
pen of the same writer as composed the present
Treatise, and that it was ascribed to Origen.
2. With regard to the words " Doctrine of Origen?
inscribed by some ancient Copyist on the margin of
a passage in this Treatise, these do not appear to
afford any argument (as has been supposed by some)
for the ascription of this work to Origen, but rather
the contrary. Silius Italicus, it is well known, was
an admirer and imitator of Virgil, as Virgil was of
Ennius. We should be much surprised to find, in
MSS. of the " Punica " of Silius, the words " Versus
Silii" noted at the side of one of the lines in that
Poem, as we should be surprised to find a marginal
note, " Versus Maronis/' annexed to a line of the
^Eneid. But we should not be astonished to find the
words " Versus Virgilii " appended as a marginal
comment to a line of Silius ; or to read the words
" Versus Ennii " annexed to a line of Virgil. But we
should not thence infer that the "Punic War" was
written by Virgil, or that the ^Eneid was composed
by Ennius, or that the marginal annotator had ima-
gined that this was the case but the contrary.
And so the words, "Doctrine of Origin!' do not
appear to intimate, that in the copyist's opinion " the
5 Appendix to lib. iii. in the ivth Volume of the Benedictine Edition,
p. 321. See also the Preface to that edition, p. xiii.
10 THE PHILOSOPHUMENA ;
Philosophumena " was written by Origen, but that
it was composed by some person who (in his view)
had imitated or expressed the opinion of Origen, in
that particular passage to which the marginal note
was annexed.
3. The first book of the Philosophumena has, it is
true, been inserted in editions of Origen's works.
But the editors of Origen have avowed their belief
that the Treatise is not his : 6 and the recent dis-
covery of the main portion of the remainder has
confirmed their judgment.
Their opinion that the work is not by Origen was
grounded on a passage occurring in the first Book, 7
where the Author describes himself as " a successor
of the Apostles, a partaker with them in the same
grace and principal sacerdocy, 8 and doctorship, and
as numbered among the guardians of the Church."
These words, they very justly observe, could only
have been employed by a Bishop, speaking of him-
self. Origen was not a Bishop ; and he was distin-
guished by modesty, as well as by learning. He
would not, therefore, have written thus. Therefore,
the Author of the Philosophumena is not Origen.
4. Again : Origen, it is true, visited Rome at a
particular time which falls within the period described
6 Origenis Opera, i. p. 873, ed. Bened. 1733. Huet. Origeniana, iii.
Appendix xi. vol. iv. p. 527.
7 Philosophumena, p. 3, 1. 63, ed. Miller.
8 d/>xtepaTeia. Compare the language of Tertullian de Bapt. c. 17 :
" Dandi baptismum quidem habet jus summus sacerdos, qui est
Episcopus?'
OR, REFUTA TION OF ALL HERESIES ITS A UTHOR. 11
in the present Volume. He came to Rome in the
Pontificate of Zephyrinus ; but his visit was of brief
duration. 9 Origen was only a sojourner at Rome
for a short time ; but the Author of the present Treatise
appears to have spent the greater part of his life at
Rome, or near it. It is clear, from the narrative
contained in the portion of the Philosophumena laid
before the reader in this Volume, that the Writer
was at Rome, or its neighbourhood, before the Pontifi-
cate of Zephyrinus, that he remained there during
that Pontificate which was not a short one, but
lasted about sixteen years and that he continued
there till after the death of Callistus, the successor
of Zephyrinus. Therefore, this Treatise was not
written by Origen.
5. Besides : the Author of the Philosophumena
describes himself as holding an important office in the
Roman Church ; he represents himself as having
exercised ecclesiastical discipline there, and as having
separated certain persons from Church-communion
by sentence of excommunication. 1
Nothing of this kind could be said of Origen ;
therefore we are again brought to the conclusion that
the treatise before us was not written by him.
6. Men's opinions alter ; their tempers are liable to
change; but facts are immutable. Hence, in this
9 evOa OVTTO\V Siarpfyas, says Euseb. vi. 14. Origen is said, by St.
Jerome (de Vir. Illust. c. 61, and by Nicephorus Callist. iv. 31), to
have been among the hearers who listened to a sermon by St.
Hippolytus.
1 Book ix. 12, p. 290. 38.
12 THE PHILOSOPHUMENA-,
question of authorship, it appears more safe to dwell
on circumstantial evidence, than to lay stress on
discrepancies of thought and manner, visible in this
Treatise, when contrasted with what is seen in un-
doubted works of Origen.
Yet such characteristics merit consideration. And
they serve to confirm the opinion already stated, that
the Volume before us is not attributable to him.
7. For example ; our Author 2 speaks at large of
the Noetian heresy, and its adherents, who dwelt on
certain detached and isolated words of Scripture,
and, relying on them, contended 3 that the First and
Second Persons of the Blessed Trinity are only two
different Names of the same Divine Being. His
language, concerning these parties, is that of one
who had recently had experience of the evils to
which their false teaching led, and who had been
engaged in a painful struggle with the abettors of
that heresy.
But how different is the tone of Origen when
treating of the same subject ! In a spirit of calm
philosophy, of ingenious tolerance, and inventive
charity, he suggests circumstances of extenuation,
and almost pleads for the erring while he deplores
their errors. He observes, what was doubtless true,
that the Noetians recoiled from an opposite heresy,
which disparaged the dignity of the Son, and degraded
2 Lib. viii. pp. 276, 277 ; ix. pp. 278291.
3 S. Hippol. c. Noet. iii. apud Routh, Script. Eccles. Opusc. p. 52.
ravra fiovhovTai OVTW 5irjyf"t<rdai, Kal avTols fj.ov6K<a\a
OR, RE PUT A TION OF ALL HERESIES ITS A UTHOR. 13
Him to the level of an ordinary man, animated by
the Spirit of God, and that thus, through fear of an
heretical dogma, they had lapsed unconsciously into
heresy. 4
This was a liberal view. It was suited to the posi-
tion and genius of Origen, who beheld the strife
from afar. But it was not to be expected from one
who was actively engaged in the battle. And, how-
ever this may be, certainly nothing can be more
different than the temper and tone with which the
Patripassian heresy and its promoters are regarded
and described in the works of Origen on the one side
and in this " Refutation of all heresies " on the other.
He who wrote the former could hardly have written
the latter. Therefore again it would appear that the
Author of the present treatise is not Origen.
8. One more remark of this kind. The opinion of
4 Origen, in Matth. t. xvii. 14, says that they err tyavTaalq rov
deti> xP lffT 6v, and in Johan., torn. ii. c. 2, calls them <pi\o6eovs fit/at
vs, and offers also some apology for them as ev\af$ov/j.evovs Svo
avayopfvcrai 0eoiy, Kal irapa rovro irapnr'nrrovras fyevSfcri Kal acre/Seal
Soyjuacri, vol. i. p. 92. Lommatzsch. See also Origen, Fragm. ex libro
in Epist. ad Titum, ed. Lommatzsch V. 287, ne videantur duos deos
dicere, neque rursum negare Salvatoris Deitatem, unam eandemque
subsistentiam Patris ac Filii asseverant, i. e. duo quidem nomina
secundum diversitatem causarum recipientem, unam tamen inr6(TTa<nv
subsistere, i. e. unam Personam duobus nominibus subjacentem, qui
Latine Patripassiani appellantur. Origen's success in dealing with
Beryllus of Bosra is well known, Euseb. vi. 33. S. Jerome de Viris.
Illust. c. 60, and was probably due to his Christian temper not less
than to his profound learning. OVK b.v pr^ra Kal apprjTa \yot/u.v kv rovs
&\\a 5o|dCoi/Tas, he says, c. Gels. v. p. 273, OVK av a-jroo-Tvyfio-aiev robs
TrapaxapdrTOj/ras ra xp l(TTiavia 'f J - o ^> he Sa 7 s m a spirit which can hardly
be reconciled with the language of the present Treatise.
14 THE PHILOSOPHUMENA ;
Origen with regard to future punishments is well
known. The same feelings which induced him to
palliate the errors of heretics, beguiled him into
exercising his ingenuity in tampering with the decla-
rations of Scripture concerning the eternal duration
of the future punishment of sin. 5
But the author of the newly discovered Treatise
speaks a very different language. He does indeed,
at the close of his work, address an affectionate in-
vitation to the heathen world. He portrays, with
glowing and rapturous eloquence, the dignity, blessed-
ness, and glory of those privileges which would be
theirs, if they were Christ's. He describes the im-
mense love of God in Christ to the world, and His
earnest desire for their salvation, and he exhorts them
to accept God's gracious offers, and to enter the
Church of Christ. But he does not pause there. He
presents to them in dark colours another alternative.
He describes the woe and the anguish to which they
will be doomed, if they refuse to hearken to God.
He displays the boiling surge of the never-ebbing
lake of fire, 6 and the excruciating agonies of those
who are lost. He labours to prevail on them to
escape from the wrath to come, and to attain the
happiness of the blessed, by declaring to them, in
God's name, that the pains of hell and the joys of
heaven are not temporal, but eternal. 7
5 See Origen, 19. Homil. in Jerem. torn. iii. p. 267. De Princ. i. 6.
6 Philosophumena, p. 338. 4, ftpaff^v aevdov A-fywr/s.
7 Compare the similar statements of doctrine by St. Irenaeus, iv. 78 ;
v. 27.
OR, REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES ITS AUTHOR. 15
Such is his mode of dealing with that subject.
Probably enough has been said to satisfy the
reader that .the author of the Treatise before us is
not Origen.
Let us pass to another name.
CHAPTER III.
A not her Name considered.
IT is a remarkable circumstance, that very few of the
Roman Poets were natives of Rome. Catullus, Virgil,
Horace, Ovid, Juvenal, Persius, were born in provincial
towns of Italy. Many, also, of the Roman Poets, as
they are commonly called, were not natives of the
Italian soil. Africa gave birth to Terence ; Lucan,
Seneca, and Martial, were from Spain. The same is
true also of the most distinguished Orators, Philo-
sophers, and Historians, whose names are generally
connected with that of Rome. Scarcely one of the
most eminent Roman writers was born at Rome. A
similar remark may be made with regard to the early
Ecclesiastical writers and distinguished men of the
Latin Church. Few were connected by birth, or even
by residence, with Rome. And of the eleven
Bishops who governed the Church of Rome during
the first two centuries, two only appear to have had
any reputation for literary attainments : St. Clement,
whose Epistle to the Corinthian Church still survives,
and whose native country is uncertain ; and Victor,
ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED. 17
supposed to have been of Africa, who is regarded as
the first Ecclesiastical Author who wrote in the Latin
tongue. 1 The inscriptions on the tombs of the earlier
Bishops of Rome, buried in the Catacomb of Callis-
tus, are Greek. 2 There are very few names, of literary
celebrity, which are in any way connected with the
Roman Church in the first three centuries of the
Christian era. 3
Hence it would appear to be a not very difficult
task to discover the Author of the Treatise before us.
He also puts into our hands three clues for his identi-
fication not to speak of others at present. He repre-
sents himself
1. As a Bishop ;
2. As taking an active part in the Ecclesiastical
affairs of Rome ; and
3. As having written other Works, whose titles he
specifies.
Who was there, let us ask, that corresponded to
this description ?
The name of Origen, suggested by the title, being
1 S. Hieron. de Viris Illust, c. 34. 40. 53.
2 May I be allowed to refer to the description of them in my Tour
in Italy, i. pp. 177183?
3 The Historian Sozomen, who wrote early in the fifth century, asserts
that no Bishop of Rome nor any Ecclesiastic preached to the people in
his age. Sozomen, vii. 19, and see the note of Valesius on the passage ;
and it is commonly asserted that no Bishop of Rome delivered Sermons
or Homilies in public before Leo I. , in the middle of the fifth century ;
but this seems to be hardly reconcilable with the statement of Prudentius
(born A.D. 348), Hymn. xi. 25 :
Fronte sub adversa gradibus sublime tribunal
Tollitur, AntisUs practical unde Deum.
C
18 ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED.
dismissed as untenable, perhaps the first person who
would present himself to the mind of an inquirer as a
candidate for the authorship of this Treatise, would be
CAIUS. He is known to have been a Presbyter of the
Roman Church in the episcopate of Zephyrinus ; 4 and
the Author of this Treatise lived in the age of Zephy-
rinus. Caius is also known as a learned and eloquent
man, and as having conducted a theological disputa-
tion, probably by the appointment of Zephyrinus, 5
with Proclus, a leader of the Montanists at Rome, and
to have gained honour by the ability which he dis-
played on that occasion. From the fragments which
remain of his controversial argument, we learn that he
wrote in Greek ; and we are informed, that, being a
Presbyter of Rome, he was promoted to the Episcopal
order. 6
Thus he appears to satisfy some of the most impor-
tant conditions of the present case.
Another point, also, may be noticed here.
I. Among the Works which the writer of this
Treatise specifies as having been produced by him-
4 Euseb. ii. 25 ; vi. 20. Phot. Cod. 48. Zep'hyrinus was Bishop of
Rome from A.D. 202 to A.D. 218. Jaffe Regesta Pontificum, p. 5.
6 Hence, perhaps, the assertion of Optatus i. 9 : Marcion, Praxeas,
Sabellius, Valentinus et caeteri usque ad Cataphrygas temporibus suis a
Victorino Pictaviensi, Zephyrino Urbico (i. e. Episcopo Urbis Romae),
et a Tertulliano Carthaginensi et aliis adsertoribus Ecclesiae Catholicae
superati sunt.
Phot. Cod. 48. TOVTOV rbv Taiov irpefffivTepoi* fyaaiv yfyevrjffOai
TV>S Kara 'Pco/xrjj/ fKKXvjaias eirl Ovturopos Kal Zetpvptvov apx^pf^f,
X*iporovT)Qriva.i 5e avrbv Kal eQviav fTriaitoirov : but there is reason, as
we shall hereafter see, to think this assertion ought rather to be applied
to another person, Hippolytus.
ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED. 19
self, is one entitled "On the Substance of the
Universe." 7
Can we, then, ascertain the Author of that Work
"On The Universe"?
Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, the
Statesman, Scholar, and Divine, of the ninth century,
in that rich storehouse of ancient literary lore, the
" Library " or bibliographical record, 8 which he wrote
when on a diplomatic mission as an ambassador in
Assyria, and in which he describes the contents of the
books he had read, refers to a Work, 9 called " The
Labyrinth " so named (it appears) because its Author
endeavoured to track certain heretical teachers through
their devious mazes, and to enable others, who might
be entangled in their windings, to extricate themselves
from them.
From the notice given by Photius of " The Laby-
rinth," we learn, that the Author of it referred his
readers to another work of his own composition a
work " On the Substance of the Universe." 1
By whom then was " The Labyrinth " written ?
If we can discover this, we shall have ascertained
the Author of our own Treatise ; and of the Treatise
7 P- 334- 78. efcroirat, frrvxovres TJ/JLUV fit&\cf> irepiX ovo y irepl rys rov
iravros oiivias.
8 See Fabricius, Harles. x. p. 678.
9 Phot. Bibl. Cod. 48.
1 eV T( rf\i rov \a&vpivQov o~ie/j.aprvparo tavrov tJvai rov irepl rrjs
rov travrls ovcrtas \6yov. This work, says Photius (Cod. 48), was
entitled in some MSS. irepl rys rov iravros airias, in others, IT. r. r. v.
ovffias : in others, irepl rov iravr6$. He appears to have seen various
MSS. of it.
C 2
20 ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED.
on the Universe. Indeed, if the question concerning
the authorship of any one of these three Treatises is
settled, the question also would seem to be decided
concerning the other two.
On reference to the words of Photius, already
noticed, it would seem at first sight that we have there
a solution of the problem.
The Labyrinth, writes Photius, has been ascribed
to Origen* but "they say that it is by CAIUS." 3
Photius then mentions that the Author of the Laby-
rinth referred to the Treatise on the Universe as
written by himself. 4
Here our first impression would be that the ques-
tion before us was now set at rest.
We feel disposed to acknowledge CAIUS, the cele-
brated Roman presbyter of the second and third
century, as the Author of the newly-discovered Trea-
tise, and of the two other works that have been men-
tioned, from the same pen.
But when we proceed to examine the evidence more
closely, we find reason to retract, or, at least to
suspend, our judgment.
Photius appears to hesitate, except as to the iden-
tity of the Author of the Labyrinth and of the Trea-
tise on the Universe.
2 See also Theodoret. hseret. fabul. ii. 5.
3 Phot. Cod. 48. Fcrfou, ov <pa<rt (rvvTdai Kal TOV \aBvpiv6ov.
He is reporting their opinion when he adds, Fafou 6<rrl irtivrma. TTJ
a.\r)0eia TOV ffvvTCTaxoTos TOV \aBvpif6ov.
4 Ibid, cv T$ reAet TOV \a8vpiv6ov Sif/jLapTvpctTO eavrov tlvai TOV irepl
Tr]5 TOV iravTos ovffias \6yov.
ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED. 21
He had the Treatise on the Universe as well as the
Labyrinth in his Library. He describes its contents. 5
He says that this Treatise having been left anony-
mous, had been attributed by some to Josephus, 6 by
others to Justin Martyr, and by others to Irenaeus, and
that in a marginal note in his MS., it was assigned to
Caius, " who, they say, wrote the Labyrinth, the author
of which states at the end of it that he wrote the work
on the Universe.' 1
" But (says Photius) whether it was written by Caius,
or by another, is not yet manifest to me." 7
Thus then, we do not feel justified in awarding this
work, and the other two connected with it, to CAIUS,
on the authority of Photius.
2. Other considerations also may deter us from
making such an assignment.
Notices of Caius have been left by Eusebius and St.
Jerome. It is their practice to specify the titles of the
works written by the persons whom they commemo-
rate. They mention the disputation of Caius against
Montanism. But neither Eusebius nor St. Jerome
mentions any one of these three works just specified,
as written by Caius.
It would not be surprising that one of these three
works should not have been noticed by them in their
account of the author of the three ; but it is very
improbable that all the three should have been omitted
6 Cod. 48.
6 Ibid.
7 ovirca /J.QI yeyovfv
22 ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED.
by them both ; especially in the case of such a person
as Caius, who was a distinguished man, but not (as
far as we know) a voluminous writer.
It is not, therefore, probable that Caius wrote these
three works ; and since they were all written by the
same author, therefore none of them was written by
Caius ; and therefore it would seem, on this ground,
that we must look elsewhere for the Author of the
newly-discovered Treatise before us.
3. Again ; the Treatise before us was written after
the Episcopate of Zephyrinus ; for it speaks of his
death, and after the death of his successor. 8
The disputation of Caius with Proclus the Montanist
took place in the Episcopate of Zephyrinus ; and the
impression we receive from Church History is, that
the reputation of Caius was mainly derived from
his success in that controversy. It appears to have
been the principal public event of his professional
life.
The Author of the newly-discovered Treatise, which,
it is to be remembered, is designed to be a History of
all Heresies, as well as a Refutation of them, refers to
other works written by himself.
Now, at the close of his Eighth Book, he comes to
speak of Montanus, and of the Montanistic tenets.
He treats their heresy very lightly and briefly ; indeed
he hardly regards it as a heresy ; 9 and takes care to
8 P. 288. 96, /nerd T^V TOV Ze<pvplvovre\evT'f]i': pp. 291, 292, and after
the death of Callistus.
9 Philosophumena, p. 275. He calls them alperiKfarepoi, sub-
ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED. 23
inform his readers that the Montanists are orthodox in
the main articles of the Faith.
If a person had taken up arms against Montanism
as Caius did, and if he had composed and published
a Work in refutation of Montanism as Caius had
done, and if his name had been honourably associated,
and almost identified, with the controversy which
the Church carried on against Montanus, it does not
appear to be probable that he would have spoken of
Montanism so lightly as the Author of this Treatise
does speak.
And if the Author of this Treatise had written
against Montanism, it is probable, that, since he says
so little on that subject in this Treatise, and since it is
his practice to refer his reader to his other works as
supplementary to the present, he would have referred
to his work on Montanism for further information on
that matter. In a word, either Caius would not have
spoken of Montanism, as the Author of this Treatise
speaks ; or, if he had spoken as he does, he would
have said something more on that subject than this
Author does say.
Therefore, on this ground also, we may infer that this
Treatise was not written by CAIUS.
4. Besides, the Author of this Treatise, as we have
seen, touches briefly on Montanism in the Eighth
Book. He then passes on to another heresy, that of
haretici ; and adds, ovrot rbv p.lv Uarepa ru>v %\<av Qtlv Kal rcavroiv
KTKTT^JV 6/j.ot(as TTJ 'EitK\i]<riq, 6(J.o\oyovffi, Kal &ffa rb EuoyyeAtov irtp}
rov XpiOToG (jLapTvpf?.
24 ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED.
the Encratites ; and, after a few words upon them, he
brings the Eighth Book to a close.
And how does he begin the Ninth ?
With a special Preface, a somewhat elaborate one,
in which he states, that having described various
Heresies, and having refuted them in the preceding
Books of this Treatise, he is now entering a new field
in the Ninth Book, and is approaching the most
difficult toil of all. And what is that ? To refute the
Heresies that arose in his own time. 1
He does not regard Montanism as a heresy of his
own time.
But Caius took an active part in refuting Mon-
tanism. It was by his refutation of it that he had
gained his renown. Caius would never have described
Montanism as a heresy of the past. He would not,
and could not have written, concerning it, as this
Author writes.
Therefore, again, we are brought to the conclusion
that this Treatise was not written by CAIUS.
5. Once more. The Montanists against whom
Caius argued, referred to the Apocalypse of St. John,
as affording Scriptural authority to their prophetical
rhapsodies and millenarian reveries. Caius, who
seems to have been eminent for zeal, not always
guided by discretion, appears to have encountered
this argument by questioning the genuineness of the
1 See Book IX. pp. 278, 279. The English reader may see the
passages at length in the Translation inserted in chapter vi. of the
present Volume.
ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED. 25
Apocalypse. 2 And, there is too good reason for
believing that he was carried so far in his animosity
against the fanatical dogmas derived by the Mon-
tanists from the Apocalypse, that he was not satisfied
with denying the genuineness of that Book, but he
even proceeded to the length of ascribing it to a
heretic, Cerinthus.
If it should appear improbable that such an error
as this should be committed by a distinguished person
like Caius, a presbyter of the Roman Church, let it
be remembered that, as was before observed, the
Church of Rome was not eminent for learning at that
time. Let it be remembered also, that the Church of
Rome herself was induced by a similar fear of
2 As this is doubted by some learned persons, who say that Cerinthus
composed Revelations (cp. Theodoret. haeret. fab. ii. 3), in which
he put forth chiliastic opinions, and that all that was denied by ' ' some
in the Church was that these were written by St. John " (see Tillemont
Mem. Hist. Eccl. iii. 176); let it be observed that it is evident from the
testimony of Dionysius, Bp. of Alexandria, in Euseb. vii. 25, when
rightly punctuated, that the genuineness of the Apocalypse had been
denied by some in the Church, and that it had also been ascribed by
them to Cerinthus, who (they said) had assigned it falsely to St. John,
in order to gain currency for his own millenarian opinions under the
authority of St. John's name. And that Caius was among those persons
in the Church to whom Dionysius refers, appears (I conceive) from
Euseb, iii. 28, where, after mentioning that Caius had alleged that
Cerinthus sought to gain credence for his Chiliasm under the authority
of " Revelations, as if written by a great Apostle,'" he immediately pro-
ceeds to cite the words of Dionysius concerning the Apocalypse of St.
John, as quoted also in another place (Euseb. vii. 25). See also Mill
Proleg. in N. T., 654 ; Grabe, Spicileg., t. i. p. 312 ; Lardner, Works,
i. 637 ; Dollinger, Hist, of the Church, i. 190, in Oxenham's trans-
lation ; Gieseler, Eccl. Hist., 59; who affirm that Caius denied the
genuineness of the Apocalypse.
26 ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED.
erroneous consequences, 3 to surrender another Canoni-
cal Book of Holy Scripture The Epistle to the
Hebrews. 4 The learning of the Church was then
mainly in the East. It was by the influence of the
East on the West, that the Church of Rome was
enabled to recover that Epistle. It was also the
influence of the Apocalyptic Churches of Asia, exerted
particularly through St. Irenaeus and his scholar St.
Hippolytus in the West, that preserved the Apo-
calypse, as an inspired work of St. John, to the Church
of Rome.
It becomes then a question for consideration in
reference to the present Treatise,
Does the Author speak of the Apocalypse ? If so,
in what terms ?
In the Seventh Book 5 he is describing the hereti-
cal opinions and licentious practices of the Nico-
laitans.
He thus writes. 6 " Nicolas, one of the seven who
was ordained to the Diaconate by the Apostles, was
3 First of Montanism, then of Novatianism. Philastr. de Hseres.,
8 9 .
4 It does not appear in the ancient Canon of the Roman Church
(Routh, Rel. Sac., iv. p. 2); and St. Jerome says, iii. p. 60 (ed. Bened.),
" Epistola ad Hebraeos quam Latina consuetudo non recipit ;" he says,
ii. p. 608, " Earn Latina consuetudo non recipit;" but he says "inter
Scripturas Canonicas ab Ecclesiis Orientis suscipitur et ab omnibus retro
Ecclesiasticis Grseci sermonis scrip to ribus. " Dionysius Bishop of
Alexandria, before the middle of the third century, acknowledged it as
St. Paul's, Euseb. vi. 41.
6 P. 258.
6 iro\\fis 5e avruv crva'Tacrecos KaKuv ctfrios yeyevrjTai "Ntic6\aos, els
TUV ITTTCI els Siaitoviai' V7rb TWI> a.iroffT6\<i)V KaraffTadels, os OTTOITTOS TTJS
/car* eiiOt'iav 8i8acrKa\ias eSt'Satr/rej' aStcKpopiai' filov re KU\ yvwaeus.
ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED. 27
the cause of their great conglomeration of evils, who,
having fallen away from sound doctrine, taught indif-
ferentism of morals and of knowledge."
The rest is important, but the text is somewhat
corrupt.
The original in the Paris Manuscript is as follows :
ov TOU9 fJba9rjra^ evvftpl^ov TO TO "Ayiov Tlvevfjua Bia
TT;? 'A7ro/caXz/^eo)9 'Icodvvov ij\6<y%6 iropvevovras KOI
The sense clearly is, " Whose disciples, i. <?. the dis-
ciples of Nicolas .... the Holy Spirit upbraiding
rebuked by the Apocalypse of St. John, committing
fornication, and eating things offered to idols."
He refers to the Book of Revelation, ii. 6. 14, 15.
He quotes it as inspired, and as the work of St.
John. 8
This passage, like many others in the Treatise be-
fore us, is almost a transcript from the work of St.
Irenaeus against heresy : 9 and thus, as was before
7 P. 259. 95. M. Miller reads o5 robs ^ctflrjT&s frvppiovras T& ayiov
Tlvev/ma Sia rfjs 'ATro/caAityews 'IwojTrjs tfteyx ' ^ u ^ probably the second
T^ is to be cancelled. In the present Treatise, p. 265 and p. 287 ed.
Miller, evvfyifa is similarly used with an accusative. See the writer in
the Ecclesiastic, No. Ixvii. p. 57.
8 It is observable that the Author of the Treatise on the Universe
appears to refer to the Apocalypse. See Fabric. Hippol., i. 220 : \l/j.vrj
TTV/jJy, K.T.A.
8 The passage in Irenseus is i. 27 : " Nicolaitae magistrum quidem
habent Nicolaum, unum ex VII, qui primi ad diaconiam ab Apostolis
constituti sunt : qui indiscrete vivunt ; plenissime autem per Joannis
Apocalypsim manifestantur qui sint, nullam differentiam esse docentes in
mcechando et idolothyton edere. Quapropter dixit et de iis Sermo Sed
hoc habes quod odisti opera Nicolaitarum qua et Ego odi." (Apoc. ii. 6.)
Cp. Iren. iii. n.
28 ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED.
noticed, it helps us to the original Greek of that
venerable writer, in many places where we possess
him now only in the old Latin version.
It may also be added, that the text of our Treatise
may be often corrected from Irenaeus. 1
St. Irenaeus, we know, had a great veneration for
the Apocalypse, and quotes it very frequently (about
thirty times) as inspired, and as the work of the holy
Apostle and Evangelist, St. John. Our Author was
evidently a diligent reader of St. Irenaeus ; and, in
the passage before us, he follows Irenseus in acknow-
ledging the Genuineness and Inspiration of the Apo-
calypse.
Here then, as it seems, we have sufficient proof,
that the Author of this Treatise is not CAIUS of
Rome. 2
1 Parallels between our Treatise and Irenaeus are quoted by
Duncker in his edition of the " Philosophumena, or Refutation of all
Heresies," Gotting. 1859, p. 554.
2 Also, what has been said in this chapter, compared with what will
be said in the next, suggests reasons for demurring to the ingenious
theory of a learned writer in the Journal of Philology (Vol. I. No. I,
p. 98), that Caius and Hippolytus are one and the same person.
CHAPTER IV.
Another Name suggested.
IN the year 1551, some excavations were made at
Rome in the part of the Eastern Suburb called " Ager
Veranus," near an ancient church of St. Hippolytus,
on the Via Tiburtina, or road to Tivoli, not far from
the church of St. Lorenzo. 1 The clearing away of
the accumulations of an ancient Cemetery and Chapel
on that site led to an interesting discovery. A
marble Statue of a figure sitting in a Chair was
brought to light. 2 The person there represented was
of venerable aspect, bald, with a flowing beard, and
clad in the Greek pallium.
The two sides and back of the Chair were found to
be covered with Inscriptions in Greek uncial letters.
The right side of the Chair exhibits a Calendar,
which designates the days of the months of March
and April, with which the xivth of the moon coin-
cides. This Calendar, indicating the Paschal Full
Moons, is constructed for seven cycles of xvi years
1 vSee Tillemont, Memoires, iii. 24.
2 See the engraving prefixed to this volume.
30 ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED.
each, dating from the first year of the Emperor
Alexander Severus, which is proved from this Calen-
dar to have been 3 A.D. 222. These Tables are formed
on the suppositions (which are erroneous) that after
eight years the full moon recurs on the same day of
the month, and that after fifty-six years it recurs on
the same day of the week, and they represent in seven
columns the day on which the full moon falls during
seven periods of sixteen years.
The other side of the Chair presents a Table, indi-
cating the Day on which the Easter Festival falls in
each year for the same period of seven cycles of
xvi years, dating also from A.D. 222. When the
xivth day of the moon falls on a Saturday, then the
Easter festival is not to be celebrated on the morrow, or
following Sunday, but on the Sunday after that. This
regulation was in accordance with the Latin practice,
but at variance with the Alexandrine custom, 4 accord-
ing to which the Paschal Festival might be solemnized
from the xvth day of the moon. This Paschal Table,
also, is constructed in seven columns of xvi years each,
and indicates the day of the month in which the
Paschal Festival would fall, from A.D. 222 to A.D. 333.
Many things in this Calendar betoken that it is
the work of a Western, 5 and that it was designed for
use in the Western Church.
3 See Clinton, Fasti Romani ad A. D. 222.
4 See Ideler, Chronologic, ii. p. 220.
5 Ideler, Chronologic, ii. p. 213 : Dass er im Occident lebte wird
durch die von ihm befolgte romiscke Zeitrechnung ausser Zweifel
gesetzt.
ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED. 31
The carved Back of the Chair, which was some-
what mutilated, presents a Catalogue of Titles of
Works composed doubtless by the person who oc-
cupies the chair. 6
This Statue thus discovered was in a fragmentary
state, but was happily preserved by Cardinal Marcello
Cervino, afterwards Pope Marcellus II., and was
removed as a valuable monument of Christian Anti-
quity to the Vatican, and was restored by the aid of
Roman Sculptors, as far as might be, to its pristine
form, under the auspices of Pope Pius IV., and is now
in the Lateran Museum at Rome. 7
The Paschal Table inscribed on the sides of the
Chair dates, as has been stated, from the beginning
of the reign of Alexander Severus.
He ascended the imperial throne A.D. 222, when
Callistus was Bishop of Rome, about two years
after the death of Zephyrinus, the Predecessor of
Callistus, that is to say, in the period described by
the Author of the Treatise before us, who represents
himself as living under Zephyrinus and his successor ;
and who in this work, which is entitled " A Refuta-
tion of all Heresies," mentions no heresy subsequent
to that age.
Among the titles of Books inscribed on the Chair,
we find the following" On the Universe." 8
6 See the inscription prefixed to this volume, and below chap. xiii. _
7 A representation of the three sides of the Statue and of the inscrip-
tion upon them may be seen in the edition of Hippolytus by Fabricius,
pp. 36 38; p. 74, folio, Hamburgh, 1716.
8 TTfpl rov iravr6s.
32 ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED.
The Author of the recently-discovered Treatise (as
was before noticed) refers to a book bearing this title,
as written by himself.
Can we, then, ascertain who the personage, repre-
sented by the statue, is ?
If so, we have a clue to the authorship of our
Treatise.
In reply to this question, let it be observed, that
Eusebius and St. Jerome 9 have left Catalogues re-
spectively of Works composed by an eminent person,
one of the most eminent for theological learning and
eloquence of that age.
Suffice it to say, that in those Catalogues they
specify a Paschal Cycle of sixteen years, similar to
that on the Statue.
They specify also other Works, which tally in the
main with the Catalogue on the Statue. Whatever
discrepancies there may be in the Catalogues, arise
from omissions in one of what is inserted in one or
both of the other two : and thus these discrepancies
are of service, as showing that the Catalogues are,
in some degree at least, independent of each other.
Therefore, the Writer, whose works Eusebius and
St. Jerome are describing, is the same as the Person
represented in the Statue.
The Author whose Works Eusebius and St. Jerome
are enumerating, is St. HiPPOLYTUS.
He then is the person represented in the Statue.
i. This conclusion is confirmed by other evidence
9 Euseb. vi. 22. S. Hieron. de Viris Illust. 61.
ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED. 33
The person represented in the Statue is that of a vene-
rable figure, sitting in a chair as a Christian Teacher.
Hippolytus, it is well known from Eusebius and St.
Jerome, was a Bishop of the Church. The Statue
was found on the spot described in a hymn of the
Christian Poet, Prudentius, 1 as the site where, after
a celebrated Teacher of the church called Hippolytus
had suffered martyrdom at a place Portus, that is, the
port or harbour of Rome, at the mouth of the river
Tiber, a monument was erected to his memory.
A church bearing the name of St. Hippolytus anciently
stood there. The Cemetery where the remains of the
Hippolytus who is celebrated in that hymn by Pru-
dentius, were buried, was near the Church of Lorenzo,
where the Statue was discovered. In the life of Pope
Hadrian I., 2 it is recorded that " he repaired the
Cemetery of St. Hippolytus, near the Church of
Lorenzo, which had long fallen into decay." Hence,
it is evident that the person represented in the Statue
found in 1551, is the venerable Bishop, the Saint and
1 Prudentius de martyrio Sancti Hippolyti, Peri Stephanon, Hymn,
xi. 152 :
" Roma placet sanctos quse teneat cineres.
Haud procul extreme culta ad pomceria vallo
Mersa latebrosis crypta patet foveis."
In v. 220 the author describes a neighbouring temple, of which the
ruins are said by Baronius to have been extant in his time. See Fabric.
Hippol. i. p. xix, note.
2 Pope from A.D. 772795. Anastasii Liber de Vitis Pont, in
Hadrian I. A church of St. Hippolytus is described by an ancient
writer on the " Regiones Urbis," apud Mabillon, Analecta Vetera, p. 365,
as standing on the Via Tiburtina, near the Church of S. Laurence. See
also the authorities in Ruggieri de sede S. Hippolyti, pp. 473, 474, 476.
D
34 ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED.
Martyr of the Roman Church in the third century,
St. Hippolytus.
Accordingly, when the Statue was removed to the
Vatican, it was there received as a Statue of St.
Hippolytus, and the following inscription, declaratory
of its purport and discovery, and of its restoration by
Pope Pius IV., and assigning to Hippolytus the title
of " Bishop of Portus," the harbour of Rome, was
engraved on its pedestal,
STATVA
S. HIPPOLYTI
PORTVENSIS EPISCOPI
QVI VIXIT ALEXANDRO
PIO. IMP.
EX VRBIS RVINIS EFFOSSA
A PIO. IIII. MEDICEO
PONT. MAX.
RESTITVTA.
2. The Catalogue on this Statue of Hippolytus
specifies (as we have said) a work " On the Universe?
The Author of our Treatise on Heresy mentions (in
p. 334) a Work on the Universe as written by himself.
Therefore, on this ground we may infer that the
writer of our Treatise is St. Hippolytus.
3. Next, it may be added, both Eusebius and St.
Jerome mention " a Treatise against all heresies" as
written by Hippolytus. 3
* Euseb. vi. 22. irpbs aird(ras T&S alpccreis. S. Hieron. de Viris Illust.
c. Ixi. : "Aclversus omnes Hsereses." The title of our work is,
^ Ko.ro. rraffcav at pe treaty
ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED. 35
Hence also it would seem to be probable that the
Author of the newly-discovered Treatise which is
entitled "a Refutation of all Heresies" is St. HlP-
POLYTUS.
And, if this is the case, then it appears that the
discovery of an ancient Statue, near Rome, more than
three hundred years ago, will have served as a clue for
ascertaining the Author of a Treatise disinterred
from a Monastery in Mount Athos in 1842 ; and will
have aided us in the attainment of certain important
results (as we shall see hereafter) consequent on that
fact.
Let us therefore proceed to consider whether the
opinion, now stated as probable, that the present
Treatise was written by St. Hippolytus, may be cor-
roborated by other proofs.
Various works are now extant, which are attri-
buted to St. Hippolytus, and they have been inserted
as such, in the edition of his writings published by
Fabricius. One of these his homily against the
heresy of Noetus, (published by the late Dr. Routh in
his Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Opuscula, i. 49), re-
markable alike for sound theological learning and
manly eloquence, contains, as we shall see hereafter,
many paragraphs similar to passages in the present
Treatise. So, as we shall also see, does the work " on
Antichrist" ascribed to him. But, let us reserve
what is to be said on them to a later period in the
inquiry, and let us construct our argument on what
is unquestioned and unquestionable.
D 2
36 ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED.
4. Let us bear in mind what the time and place
are with which we are concerned in the present inquiry.
The Author, whoever he may be, lived in the
Church of Rome, in the end of the second and earlier
part of the third century. He does not write in the
language of Rome, but of Greece. And his work
proves him to have been a learned and eloquent man.
If what he narrates of himself be true, he had com-
posed various other works, he was a copious writer,
and he held a high position in the Roman Church
for many years.
Few persons correspond to this description. Indeed,
we might almost say that no one does except St.
Hippolytus.
Our Treatise (as we have seen) divides itself into
two portions.
1. A view of the Philosophical Systems that had
prevailed in the Heathen World.
2. A Refutation of the Heresies that had arisen in
the Christian Church.
Hence, the twofold title, " Philosophumena ; or a
Refutation of all Heresies?
I. With regard to the first of these titles ; it is
observable that St. Hippolytus is called by ancient
writers "a sacred Philosopher"* 1 and it is said, that
he was eminent " in Christian Philosophy''
* Georg. Syncell. in Chronog. ad A.D. 215, as quoted in S. Hippol.
ed. Fabr., i. p. 42. See also S. Jerome, Epist. ad Magn. 70, et ad
Lucin. 71, where he celebrates Hippolytus for his proficiency in
Philosophy.
ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED. 37
It would seem then that he had written some
Philosophical work, which entitled him to this appel-
lation. Such a work is the present, as its name
intimates.
Let us now refer to the Second title, the " Refuta-
tion of all Heresies"
As we have already seen, Eusebius and St. Jerome
attest that a Work " Against all Heresies " was written
by Hippolytus.
The same is affirmed by numerous other ancient
Authors. 5
2. We are also informed, that St. Hippolytus 6
spoke in strong terms of censure against Nicolas, one
of the VII. Deacons, as well as against the Nicolaitans
an observable circumstance, because many of the
ancient Fathers, viz. Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, ^
Eusebius, and Theodoret did indeed reprobate the
Nicolaitans and their Heresy, but exempted Nicolas
the Deacon from blame. 7
Now, in a passage already cited (p. 27) from the
Treatise before us, 8 we have seen that the Author
censures both Nicolas and the Nicolaitans ; as Hip-
polytus is said to have done.
5 4 Georgius Syncellus in Chronog. A.D. 215. Chronic. Paschal.
Alexandrin. p. 6. Nicephorus, Callisti Hist. Eccl., iv. 31, ascribes to
Hippolytus, <rvvTay/J.a irpos iraaas ras atpe'trets /fcaHpeAeVraToi'. S.
Epiphanius, Haer. xxxi. c. 33, refers to Hippolytus as one of his pre-
decessors in refuting Heresy.
6 Gobar. ap. Phot. Cod. 232, irolas viroA^ets elx" 'ITTT^AUTOS
rov v6s ruv $ia.K6v<av, Kal 8n iarxvpws avrov Kara-
Gobar. ap. Phot. Bibliothec., Cod. 232. 8 p 258.
38 ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED.
3. We have also seen that the Author, in that
passage, as in many others of this Treatise, copies St.
Irenaeus.
Now, among the scholars of Irenaeus,' we are informed
by Photius, was Hippolytus. 9
The time in which our Author lived, the mode in
which he deals with the work of Irenaeus, make it
probable that he was reared under his training. He
writes like a scholar of Irenaeus.
Again, we saw in the passage, just noticed, from
our Treatise, a testimony to the genuineness and
Inspiration of the Apocalypse. He speaks concern-
ing the Apocalypse as a scholar of St. Irenaeus would
speak. 1
4. We have contrasted that testimony with the
mode in which Caius the Roman Presbyter treated
the same Book the Book of Revelation. Caius, we
know, flourished in the Episcopate of Zephyrinus, that
is, he was contemporary with perhaps a little senior
to our Author ; and not merely was contemporaneous
with him, but resided at the same place, that is, in or
near Rome.
The Author of our Treatise received and revered
the Apocalypse.
Let us now turn to the Catalogue of the titles of
Works inscribed on the back of the Statue of St.
Hippolytus. 2
IJ Phot. Cod. 121, Ma07?T^j ElpTjvalov '\Tnr6\vro3.
1 See above, chapter iii. p. 27.
2 See the frontispiece to the present Volume and below chap. xiii. ;
ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED. 39
There we read the following : " A defence of the
Gospel according to St. John and of the Apocalypse"*
Hence we see, that whatever might be the dispo-
sition of his Roman contemporary Caius, Hippolytus
acknowledged the Apocalypse as a work of the
Evangelist St. John.
Nor is this all. In the Chaldee Catalogue of the
Works of Hippolytus/ is one, entitled, " Chapters of
St. Hippolytus, against Cains?
It is true that Fabricius and some other learned
men have conjectured that this is an erroneous tran-
script, and that the true reading is "against the
Caianites," 5 heretics of that name. For why, they
ask, should Hippolytus have written against his con-
temporary Caius, who refuted heresies ?
But why, we may reply, should we desert the
received reading ? The fact is clear, that some per-
sons in the Western Church had questioned the
authority of the Apocalypse. Why otherwise should
Hippolytus defend it ? If Caius, the Roman Presby-
ter, treated the Apocalypse as we have seen he did
(chap, iii.), and yet enjoyed the reputation he did in
the Church of Rome, it is probable, that many in the
Roman Church (misled it is probable by zeal against
Montanism) looked on the Apocalypse with suspicion
and compare Gruter. Inscript. 140 ; Le Moyne's Varia Sacra, i. p. 496 ;
S. Hippol. ed. Fabricii, i. p. 38; Cave, i. 104; Bunsen, "Hippo-
lytus and his Age," i. pp. 288, 289.
3 'TTrep TOV Kara "\<av.WT\v Evayyf\iov Kal ' A.iroKa\v\l/fd)S.
4 By Hebed Jesu. See S. Hippol. ed. Fabric., i. p. 224.
5 Fabric. Bibl. Graec. Harles., vii. p. 197, ed. Hippol., i. p. 224.
4> ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED.
What more reasonable, then, than that Hippolytus
his contemporary, the scholar of Irenaeus the disciple
of Polycarp the hearer of St. John the beloved disciple
of Christ, when writing a defence (as we know he did)
of the Apocalypse, should address it to Caius, in order
to warn him and others of his error, and to endeavour
to rescue them from it ?
However this may be, certain it is, that the Author
of our Treatise censured Nicolas, as well as the
Nicolaitans ; and that he had no doubts as to the
genuineness and inspiration of the Apocalypse.
Certain it also is, that in both these respects, as in
many others, he followed Irenaeus.
It is also evident, that St. Hippolytus did the
same ; and that he was a scholar of Irenaeus.
Hence, then, we recognize some further confirma-
tions of the previous probability that our Author is
St. Hippolytus.
Let us consider, by way of recapitulation, the per-
sonal history of the writer of this Treatise.
5. He writes, and writes eloquently, in Greek, and
yet, as this Treatise shows, he lived in the Western
Church. . . . Besides this Treatise against all Heresies,
he wrote a Work " On the Universe'' He resided at
Rome, or near it, under three successive Bishops at
least, that is, in the Episcopate of Zephyrinus, of
Callistus, and of his successor, Urbanus, perhaps
longer. 6 He was a Bishop, and speaks of his conse-
6 Book ix. passim.
ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED. 41
quent obligation to refute heresy, and to maintain the
truth. 7 He exercised Church discipline, in resisting
false doctrine, and in separating open and obstinate
offenders from Communion with the Church. 8 He
describes/ with the graphic liveliness of one who had
been a spectator, or had heard a description of those
who were eye-witnesses of it, a remarkable scene which
took place at Portus, the harbour of Rome.
All these and other particulars which might be
noticed, correspond with what we know of Hippolytus.
His name is not of Latin origin, but Greek. Being a
scholar of Irenseus, he was probably of Eastern ex-
traction. And all Antiquity witnesses that he wrote
in Greek. He composed a " Refutation of all
Heresies," and a "Treatise on the Universe." He
lived under Zephyrinus, Callistus, and his successor,
probably later. Hippolytus was, also, a Bishop and
Martyr. There is reason, as we shall hereafter see, to
believe that Hippolytus was designated as a " Bishop
of the nations " (eWoveoTro? eOvwv] and that he resided at
Portus, or Roman harbour, to which the people of
many Nations flocked as a great commercial Empo-
rium ; he is often called by ancient writers, a Roman
Bishop, and even (in the language of those days) a
Bishop of Rome. 1 He was also a Martyr, and is com-
7 Book i. p. 3.
8 See p. 290, where the Author uses the plural we, speaking of him-
self. See the Rev. T. K. Arnold's Theol. Critic, vol. ii. p. 597. So
P- 334, 78, TIH&V &i&\<?.
a P. 286.
1 See the authorities in he edition of St. Hippolytus by Fabricius,
42 ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED.
memorated as such in the Roman Marty rologies. 2 As
such he was honoured by one of the noblest Statues
of a Christian Ecclesiastic in ancient Christian times.
As such he is venerated in the Roman Breviary, and
was received into the Vatican Palace, and now into
the Lateran Museum, sitting in his marble Chair,
as a Teacher of the Western Church.
Lastly, this newly-discovered Treatise has now been
acknowledged to be the work of St. Hippolytus the
Scholar of St. Irenaeus, the Bishop and Martyr of the
Roman Church, the most learned and eloquent of the
writers of that Church in the earlier part of the Third
century, by the concurrent judgment of some of the
most eminent theologians, Roman Catholic as well
as Protestant ; such as Dr. Von Dollinger, Bishop
Lightfoot, Dean Milman, Archdeacon Churton, Canon
Robertson, Baron Bunsen, Dr. G. Volckmar, Dr.
Gieseler, Professor Jacobi, Dr. Schaff, and others ;
and this Treatise has been published as a genuine
work of St. Hippolytus by Dr. Duncker at Gottingen
in 1859. The testimony on this matter may be
i. p. viii x, and p. 42 47, Ruggieri de sede S. Hippolyti, p. 478
493. 518525.
2 OH the ides of August, Aug. 13, (ed. Baronii, p. 360 362) Romae
beati Hippolyti Martyris qui pro confessionis gloria sub Valeriano
Imperatore post alia tormenta ligatis pedibus ad colla indomitorum
equorum per carduetum et tribulos crudeliter tractus toto corpore
laceratus emisit spiritum ; extra portam Tiburtinam in agro Verano
sepultus. Cardinal Baronius testifies to the existence of a Church of St.
Hippolytus, near that of St. Lawrence.
This is in harmony with the account of Prudentius in his hymn of St.
Hippolytus. The name of Hippolytus, with some other circumstances
which appear to belong to our Hippolytus, occurs also in the Roman
Martyrology on August 22.
ANOTHER NAME SUGGESTED. 43
summed up in the words of Dr. Von Dollinger. 3
" That the celebrated Doctor of the Church, Hippo-
lytus, was the Author of the newly-discovered Work
on the Heresies, is declared simultaneously and in-
dependently by the majority of those who have inves-
tigated this question.""
A Treatise, therefore, like the present, coming from
St. Hippolytus, and recovered almost miraculously
in the middle of the nineteenth century, is entitled to
respectful attention, especially from the Western
Church. And it may reasonably be expected to
receive it.
3 Hippolytus und Kallistus, pag. i. Regensburg, 1853.
CHAPTER V.
Objections Considered. Photius and others.
A CONSIDERABLE amount of evidence may be
adduced to authorize the ascription of a Work to a
particular writer, and such evidence may be sufficient
to produce conviction, when considered by itself; and
yet, when the question is subjected to further exami-
nation, and arguments are adduced on the other
side, that conviction may be weakened, and the mind
may waver concerning the soundness of its former
persuasion.
We have been engaged in considering the ques-
tion,
To whom is the newly-discovered Treatise on
Heresy to be assigned ?
We have been led to observe, that the Candidates
for its authorship cannot be numerous. We have
examined the pretensions of two Competitors
Origen, and Caius of Rome, who appeared at first
to have strong claims on our attention. We have
seen that the Work could not be adjudged to either of
them.
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. PHOTIUS AND OTHERS. 45
Another name was then adduced, that of ST.
HlPPOLYTUS. And there seemed to be sufficient
reason for awarding this Volume to him.
This part of our task has been performed with
comparative ease. Others have smoothed the way.
More than a year ago, a learned English Theolo-
gian, 1 speaking of this newly-discovered Treatise,
assigned it to St. Hippolytus ; and, since that time,
a Work has been published, which adduces some
cogent arguments in favour of the same opinion, by
a writer long known to the world the Chevalier
Bunsen. 2
But " Audi alteram partem " is the counsel which
is suggested by experience in questions of this de-
scription. We cannot justly feel satisfied with any
conclusion, till we hear what may be adduced against
it. And it is not to be denied, that, in the present
case, there is much to be said which might seem at
first to be of sufficient weight to constrain us to sus-
pend our judgment, if not to incline it in another
direction.
Let us, then, address ourselves to the considera-
tion of this other evidence.
1 The late Archn. Churton, page xxvii of the Preface to his Edition
of Bp. Pearson's Vindiciae Ignatianae, where he calls this, Treatise
"Opus nuper felicibus Academiae Oxoniensis auspiciis publica luce
donatum, Christiana; Antiquitatis cultoribus acceptissimum, Origenis,
ut titulus praefert, sive ut mihi cum Viris compluribus bene doctis
probabilius videtur, S. Hippolyti" This preface is dated vii. Kal. Feb.
MDCCCLII.
2 In the First Volume of " HIPPOLYTUS and his AGE," by C. C. J.
BUNSEN, D.C.L., Four Volumes, Lond. 1852.
46 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
I. The learned Patriarch of Constantinople, Pho-
tius, had in his Library a Work ascribed to ST. HlP-
POLYTUS : and it was a Work " AGAINST HERESIES."
In his bibliographical Journal, composed in Assyria,
Photius describes it thus. 3
" A biblidarion " (a diminutive of little book] " of
Hippolytus was read to me. 4 Hippolytus was a
Scholar of Irenaeus. This Book is a ( Treatise against
Thirty-two Heresies ; ' it begins with the Dositheans,
and goes down to Noetus and the Noetians : and the
Author says, that he composed it as a synopsis of
Lectures 5 delivered viva voce by Irenaeus, in refu-
tation of these heresies. There are some things
deficient in accuracy in this book, one is the asser-
tion, that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not by the
Apostle St. Paul." 6
3 Phot. Cod. 121. aveyvcaffdr) fiifiXiSdpiov 'liriroXvrov' Mafl^Trjs 5e
Eipyvaiov 6 'Iinr6\VTos' ^\v 8e rb avvTaypa Kara, alpeffecov \&'. ap%V
iroiovfjisvov AoffiQeavovs Kal M*XP l NOTJTOI! Kal NoyTiavuv 8ia\aufldvov (sic
Bekker, pro vulg. Sia\aiJiftav6nevov) ravras 5e Q>T)a\.v e'Ae'yx 01 * virop\ri-
0?jj/at o/xtAouj/TOs Eipyvaiov, <$v /cat crvvofyiv 6 '\Tnr6\VTos TTOIOV/J.VOS r6Se
T& &i&\iov <$>t)(r\v ffvvreraxfvai. . . . Ae^ei 8e &\\a re nva TT)S attpiftelas
\nr6/j.va, Kal tin TJ irpbs 'Efipaiovs eTriaroA^ OVK fffnv rov 'Airo(TT6\ov
TIavXov.
4 It is well known to have been a common practice of students in
ancient times rather to hear books read to them by slaves called ana-
gnostce, than to read them with their own eyes. The lament of Cicero
for the death of his anagnostes will occur to the reader. Hence
perhaps the phrase of Photius ; but he may have been his own reader.
5 These Lectures were probably prior to the V. Books, or rather
portions of V. Books, of Irenseus against Heresies, now extant, which
were published at intervals A.D. 180 185, according to Bp. Pearson,
Diss. Post. ii. xiv. p. 527. Perhaps the date should be carried lower :
the third book was written under Eleutherus (iii. 3), whose Episcopate
is extended by some to A.D. 192. Jaffe, Regest. Pontif. p. 4.
6 Cp. Euseb., vi. 20, where he says that Caius also did not acknow-
PHOT2US AND OTHERS. 47
Here, then, we are met by a difficulty.
Photius had a Work before him a Work on
Heresy a Work written by St. Hippolytus. He
proceeds to describe it. How does it correspond with
the Treatise before us ? His Volume is a little book
a single /3i/3\i8dpiov ; ours is a large one : it consists
of ten $i$\ia or books. His was a Treatise against
thirty-two heresies. Ours is a refutation of all heresies.
His began with the Dositheans, and ended with the
Noetians ; ours begins its catalogue of heresies with
the Naassenes, and ends with the Elchasaites. His
professed to be a compendium of oral discourses by
Irenseus ; 7 ours makes no such announcement. In the
Treatise which Photius read, Hippolytus said that the
Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by St. Paul.
In the books which remain of our Treatise, there is
no such assertion. 8
2. Can, therefore, our Treatise be the same Work
as that read by Photius ?
It has been said by a learned writer 9 that there is
no doubt of their identity. But, on consideration of
ledge the Epistle to be by St. Paul, and even yet (adds Eusebius) some
at Rome do not receive it as St. Paul's.
7 It could not have been a compendium from the written Treatise of
Irenseus against Heresy, in V. Books ; for no mention is made there of
the Dositheans or Noetians.
8 These difficulties have been well stated by a learned writer, the
present Dean of Rochester, in an able Article in the Rev. T. K. Arnold's
Theol. Critic, vol. ii. p. 5 2 4-
9 M. Bunsen says, p. 16 : "The description (given by Photius)
tallies so exactly with the book before us, that it cannot have been given of
any other.' 1 '' Again, p. 25 : " The rest of the account given by Photius
is positive and accurate enough to prove that we have the work he speaks
48 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
the evidence, few, it is probable, will concur in
that opinion. No Procrustean process of pressure
can make a Treatise in ten books to coincide with the
single little book described by Photius.
3. Besides, looking at the contents of our Trea-
tise, we find a copius account of proceedings which
took place in the Church of Rome in our Author's
lifetime, and in which he had an active share. Con-
sidering the nature of those proceedings, any one who
remembers the relation of Photius, Patriarch of Con-
stantinople, to the Bishop of Rome and the Roman
See, and who recollects his long and vigorous struggle
against what he regarded as its usurpations, will feel
a strong persuasion, that if Photius had ever had
before him the narrative contained in this Treatise,
he would not have failed to notice it in his account
of the Work, and would have dwelt upon the events
there recorded, in his controversies with the Roman
See.
4. Once more : We have seen that the Author
of our Treatise claims the Work, " On the Universe"
as his own. 1 But Photius (as we have also seen) 2
of before us." And again, p. 26: "Photius evidently found these
Judaic sects, as we do, at the head of his Treatise, but expresses himself
inaccurately. "
This is doubtful; and again: ''Instead of calling them Ophites
(says M. Bunsen), Photius designates them as Dositheans." Again,
p. 26 : " The last of the heresies treated by Hippolytus, in the
work read by Photius, was that of the Noetians ; and so in fact it is in
our book." Again, pp. 120, 121 : "Looking back to the points I
undertook to prove, I believe \\MVZ established \hvsn. pretty satisfactorily"
" Our work begins in fact, as Photius says, so too does it end."
P- 334> e a Miller. Above, chapter iii. 2 Above, chapter iii.
PHOTIUS AND OTHERS. 49
did not know who wrote that Work on the Uni-
verse. He says that it has been ascribed to Justin
Martyr, Caius, and others ; but has no suspicion
that it was written by Hippolytus. Hence, again, it is
clear, that ourTreatise is not the Little Book on Heresy
by Hippolytus, which Photius saw and describes.
5. Here, let us candidly avow, is an embarrass-
ment. Let us not close our eyes to it. Rather
let us meet it, in hope, that, if our former conclusion
was right, this, which is now a difficulty, may become
an ally. St. Hippolytus, it is confessed by all, wrote
a Treatise on Heresy. Photius read a Work on
Heresy, written by Hippolytus. Our Treatise is a
Treatise on Heresy, and is different from the Book
read by Photius. And it is anonymous.
Has not, therefore, the Little Book read by Photius
the fairer claim of the two to be regarded as the Work
on Heresy written by Hippolytus, and mentioned by
Eusebius and Jerome and others, and received by the
world as such ?
Again : if we ascend upward from the times of
Photius to an earlier period, we find additional evi-
dence of the existence of a Work on Heresy written
by Hippolytus, and a Work differing from the
Treatise before us.
6. For example : Gelasius, 3 whom some suppose to
be the Bishop of Rome so named, at the close
3 Gelas. ap. Bibl. Patrum Max., Lugd. viii. p. 704, where good
reasons are assigned for the opinion that these words were not written
by the Gelasius, who was Bishop of Rome. Fabric. Hippol. p. 225.
E
50 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
of the fifth century (A.D. 492496), in his Trea-
tise "On the two Natures of Christ," refers to a
Work by St. Hippolytus on Heresy, and cites a pas-
sage from it. He introduces his quotation thus : *
" From Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr, of the Me-
tropolis of the Arabians, in his Memoria Haeresium."
He then recites (not in the original Greek, but in
Latin) an extract ; a very beautiful passage, in which
Hippolytus collects from Holy Scripture some of the
proofs, displayed by our Blessed Lord upon earth, of
His Humanity, and also of His Divinity.
The passage cited by Gelasius does not appear in
our Treatise.
The fact seems to be, as to the title here given to
Hippolytus, " Bishop of' the Metropolis of Arabia," i.e.
of Bosra (Bihgham,.ix. ch. i. and Carolus a S. Paulo,
Geographia Sacra, p. 295, ed. 1703) that this error in
the designation of Hippolytus, as has been suggested
by Cotelerius (Mon. Eccl. Gn ii. 639), was derived from
the erroneous Latin version, by Ruffinus, of a passage
in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, where speak-
ing of the learned ecclesiastical writers flourishing at
a particular period, he says : " Of these, Beryllus left
Epistles, and various choice extracts from other
writings. He was Bishop of the Arabians in Bosra.
And likewise Hippolytus, who was president of
some other Church." 5
4 Hippolyti, Episcopi et Martyris, Arabum Metropolis, in Memoria
Hseresium.
5 'E-rrio-KOiros S' OVTOS riv rcov Kara &6<TTpav 'Apaficav, waavTus 8e ical
s, fTfpas TTOV Kal avrbs irpoecrrias e/c/cArjatoy, which is thus
PHOTIUS AND OTHERS. 51
But whether this extract was really made by
Gelasius, Bishop of Rome, or no, (which is not of
much moment to the question before us,) we must
now revert to the fact, that we look in vain for the
passage, in our Treatise on Heresy.
On the other hand, it may be remarked, that this
same passage exists in the original Greek, not in the
" Treatise of Hippolytus against Noetus," as has been
affirmed, 6 but in his Exposition of the Second Psalm,
and is so cited by Theodoret. 7
We may offer one more remark on this quotation,
by Gelasius, before we close this Chapter ; but in the
mean time perhaps it may be affirmed that not much
can be inferred from the words of Gelasius, either for
or against the genuineness of our Treatise.
7. We ascend to an earlier period than Gelasius, and
enter the fourth century.
A Bishop of Alexandria, Peter, who lived early in
that century, refers to St. Hippolytus, whom he calls
" a witness of Godliness," (probably alluding to his
Martyrdom,) and Bishop of Portus, near Rome. 8 He
rendered by Ruffinus, " Erat inter cseteros et Beryllus scriptor prsecipuus,
qui et ipse diversa opuscula dereliquit. Episcopus hie fuit apud
Bostram Arabia urbem maximam, erat nihilominus et Hippolytus, qui et
ipse aliquanta scripta dereliquit Episcopus." The Latin words of
Gelasius, "Episcopus Arabum Metropolis," seem to be derived from
this inaccurate version by Ruffinus.
6 M. Bunsen says, i. p. 206, "The passage (quoted by Gelasius)
exists in the special Treatise against Noetus." A passage like it is found
in that Homily, chap, xviii. vol. ii. p. 19, ed. Fabric., and bears marks
of being from the same author.
7 Theodoret, Dial, ao'tfyx 1 ' 7 " *- Vo1 - iv - Pars * P- 1 3 2 > Halae, 1772.
R Chronicon Paschale sive Alexandrinum, p. 4, ed. Dindorf, 1832,
and p. 12. It appears to me that (notwithstanding what is said by Dr.
E 2
52 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
then proceeds to adduce a citation from a Work 9 of
" St. Hippolytus, against all Heresies." The quotation
refers to the error of the Quartodecimans (that
is, of those who kept Easter as the Jews did the
Passover, on the xivth day of the Moon), and Peter
states that he quotes verbally l from that Work of
Hippolytus.
Let us now refer to our own Treatise. We there
find that the Author speaks of the Quartodecimans, 2
and that what he there says, bears some resemblance
to the quotation of the Alexandrine Bishop, but is not
identical with it 3 .
Hence then it is manifest, first, that the Bishop of
Dollinger to the contrary) Baron Bunsen had good grounds for ascribing
this extract to S. Peter of Alexandria himself; DindorPs edition seems
to show this. See S. Hippol. Fabric, i. p. 224 ; cf. ibid. p. 43.
9 (rvvray/uLa. l eVl Ae'f&>s. 2 P. 274, 85.
3 The reader may compare the two passages :
Quotation from Hippolytus against Philosophumena, or Refutation of
Heresy in Paschal Chronicle, Heresies, pp. 274-5.
p. 6.
6pu> fj.fv (read dpu>^v} #TI <pi- erepof rives (piXoveiKoi r^v
\oveinias TO epyov' Aeyei "yap fyvaw. . <rvi>i(ndvov(n 5e?v TO
OIJTUS, " tirolv)ffev rb -nba^a. 6 7rao"%a TTJ reacrapeo'/caiSe/caTT? rov
Xpio"rbs r6rf, rf V e V? Ka ^ (fl ?) A 47 ? 1 '^^ <pv\d(r<Tiv Kara TTJV rov
7ra06J/, 5^ Se? /cd/xe 5e? Si/ rpAirov v6fj.ov Siaray^v eV ^ Q.V ^uepct
6 Kvpios firoiriffev, ovrus Troiew" tfnreffri. . . ov irpoffexovres '6 ri
irfTr\dfr]rai Se, ^ yiyvdffKuv tin 'lovSaiois 6Vo/io0eTe?To, roTy /ieA-
rcp Kaip$ (y ?) eTrao'X"'* ^ XP iffT s *- ovort T ^ ^^ 01J/ ^ J/ ^o-^X a "'
ovicecpayfv rb KOT^ v6pov ird(rxa. P^ v (Christum) rb els eQvn x u P^-
OVTOS (AUTOS ?) yap ^v TO Trdffx* <*<*#> fal iriffrei voov^tvov ov ypd/j.-
rb irpoKeKfipvyiievov, Kal re- fj.an vvv T
* Cf. S. Hippol. (fragm. lib. i. de Paschate) ibid. p. 6. rb
OVK tfayf, a\\" firaOe (sc. xp lffr ^ 5 }- Fabr. Hippol. p. 43.
PHOTIUS AND OTHERS. 53
Alexandria had some work of Hippolytus on Heresy
in his possession ; and, secondly, that our Treatise
was not that work.
To these considerations must be added another ;
namely, that the work to which these Authors refer,
namely, Photius, the so-called Gelasius, and Peter of
Alexandria, as written by Hippolytus, appears to
have borne his name ; and to have been generally
received as his. But our Treatise has not any name
prefixed to it.
8. If then the alternative lay between the Book
seen and quoted by Photius and others on the one
side, and our Treatise on the other, it would seem re-
quisite to ask for more time to consider, before we
ventured to arbitrate between the two, and to reject
the former work, and to receive the latter, as the
Treatise against Heresy written by Hippolytus, and
recognized by Antiquity as such.
9. But let us now pass on to observe, that this is
not the case.
It may be allowed to be probable, that St.
Hippolytus wrote two works against Heresy.
It is not uncommon for Authors to write a brief
Essay on a subject, and then, subsequently, to expand
it into a larger Treatise.
Cicero amplified, in his De Oratore, what he had
before treated in his earlier works on Rhetoric. 4 St.
4 De Oratore I, 2. Vis enim, ut mihi ssepe dixisti, quoniam quae
pueris aut adolescentulis nobis ex commentariolis nostris inchoata et
54 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
Paul's Epistle to the Romans is an expansion of that
to the Galatians. Tertullian goes over some of the
same ground in his " ad Nationes " that he had pre-
viously traversed in his " Apologeticus." Origen com-
posed three different editions of Scriptural Exposi-
tions. 6 St. Augustine composed twelve books, " de
Genesi ad literam," as a development of what he had
before previously written in one book. 6
Let us remember, also, the nature of the subject ;
Heresy. Heresy is not stationary; but is ever receiv-
ing new accessions, and showing itself in new forms.
New refutations are requisite, as new errors arise. It
is, therefore, not unlikely, that, if new heresies nad
arisen in his later years, and if the old ones were not
extinct, Hippolytus would have written in continuation
and expansion of what he had formerly published
concerning Heresy.
10. In the present case, however, we need not rest
on probabilities. We have good reason for believing,
that St. Hippolytus wrote two Treatises against
Heresy : first, a Compendium ; then, afterwards, a
longer Treatise. In speaking thus, we have the
authority of St. Hippolytus himself. 7
rudia exciderunt vix Me setate digna, aliquid iisdem de rebus politius a
nobis perfectiusque proferri.
* Sedulius, in praefat. operis Paschal., "Cognoscant Origenem tribus
editionfais prope cuncta quae disseruit aptavisse." See Vales, in Euseb.
vi. 38.
6 S. Aug. Retractationes, i. 18.
7 We are indebted to the learned Author of the Papers in the
Ecclesiastic, Nos. LXVL, LXVIL, LXXXIV., for the first suggestion
of this solution. See No. LXXXIV. p. 399. The same explanation
PHOTIUS AND OTHERS. 55
In the Introduction to the newly-discovered
Treatise, the Author thus writes : " No fable of those
who are famous among heathens is to be rejected.
Their incoherent dogmas are rather to be regarded as
credible, on account of the greater infatuation of
heretics, who have been supposed by many to worship
God, because they hide and disguise their ineffable
mysteries. Whose dogmas we expounded, some time
ago? with brevity, not exhibiting them in detail, but
refuting them rather in rude generality ; not thinking
it would be requisite to drag their secrets to the light,
in order that when we had shown their tenets as
it were darkly, they being filled with shame lest we
should speak out their mysteries plainly, and show
them to be infidels, might in some degree relinquish
their irrational principles and godless designs. But
since I perceive that they have no feeling of regard for
our moderation, and that they do not consider that
God, Who is blasphemed by them, is long-suffering,
in order that either through compunction they may
repent, or if obstinate they may be justly punished,
I am constrained to come forward, and to disclose their
secret mysteries which they deliver with great con-
has been also given by Duncker, as mentioned by Jacobi, de Basilidis
Sententiis, Berlin, 1852. Let me add as a conjecture, that as the
smaller and earlier work of Hippolytus, his &i&\i8dpiov against Heresy
was due to the oral discourses or Lectures of his master Irenseus, so
the idea of this later and larger Treatise was suggested by the Work of
Irenaeus against Heresy, which we now possess, and that the " bibli-
darion " bore very much the same relation to the Lectures, that the
" Philosophumena " does to the "E\fyx os of Irenaeus.
8 iraAcu.
56 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
fidence to those who are initiated by them. And
though the subject compels us to launch forth on a
wide sea of demonstration, I do not deem it fit to be
silent, but will exhibit in detail the dogmas of them all.
And though our argument will be long, yet it seems
right not to flag. For we shall bequeathe to posterity
a no slight boon, so that they may no longer be
deceived, when all behold manifestly the secret orgies
of heretics, which they deliver only to their
neophytes."
ii. Let us remember, also, that, as we learn from
Photius, the biblidarion of Hippolytus terminated
with Noetus and the Noetians.
Now it appears from our Treatise, that after
Noetus, another Heresy broke forth, derived in part
from that of Noetus, namely, the CALLISTIAN
Heresy ; and that it made great havock in the Roman
Church, and that our Author had the principal share
in checking its progress. Accordingly, in the Ninth
Book, he begins as it were afresh, and devotes a great
part of that Book to the Callistian Heresy, and to
another still later heresy, which he describes as owing
its progress at Rome to the Callistian, viz., the
Heresy of the Elchasaites.
We see, then, that our Author had written an
earlier work on Heresy ; and, in the history of the
Callistian and Elchasaite Heresies subsequent to the
Noetian, we perceive another very good reason why
he should have written a Second Treatise on Heresy,
if the former Work which he had written had ended
with Noetus.
PHOTIUS AND OTHERS. 57
12. Thus, then, we find it stated by our Author in
the newly-discovered Treatise,
1. That he had already, some time since (TrdXcu),
written a book against Heresy ;
2. That the former Work was a compendious one ;
and
3. He adduces some reasons for writing another
Treatise more in detail.
13. We are, therefore, now led to inquire, whether
we can find an earlier and shorter Work on Heresy
which we may assign to our Author.
Now, supposing our Author to be St. Hippolytus,
(which we have good reason to do, from our
Author's age and position in the Western Church,
and from his authorship of a "Work on the Universe,"
quoted in this Treatise as written by our Author,
and known from the list on the Statue to be written
by Hippolytus] we find that a shorter work on
Heresy is ascribed to him, corresponding in character
to that of which we are now in search.
Such a Work, we say, was written by Hippolytus ; 9
it was inscribed with his name, and was read by
Photius. It was a short Work for it is called
biblidarion. It was probably not in several successive
Books, like our Treatise, but contained in a single
Book y like 1 that annexed to the Prsescriptiones of
9 It may be observed here, that Trithemius de Script. Eccles., No.
XXXVI., A.D. 1494, in his catalogue of the works of Hippolytus,
enumerates, " Contra Omnes Hsereses, lib. iii."
1 Which, in a MS. of Semler, is entitled "Adversus omnes
Haereses."
58 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
Tertullian. And it is not unlikely that the Heresies
were numbered in it consecutively, and that each was
despatched in a few paragraphs respectively, as is the
case in the work on Heresy by Philastrius. 2 (circ.
A.D. 350). Otherwise, we can hardly see why
Photius should call it " A Little Book against thirty-
two heresies." For would he have taken the pains to
count them ? Would he have described it as such ?
It seems also to have been written a considerable
time before our work, for it was not formed from the
Work of Irenaeus against Heresy, but from his
lectures, and was published as a compendium of them.
The work of Irenaeus was finished about A.D. 190,
and he died about A.D. 202 ; whereas our Author
refers to facts that did not take place till about
A.D. 220. It also ended with the Noetians, and does
not appear to have said anything of the Callistians,
and certainly did not go on (as ours does) to describe
the Heresy of Elchasai.
14. Hence, therefore, the description by Photius of
another work on Heresy by Hippolytus > different from
our Treatise, so far from invalidating the evidence
already adduced to show that our Treatise was
written by Hippolytus, comes in as an additional
proof that the newly-discovered Treatise is from him.
Our Author wrote two works on Heresy. The
present Work is described by him as the later and
longer of the two. If then our Author is Hippolytus,
we may expect to find another earlier and shorter
2 Bibl. Pat. Max. v. p. 701.
PHO TIUS AND THERS. 59
work than the present written by Hippolytus. We
do find such a work. Therefore a new argument
thence arises that our Author is Hippolytus.
15. Here, also, the other difficulties vanish which
were noticed in this chapter.
Gelasius or whoever is the Author of the Treatise
above mentioned as bearing his name certainly did
not quote from our Treatise : we have seen good
reason for thinking that he did not quote from a
Treatise on Heresy by Hippolytus, but from another
work of his. It may be, however, that the passage
he cites was in the shorter Treatise seen by Photius,
as well as in the Exposition of the Psalms by Hip-
polytus. And the term by which he describes the
work from which he quotes, viz., " Memoria Hsere-
sium," would be very applicable to a brief Notice of
Heresies, such as that which Photius describes.
The same may be said of the passage cited in the
Paschal Chronicle. It proves that there was a work
on Heresy by Hippolytus, different from ours. Its
extract is from that work. It differs from what is
said on the Quartodecimans in our Treatise, and yet
in some degree resembles it in argument and language.
It looks as if it came from the same pen as that which
wrote our Treatise, though it is itself not the same as
what is written there on the same subject. The
Author of our Treatise had written another Treatise
on Heresy. Therefore this quotation comes iri also
as an additional proof that our Treatise was written
by Hippolytus.
60 OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. PHOTIUS AND OTHERS.
We may find perhaps, hereafter, that the " Little
Book " of Hippolytus, seen and described by Photius,
may prove of still more service to us yet.
1 6. Lastly, whoever will compare the remarkable
parallelisms between passages in the newly-discovered
Treatise, or even in the portion of it printed in the
present volume, and passages in the acknowledged
works of Hippolytus (some of which are quoted in
the notes to the portion published in the present
work), he will feel strongly confirmed in the opinion
that the newly-discovered Treatise is by him.
Let us now proceed a step further and listen to his
own words, in the Ninth Book, describing the condi-
tion of the Church of Rome in his own time.
^^s- X?3 reverse/.
V X o
[To face p. 61.
CHAPTER VI.
The Authors Narrative concerning the Church of
Rome in his own time. Extracts from the Ninth
and Tenth Books of his work on all Heresies.
*** PRELIMINARY NOTE. The Paging on the left hand Margin of
the Greek Text and on the right hand of my English translation refers to
M. Miller's Edition of the"Philosophumena, or Refutation of all Heresies "
Any variations from his Text that may appear to me to be requisite, are
specified in the notes beneath the Text, but none have been introduced by me
into the Text itself.
The figures prefixed to my notes refer to the Lines of the Greek Text.
The readings of the Paris Manuscript, when not followed in the Text,
are indicated in the collation immediately tinder the Greek Text.
I collated this portion of the Manuscript at Paris in the autumn of
1853, in the " Bibliotheque Imperiale" formerly Bibliotheque du Roi
(now I suppose Bibliotheque Nationale], Rue Richelieu. The MS., which
had been lately bound, and was lettered " Histoire des Heresies," is indi-
cated in the Catalogue as No. 464 in the Supplement. It is on paper, and
full of complicated contractions, especially in the latter books. The Ninth
Book begins on the reverse of p. 109 of the Manuscript without any break,
and is in the same hand as the rest.
TOT KATA IIASHN AIPESEON EAEFXOT
BIBAION 0'.
P. 278 TAAE eveo'Tiv ev Ty evvdrrj TOV Kara Tracr&v alpecrewv
Miller. 'EXey % oi;.
y TOV ^KOTCLVOV Trpoae<r)(ev, ov rol<;
5 Kat 7T(W9 KaXXt<TT09 /Lttfa? rrjv KXeo/^ei^ou
NOTJTOV Kal 6o86rou aipecrw, erepav KawoTepav alpectv
avvio-Trjae, Kal rt? 6 TOUTOU /3/o?.
Tt? 17 ei/^ eTTLOijfjLia rov %evov SaifAOVos 'HX^aa-ai' Kal
OTi GKeirri T&V ISiwv (7(f)a\fJLa.TO)v TO SOKCLV
10 VQ^W T(p 060VTI JVd)(TTLKol^ OOJfJia&LV Tj K
Tlva TO, 'IouSatot9 eBrj f Kal Trocrat TOVTCOV
2. Cod. f\\eyx ov ' H- Cod.
I. Similia prsemisit Sanctus Irengeus, Lugdunensis Episcopus, Sancti
Hippolyti magister, Libris suis adversus Hsereses. Vide ante Libros
IV. et V. ad quorum exemplar sua composuisse videtur noster.
4. TOU 2/coTeicoD. De hoc Heracliti, Philosophi Ephesii, epitheto,
propter scriptorum obscuritatem indito, vide, si placet, Clem. Alex.
Potter, ii. 676, not. Non illibenter recordabere graves Lucretii versus,
i. 629 :
" Quapropter qui materiem rerum esse putarunt
Ignem, atque ex igni summam consistere solo,
Magnopere a vera lapsi ratione videntur.
HERACLITUS init quorum dux proelia primus,
Clarus ob obscuram linguam magis inter inanes,
Quamde graveis inter Graios qui vera requirunt.
Omnia enim stolidi magis admirantur amantque,
Inversis quae sub verbis latitantia cernunt,
Veraque constituunt, quae belle tangere possunt
Aureis, et lepido quae sunt fucata sonore."
BOOK THE NINTH OF THE REFUTATION
OF ALL HERESIES.
THE following are the contents of the NINTH BOOK P- 278
of the REFUTATION of ALL HERESIES. Miller.
What was the impious infatuation of NOETUS, and
that he clave to the doctrines of Heraclitus the
Obscure, and not to those of Christ.
How CALLISTUS blended the Heresy of Cleomenes,
the disciple of Noetus, with that of Theodotus, and
constituted another stranger Heresy ; and what was
his manner of life.
What was the strange sojourn at Rome of the
portentous spirit of Elchasai ; and how a semblance
of reverence for the law (of Moses) was made by him
a cloke for his errors ; whereas, in fact, he attaches
himself to Gnostic or even to Astrological Theories,
and to Magic.
What are the customs of the Jews, and how many
their differences.
6. S. Hippol. c. Noet. 3. e^Soros rlv Xpurrbv foGpuirov ffWHrrav
8. Ktv)). Ita MS. Sed legendum Katv^j quivis viderit.
9. rb 8o/ee/ Trpoo-e'xeu/ v6fj.<j> r <$ 5e6vn yvua'TiKo't
irp6<n<eiTai. Ita ex codice MS. unico Millerus. Sed interpungendum
post v6fjL(}} (imd, ut nunc ex inspectione Codicis ipse intellexi, ita in
Codice interpungitur), deinde legendum, vocibus disjunctis, Tflt AE
ONTI yvoxrriKois S. TT. Sensus est " Simulat se Legi Mosaicas inhaerere,
sed d!? facto, r$ 8e ovn, gnosticis deliriis se mancipavit;" vide inf.
P- 293-
64 RE PUT A TION OF HERESIES.
Ho\\ov Tolvvv TOV irepl vracrwv alpecrewv
r)IMv dy&vos, fjLTjOev re dve^eXey/
15 7r6pL\i7reraL vvv o /u,e7*crT09 aywv, KSL7]ytjo-aa0at, teal
P. 279 Si6\eyt;ai, ra? e<' r]fuv eTravaaTdaas aipecrei,?,
Kal T0\/jiijpol SiaaKebavvvei
fjiejiarov rdpa^ov /cara Trvra TOV
ev Traa-L rot? 7Tt<7TOt9 e/ji^d\\ovr^. Ao/eet yap eVl rrjv
5 &PXWV TMV fca/cwv <yvo/juevrjv yvw^v opfjiijcravTas
SieXey^ai rtW? at ravrrj^ ap^al, OTTG)? evyvcoaroi al
K<$>vdSes avTrjs airavi yevofjievat, Kara(f)povr)6a)cn.
TeyevrjTal ri? ovopari, NOT^TO?, TW yeveu
Ouro? elo-^fy^aaro a'ipeaiv e/c TOJZ/ 'Hpa/cXe/TO
10 ov Sidtcovos KOI i^a6r]Tr]^ yiverai '77/70^0? rt? rovvo/ja,
09 Trj 'Ptofjurj eVt^/ATJcja? eTrecnreipe rrjv aOeov ryi'cb/jirjv.
Xeo/>tez/7;9 tcai /3/&) Acal rpoTra) dXXorpios
ercpdrvve TO ooyfjbaj /caT e/celvo fcaipov
13. In cod. titulus : ^i\offo<l>ov^v<av swa-rov. Nor/ros. 13. Cod.
Tro\\vl TOIVVV. 2. Cod. 8ia<r/ce5WoiTjj/. 4. Cod. Trac
TTlffTOlS. II. Cod. T7? 'Pw/iTJV.
8. Vide inf. p. 329. Hippol. c. Noet. I, ed. Fabr. ii. 5. NO^TOU
&s rb [j.fv yevos ^v ^vpvatos ov irpb TTO\\OV xpovov yev6fj.fvos. Ephesium
vocat Epiphanius, Hseres. Ivii. Vide et Joann. Damascen. de Hasres.
c. 57. Cseterum in tono vocis fluctuant Codices, aliis NOTJT^S, aliis
N^rjros exhibentibus.
11. TTJ 'Pu>/j.r). Ita Millerus. Codex habet r^v 'Pwyurjf.
12. Vide Nostrum, lib. x. p. 329. 34. NOTJT&S etV^Tjtraro rotavSe
alpeo-iv e' 'Eiriyovov rivbs tis K^ieo^eVyjJ' x <a P^ ffa<rav y unde sua hausisse
videtur Theodoretus, iii. 3. NoTjrbs avfyeooararo T^I> aiptffiv, fyv 'E?ri-
70^0$ cbreKUTjo'e Trpoaros, KAeo/xe^?}? Se Trapa\a$a)v e^Se^atoxre. Hinc,
opinor, suspicari licet Theodoretum libro decimo, compendiario illo.
usum esse, non autem Nostri opus integrum prae manibus habu-
isse, idque ei in hoc loco fraudi fuisse. Vide infra Append, ii.
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES. 65
Now that we have performed a laborious work with
regard to all (former) heresies, and have left none un-
refuted ; there remains now the hardest task of all ; to
give a complete description and refutation of those P. 279
Heresies which have arisen in our own age, by means
of which some unlearned and bold men have under-
taken to distract the Church, and have produced very
great confusion throughout the world among all the
faithful. For it appears requisite to revert to the
dogma which was the primary source of the evil,
and to expose its origin, so that its offshoots may be
manifest to all, and may be contemned.
There was a certain NOETUS, of Smyrna. He in-
troduced a heresy from the tenets of Heraclitus. One
Epigonus was his agent and scholar, who, coming to
sojourn at Rome, disseminated his impious doctrine.
Cleomenes having become his disciple, an alien from
the Church in life and disposition, fortified that
doctrine, at the time when ZEPHYRINUS presumed to
govern the Church, an illiterate and covetous man,
14. Vide apud Euseb. v. 28 ; vi. 21. De Zephyrino, Romanse
Ecclesise Episcopo, haec habet liber Pontificalis Damaso ascriptus ap.
Labbe, Concil. i. p. 602. " Zephyrinus natione Romanus ex patre
Abundantio sedit annos viii (xviii?), menses vii, dies x. Fuit autem
temporibus Antonini et Severi a consulatu Saturnini et Gallicani, usque
ad Prsesentem et Strigatum consules. Hie fecit ordinationes iv per
mens. Decemb. Presbyteros 13, Diaconos 7, Episcopos per loca 13.
Qui sepultus est in coemeterio suo, non longe a coemeterio Callisti, via
Appia." Dissonantia inter se tradunt auctores de annis Zephyrini,
aliis ab A.D. 198, aliis ab A.D. 201 Pontificatum ejus ordientibus; quidam
in A.D. 214 exitum figunt, nonnulli ad A.D. 219 continuant. Vide
Clintoni Fastos ad A.D. 210. Ab A.D. 202 ad A.D. 218 (quo ei in
66 NARRATIVE CONCERNING
cal alo"XpoKp$ov$' [09] To5
vve f )(wpei rot?
KOI avTOS vfroo'Vpo/JLevos TW %p6va) 7rl Ta
avra cbpfArjrOj o~vfJL^ov\,ov Kal o~vva i ycovio~Tov TWV
OVTOS avra) KaXX/crrou, ov TOP ftiov /cal rr)V efavp
20 alpea-iv /iter' ov TTO\V e/c^cro/iat.
TOVTCOV Kara $La$oxf)v Siefjieive TO &i$ao-tcaXeLOV
KpcLTwofJievov /cal eirav^ov, Sia TO o-vvatpelcrdaL aurot?
TOV Zi<f)VpivOV Kal TOV KaXXiO'TOI/, KaiTOL TjfJLWV
(Tirfxayprjo-dvTcov, a\\a TrXeta-ra^i? avTi
25 aurou9, Kal SieXey^dvTcov, /cal a/covTas
a\.7]0tav 6fjLO\ojlv OL ?rp09 fiev copav aibovpevoi, ical
VTTO TT)? a\f)0ta<; o-vvayofjievoi,, aifjLoXoyovv, JJ,T ov
Be eVl TOV avTov J3bpf3opov av/cv\iovTO.
P. 280 'AXX' 7rel rrj9 <yevea\oyia<;
eVeSe/fa/xez/, So/eel XOITTOV /cal TWV Soy/JLciTcov TTJV /catco-
iao~ica\lav GKdecOai, TrpoTepov TO, 'Hpa/cXe/ra) T&5
^/coTivw $6j;avTa irapaOepivovs, eireiTa KOI TO, TOVTMV
5 fieprj 'HpatfXetreta 6Wa fyavep&craij a TV%OVTS ol vvv
ov/c laauiv ovTa TOV
15. Addidit &s Millerus. 16. Cod. KAeo^eV??, cum iota sub-
scripto. 1 8. Cod. (rvfj.&6\ov. Imo, ut ipse vidi, Cod.
habet (rv/iij8oAov. 24. Cod. avTiKadeffr^TO)^. 25. Cod.
4. Cod. eVcl Kal T<. 6. Cod.
Episcopatu successit Callistus) sedisse statuit Jaffe, Regest. Pontif. p. 5,
ed. 1851.
ib. Z.f<pvpivov vofii^ovros Hieirtiv r)]v fKK\t)<rlav. De hac loquendi
formula vide, si lubet, quse infra monebimus cap. vii.
18. &piL-t}ro. Sic MS. ; sed legendum videtur &P/JLO.TO.
22. awouptiffOai. Ita ex Codice Millerus. Sed reposuerim <rvvaiptrQat ;
vide Philosophumena, inf. 288, 89. ffvvapdfjievov, et p. 143, 77. \eyov<rt
Moxre'a auTwv avvaipeffQai T^ \6ycp.
ZEPHYR IN US BISHOP OF ROME. 67
who, being allured by offers of lucre, conceded to
those, who resorted to Cleomenes, to become disciples ;
and at length, being inveigled himself, he ran into the
same errors, having, as his adviser and coadjutor in
evil, CALLISTUS, whose life and the heresy invented by
him I will soon relate.
During their succession this school subsisted, being
strengthened and aggrandized, because Zephyrinus
and Callistus co-operated with them, although we
never gave place, but very often resisted them, and
confuted them, and compelled them reluctantly to
own the truth ; which they did through shame for a
time, and being constrained by the force of truth ;
but soon afterwards they returned to wallow in the
same mire.
But since we have indicated the succession of their P. 280.
lineage, it seems requisite now to expose the pravity
of their doctrines. (This we will do) first by setting
down the opinions of HERACLITUS the Obscure, next
by displaying those portions of their system that are
derived from him, which they who now promote this
heresy have espoused, being not aware that those
tenets are borrowed from Heraclitus ; but they imagine
23. Haec et quae sequuntur colorem orationis traxisse videntur ex
Apostoli historia suam ipsius cum B. Petro concertationem enarrantis,
ad Galat. ii. 513.
28. eirl rbu avrbv &6pfiopov av*Kv\iovTO ex B. Petr. 2. ii. 22, vs
\ovffafjLevr] els Kv\iff/j.a &op06pov : (secundam igitur S. Petri Epistolam
agnovisse videtur noster :) quae quidem Sancti Apostoli verba ex Graeco
Senario Proverbiali videntur efficta, quern sic se olim habuisse conjecerim,
tis tSiov el-tpa/JL eiriffrptyas KVWV,
AeAouueVi] 0* vs (Is KvXtfffjta fiopfiupov.
F 2
68 REFUTATION OF HERESIES.
z/o/ubz/T9 elvtu XptoToz). Ot? el evirv^ov, KOLV ovrco
o'vo-ODTrrjOevres Trav&ovrai, TT}? dOeov Svatyrjpias. 'AXX' el
Kal Trporepov eWemu v<fi rj/mwv ev rofc ^i\o<70^>ov/JLevoi,<;
10 f) &6a f HpaXe/roi>, aXXa rye So/cel TrpoaavaTrapa'^drjvat
/cal vvv, OTTO)? Sia rov 677/01/05 e\ey%ov <f>avep)S
ia')(6to<Jiv 01 TOVTOV vofjbi^ovre^ XpicrTov elvai /ua^ra?,
OVK 6Vra5j d\\a rov 2,/coTeivov.
P. 283 <&avepov Be iraai TOU? vorjrov^ No^roi) StaSo^ou? /^at
T^5 a/pe(7ea)5 Trpoo-Tara?, et /cat 'H/oa^Xetrou X
eaf TOL>? /Ltr^ ryeyovevai, a/tpoara?, aXXa 76 [ra] rw
Sogavra atpovft&rov? dva^avBov, ravra opoXoyeiv. Ae-
5 yowi yap ovrcos eva /cal rov avrbv 6eov elvcu Trdvrcov
teal Trarepa, ev&otcijoravTa Se Tre&jvevat, rot9
Kalois ovra doparov. "Ore fiev yap ov%
opdrai fy doparos, d^a)p7jTO<; $e ore fj/rj ^copetadai 6e\ei,
P. 284 ^ftJpT^To? Se ore ^(Dpelrai. Ovrcos Kara rov avrbv \6yov
, dyevrjros, dOdvaros Kal Bvrjros. ITw?
g. Cod. ^iAoo-o^oujiieVous. Cf. lib. i. cap. 4. Sic Miller. Imo Codex
habet (ut ipse vidi) ^)tAo(ro^o/ieVoiy. IO. Cod. Trpb? dyTrapox^^ot.
II. Cod. ayyiovos 4\\eyx ov - 2. " Scrib. vel AeAovtrtr vel
A7ote>/." Miller. 3. "Add. TCI. Vel T$ in Tomutandum."
Miller. 6. Cod. ire^Tj/ceVaj. 2. In Cod. a/cpdrajTos bis scriptum.
7. Pro /c&v o0ra> Travcrovrat legendum videtur Troi^a'atj'To n, vide
Praef. p. 2. fhrws atVxwi'^eVTes Trauo'cwi'To/ rt TTJS a\oyiffTOv yvce/j.-ris.
IO. Lib. i. p. IO.
14. In priore editione Heraclitea dogmata, a nostro citata, inserueram;
sed ut ad historiam Romanse Ecclesiae, de qua nunc agitur, parum
spectantia nunc omisi.
I. NOTJTOUS NOTJTOU StaSo^owj, idem hie lusus irapovo/ji.aa'TiKbs in voce
Noeto, qui apud S. Hippol. c. Noet. 3. al ypcxpal 6pBu>s \eyova-iv &\\a
fy KOI NOTJTOS vofT, OVK ^Srj 8e et N^TJTOS ^ vofl irapa TOVTO e/cjSArjTot ot
ypajfiaL Vide etiam ibid. 8. T( TrpbsravTavo-f]ffei NtJrjTos ^ vowvr^v
a.\-i]Qfiav ; Hinc Callistum, Noetianam impietatem haeresim novis qui-
DIGRESSION ON HERACLITUS. 69
them to be from Christ. If, however, they met with
them (thus displayed), perhaps even by this means
they might be shamed out of their impious language.
And although the tenets of Heraclitus have been
already set forth in our " Philosophumena," yet we
will now also revert to them, in order that by this
closer examination those persons may be instructed,
who imagine that these men are disciples of Christ,
whereas they are scholars not of Him, but of
Heraclitus.
It is evident to all, that the knowing successors of P. 283
Noetus, and the chief patrons of his heresy, although
they may assert that they have never been disciples
of Heraclitus, yet by adopting the dogmas of Noetus,
avow the same tenets with Heraclitus. For they speak
thus, that one and the same God is the Maker and
Father of all things, and that when it pleased Him,
He revealed Himself to the righteous from the
beginning, being invisible. For when He is not seen
He was invisible, and incomprehensible when He is
not willing to be comprehended ; but comprehensible
when He is comprehended. Thus, according to the P. 284
same argument, He is incomprehensible and compre-
hensible ; unborn and born ; immortal and mortal.
busdam additamentis adornantem, Theodoretus tradit eVt^Kos rivhs
tirtvorjffai ry 5i(T<rey8eia TOV 86ynaTos, Haeret. Fab. iii. 3. Lusus etiam
ad Latinos permeavit, qui Noetianos insensatos appellant, vide Philastr.
Haeres. in voce. NO-TJTOVS sensafos, hos vocat noster, amara ironist
4. Tavra dfj.o\oy^iv. Legendum TCIUT& pro ravra quivis viderit.
5. Post otJrws interpungendum.
2. Cod. aKpdryTos, aupdrviTos, ayevrfros, addvaTos. Ex tenore
sententiarum patet esse legendum cutpdrrtros Kparrjrbs, ayevr}Tos,
70 NOE TUS POLL O WS HERA CLITUS.
ol TOIOVTOI Sei%0rj<TovTai, fj>aOrjTai ; fj,rj avrfj
ra9 efyi\OG6<f>r)o~ev 6 Stforewo?; ff On Se
5 real TOV avTov vlov elvai \eyei ical Trarepa ouSel? dyvoel.
Aeyet Se OVTW ore fj,ev ovv prj yeyevrjTO 6 Trarrjp, SiKalcos
Trarrjp Trpoo-rjyopevro. "Ore Se rjv^oK^a-ev ryeveo-w VTTO-
fielvai,, yvr)0l<i 6 vlb? eyevero auro? eavrov, oy^ erepov.
O{;T&)9 jap So/cei fjuovap^iav awio-rav, ev /cal TO avro
10 <f)a(TKCi)v V7rdp%et,v irarepa KOI vibv, tca\ov/jLevov
%repov e^erepoVy a\X' avrbv et; eavrov, ovopa
/cal vlov tcaXov/jievov Kara xpovcov rpoTrrjv, eva Se elvat,
TOVTOV rbv (f>avevTa } /cal yevecriv etc irapOevov vTrofjuelvavTa,
Kal ev dv0p(*)7rois avOpwjrov avaaTpafyevTa, vlov fj,ev
15 eavTov rot? 6 payer iv 6/j,o\oyovvTa 8ta Trjv yevo/jievrjv
, iraTepa Be elvai Kal rot? %o)pov<rLV firj airo-
. TOVTOI/ TrdOei %i>\ov TT poo-Tray kvra Kal
TO TTvevfia irapdoovTa, diroOavovTa Kal fjirj aTro
Kal eavrbv Ty TpiTrj r](J.pa dvacmfjGavTa, TOV ev
20 Ta(f)VTa Kal Xo7%?7 TpcoOevTa, Kal rjXoi? KaTairayevTa,
TOVTOV TOV T&V o\o>v Oeov Kal iraTepa elvai \eyet,
Kal 6 TOVTOV %opo9, 'Hpa^XetVeioz/
TroXXo??.
T1J TIJ^
4. Cod. n))8c Ae'fci. 6. Cod. ft)) 7VTjro. 14. Cod. ayacrTpe<f>eWa.
7. irpoffyyApevro. Mallem irpoa-riyopeveTO.
g. Tertullian. c. Praxeam, 3. "Duos et tres Deos jam jactitant a
nobis prsedicari quasi non et Unitas irrationaliter collecta haeresim facial,
et Trinitas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituat. Monarchiam
(inquiunt) tenemus."
IO. Trarepo Kal vibv, Ka\ov/j.evov oi>x crfpov e Irepou. Ita Millerus,
sed interpunctione mutata legendum IT. K. v'ibv Ka\ovp.fvov t . Vide
Theodoret. Haer. Fab. iii. 3. TOVTOV Kal vlov bvop.d.ovai Kal Trorepa irpbs
TOS XP e ^ ay TOVTO KaKflvO Ka\OVfifVOV.
NOETUS. 71
How will not these persons be shown to be scholars P. 284
of Heraclitus ? Has not that Obscure Metaphysician
anticipated them by philosophizing in their very words?
And every one knows that he (Noetus) calls the same
both Son and Father. For he speaks thus ; When
the Father had not been born, He was rightly called
Father. But when it pleased Him to undergo birth,
then by birth He became the Son of Himself, and
not of another. For thus he thinks to establish the
principle of Monarchianism, saying, that one and the
same Essence is called by the two names, Father and
Son ; not one born from the other, but Himself born
from Himself, and called by the name of Father or
Son, according to the change of times ; but that He is
one, He who was manifested to the world, and who
deigned to undergo birth of a Virgin, and conversed
as man with man, and who to those that beheld Him
confessed Himself to be a Son, on account of His
birth, but who also did not conceal from those who
received Him that He was a Father. That He
suffered, having been nailed to the Cross, and that
having commended His Spirit to Himself, and having
died and not died, and having on the third day raised
Himself, Who had been buried in the tomb, and
wounded with a spear, and pierced with nails, that He
is the God of the Universe and Father so says
Cleomenes and his school, who thus envelope many
with the darkness of Heraclitus.
17. rovrov irdQei |u\ou irpoffiraycvTa. Ita Millerus. In Codice
72 NARRATIVE CONCERNING
rrjv alpecnv eicpdrvve KaXAioro?, dvrjp ev
25 /cafclq Travovpyos teal Trot/aXo? Trpbs 7T\dvr)v, Oijpwpevos
TOV TT}? eTriaKOTrfjs 6povov. Tbv Ziecfrvpivov, avSpa
jv KOI dypdfjLfjLarov real aTreipov rwv e/
, ov TrelOcov Soy/Aavi, teal dTrairrjcreo'Lv c
fjyev et? o e/3ov\To, ovra $GDpo\r)7TTr}v KOI <t>i\dpyvpov,
P. 285 eTreiQev del o-rda-eis 6fjL/3a\eiv dva/jueaov TWV aSeX$wi>, auro?
TO, aptyorepa pepr) varepov /ceprccoTreiois \6yois irpbs eaurov
<f)i\iav KaiaGicevd^wv, teal rot? pev dXijOeiav \eyajv ofj,oia
(frpovovcri Trore KCL& rfiiav TO, OjJLOia fypovelv ijTrdra' 7rd\iv
5 8' aurot? ra %aj3e)(\ov oyLtota)?, ov teal avrbv
Swdjievov icaTopOovv. J Ev yap TO) vcf) TJ/JLWV
ov/c eo-/c\r)pvvTo* rjvlfca Se GVV raj KaXXtcrrw e/j,ova%6is,
V7T* aVTOV dl><76lTO 7T/30? TO So^/yU/a TO
peireiv, c^da'KovTO^ ra ofj,oia (frpovelv-. 'O 8e TOT fiev
iQTravovpyiav avrov OVK evbet,,av6i,<s 8e eyvw, co?
ov TTO\V.
25. TTOIKI\OS et Orip6fjLvos. 29. Cod. t> jSoiJAeTo. I. Cod.
avansGuv. 2. Cod. KepKuirots. ib. Cod. CO.VTOVS
<f>i\iav. 3. Fort. roTs /JLfV et> a\j0eta. Miller. ib. Fort. \eya>v
rA '6/J.oia Qpove'ii' Tjirdra' TraAtv Se aurols Qpovovffi Trore KOT' IStav TO 2a.8.
Miller. 6. Leg videtua: 5uj'c^ti'os. Miller. 9. Cod.
correxit Millerus.
literse post irpao-itay exesse sunt ; fortasse legendum irpo 0-^077)1/01 vel
iraQtlv ^v\Cf> Trpoffirayevra.
24, Callistuis, postea Romanse Ecclesiae Episcopus A.D. 218 223.
Zephyrinus sederat A.D. 202218.
29. Comparanda sunt quse infra de Noe'to, et de Callisto, dicturus
est Hippolytus in compendio sive dvo/ce^oXo^o-ei, lib. x. pp. 329, 330.
3. roTs juei/ a\i]8fiav \4ywv '6/j.oia (ppovova'U' irore naff fjdiav TO i>jj.oia
<j>povf"iv TjTrdra' ird\iv 8' avrols TO 2oj8eAAfov i^ioiwy. Ita MS. Pro
vitioso KA0' 'HAI'AN legendum conjecerim KAT' 'lAE'AN, i. e. under
ZEPHYRINUS AND CALL1STUS. 73
CALL1STUS strengthened this heresy ; a man crafty
in evil, and versatile in deceit, aspiring to the Epis-
copal throne. He influenced ZEPHYRINUS, who
was an unlearned and illiterate person, and unskilled
in Ecclesiastical definitions, and whom, being a re-
ceiver of bribes and covetous, Callistus led as he
pleased, persuading him by dogmas and forbidden
demands ; Callistus was ever instigating him to
introduce strife among the brethren ; and then P. 285
Callistus himself swayed both sides by wily words to
incline to friendship with himself; and at one time
speaking true doctrine to the one party, who held
like sentiments (to the truth), he,, under pretence of
agreeing with them, deluded them ; and at another
time speaking with similar language (of duplicity) to
those who held the doctrine of Sabellius, whom also
himself he made to fall, when he might have remained
right. For when Sabellius was exhorted by me he
was not obstinate ; but when he was alone with
Callistus, he was instigated by him (professing to be
of his opinion) to incline to the doctrine of Cleomenes.
Sabellius did not then perceive his subtlety, but after-
wards he discovered it, as I will shortly tell.
outward semblance of agreement. Tales hsereticorum praestigias tangit
Irenseus, iii. 17. " Similia loquentes fidelibus non solum dissimilia
sapiunt sed et contraria, et per omnia plena blasphemiis per quse inter-
ficiunt eos qui per similitudinem verborum dissimile affectionis eorum
in se attrahunt venenum." Pro ovToTs recte Bunsenius (i. p. 132) a5
TO?S, i. e. Qpovovffi TCI 2aj3eAA/oi.
5. Novatian. de Trin. 12. ' * Quid dubitant cum Sabellii temeritate
misceri qui Christum Patrem dicit?"
74 REFUTA TION OF HERESIES.
AVTOV 8e TOV Zetyvpivov Trpodywv Srj/jLoa-ia eireiOe
\eyeiv' 'Eijoi) oloa eva Oeov XpicTov 'Irj&ovv, teal 7r\rjv
avTov T6pov ovSeva yevijTov KOI TradrjTov. Hore 8e
15 \eycov, Ov% 6 Trarrjp aired avev, a\\a o uto?, ovr&)9
aTravcrrov TTJV (rrdo'iv ev TO> Xaw $LTijpr)(T6V, ov ra
vorffiara ryvovre? 77/1.645 ov (rvvexaypov/Jbev, \ey%ovT6s /cal
avritca0i<rTd/j,vot, VTrep TT}? dXrjOeias' o? et? airovoiav
Xcopwv Sia TO Trai/ra? avrov rrj vTro/cpicrei, awrpe^eiv,
20 jj/tta? Se ov, a,7refcd\6i rfjjud^ SiOeovs, efe^wi/ irapa ftiav
TOV ev8o/jLV%ovvTa aura) lov.
TOVTOV TOV /Siov SoKei TJ/JLLV dyaTrrjTov etc0ea-0ai,, eVel
Koura TOV avTov %povov yiuv eyeyovei, OTTCU? Sta TOV
<j>avfjvai, TOV TOLOVTOV TTJV dvaa-Tpotyrjv, eveTTvyvwo-TOS nal
2 5 ra^eta rot? vovv e^ovo~iv evdrj^ yevrjTai rj SLO, TOVTOV
Ovro?
'Pa)//.?;?. C O Se rpoTTo? TT}? avTov papTVplas rotoo-Se rjv.
P. 28 OiKeTrjs Tvy%av6 JZapTrofyopov TWO? avpo<$ TTLO-TOV
oVro? etc Tr}<? KatVapo? OIKIOQ. TOVTO) o
are S^ to? Trio-rcu, ^prj/i.a OUAC o\uyov
irpoaoio-ew efc
17. Cod. t\\fyx VTf5 ' 20. Cod. irapaftiav. 21. Cod.
26. Cod.
23. OTTWS eueir^j/wo-TOj al raxeta TO?S j/oCy exovatv 'ET0H2 7i/rjTat.
Ita MS. Millerus euflus, et aliud adjectivum in rax*"* latere arbitratur.
Haereticorum commenta ab Hippolyto nostro exagitantur non tantum ut
odio et execratione digna, sed ut ridiculae et aniles fabulae ide6que ludi-
brio habendse. Vide sup. 279, 7- t' 71 "' 1 '^ Kara^povtiBuffiv : et alpefffis
KaTaye\dffTovs, inf. 334, 35. Mihi igitur in mentem venit Kal TA'XA
TO?$ yoCi/ UXOVGIV ET'H0H X 2 ylvnrai, i. e. ut facilis cognitu sit, et fortasse
fatua prudentioribus, i. e. eorum sententia.
27. e/j.apTvp-t](rei> ironice.
ZEPHYRINUS BISHOP OF ROME. 75
Callistus, putting Zephyrinus himself forward
publicly induced him to say, " I know one God,
Christ Jesus, and beside Him I know none, who was
born and suffered." But he (Cailistus) sometimes
saying " Not the Father suffered, but the Son," thus
kept alive the strife without respite among our people.
But we perceiving his devices did not give place to
him, confuting him and resisting him for the Truth's
sake. Then being driven to infatuation because all
others went along with him in his hypocrisy but I did
not, he used to call me a ditheist, disgorging violently
the venom which lurked within him.
This man's life it seems to me desirable to narrate,
since he was contemporary with me ; in order, that,
by the manifestation of his conversation, the Heresy
which was broached by him may become easy of
cognizance to those who have sense, and haply may
be regarded as childish by them.
He was a martyr (forsooth) when Fuscianus was
Prefect of Rome. And the manner of his martyrdom
was as follows ;
He was servant of a certain Carpophorus, a Christian P. 286
of Caesar's household. Carpophorus entrusted him, as
a Christian, with a considerable sum of money, on his
professing that he would bring him gain from the
4. eirayyeiXdfjLfvos KfpSos irpoffoiffeiv. Legendum potius videtur
tirayyftXaiAfi/y. Cui conjecturse aliquantum favere Codex ipse videtur,
nullum supra syllabam \a accentum habens. Cf. supra, Philosoph. 261,
19. 6pav firayye '\\ov7 ai Tv<f>\(&TTovTes profitentur se videre, etsi caecu-
tiant.
76 REFUTA TION OF HERESIES.
5 TpaTrefyTiKrj?' 05 \aj3cbv Tpdirefav eTre^Lprjffev ev TTJ
XeyofjLevrj iriaKivfj Trot/TrXt/c?} , u> OVK o\i<yai TrapaOfjtcai T<
eTTio-TevOrjaav VTTO ^pav Kal dSeX(<wz; 7rpo(T%ij-
TOV ].ap7ro(f)6pov. 'O 8e e^acfravicras TO, TrdvTa
rjiropei. Ov TavTa TrpdgavTos, OVK eXitrev 05 d7rayyei\rj
10 To5 Ka/37ro(opft)' 6 Be e^ij dTraiTeiv \6yovs trap* avTov.
TavTa crvvi,$a)V 6 KaXXto-ro? /cat TOV irapa TOV SecrTrorou
p(0/jivos, djreBpa TTJV <f>vyr)v Kara 6d\ao-crav
?" 05 evpoDv TT\OIOV ev TO> YLopTW erot^oz/
dvaywyriv, OTTOV Tvy%av6 7r\ecov, dve/Bii
15 AXX ovSe OVTCI)<; \adelv SeSvvrjTat,' ov yap e\Lirev 05
Acara TOV \LfJLeva, eVetparo eVt TO TT\olov opfjidv
KaTa fj,efj,r)vvfjLeva. TO)TO Se r)v (TT05 ev /mecrfi) TW \ijjuevi,
TOV 8e 7rop@fjiea)<i /BpaBvvovTO 1 ?, IScov Troppcodev 6 KaXXicrro5
8. Cod. Qa.$av{}<ra.s. 9. Cod. eA.etTrei', sed e\nr*v bis infra
lin. 18, et 21, p. 287. 18. " In /le/xTji/u^eVa, syllabas [nt\v exesae
tenuia vestigia supersunt." Miller. 19. Cod. -rrSppodev.
5. Nondum, ut videtur, leges illae ab Ecclesia fuerant latse, quae rem
foenerariam Christianis interdicebant, et pecuniam ex usuris conquisitam
abominari jubebant. Tertullianus quidem lib. iv. c. Marcionem.
"Percurre ait sequentia Ezekielis de viro justo. Pecuniam suam
fanori non dedit, et quod abundaverit non sumet, foenoris scilicet redun-
dantiam, quse est usura." Hinc, temporis processu, primum in Clericos
foeneratores, deinde etiam in laicos, poenas irrogavit Ecclesia ; Can.
Nicaen. 17. Arelat. i. c. 12. Arelat. ii. c. 14. Eliberit. c. 20. Turon.
i. c. 13. Vide quae de hac re fuse et exquisite disseruit, saeculi nostri
genio non admodum placitura, Praesul eruditissimus Wintoniensis L.
Andrewes. Lond. 1629. Piscina Publica ; regio Urbis Romae Xllma
inter Aventinum collem et Coelium.
6. ^. Sic Miller ; sed Codex habere videtur &s.
IO. 6 tie e<f>r) airaireiv \6yovs. Post airaiTtiv excidisse videtur &v.
13. PortusRomanus, duo millia passuum ab Ostia distans septentrionem
versus, ad os Tiberinum, quindecim fere millia ab urbe Roma. Ibi Hip-
polytus ipse "Episcopus Nationum," ad Portum confluentium, fuisse
videtur, et martyrium subiisse, teste Prudentio ; vide infr. cap. xiv.
CALLISTUS. 77
occupation of a banker. He (Callistus) set up a bank P. 286
in the piscina publica, and in course of time many
deposits were entrusted to him by widows and
brethren, through the influence of the name' of Car-
pophorus. But Callistus, having embezzled them all,
was in a great strait. And when he was in this
plight, tidings did not fail to reach Carpophorus, who
said that he would call him to account. When Callistus
perceived this, and apprehended the danger which
threatened him from his master, he ran away, taking
flight towards the sea ; and having found a ship at
PORTUS ready to sail, he embarked with a purpose to
sail whithersoever the vessel might be bound. But
not even thus could he escape : for the news did not
fail to reach the ears of Carpophorus. And he,
standing on the shore, endeavoured, according to the
information he had received, to make for the ship,
which was in the middle of the harbour. But when
the boatman (who was to ferry Carpophorus) was
14. OTTOU T-uy% av * if\4uv. Ita Cod. Lege ir\eov.
ib. avefi-r). Sic Miller. Codex, ut puto, &veun.
15. ov yap eAiTre In hac formula, ter repetita, salsa qusedam ironia
videtur inesse, qua innuitur Callistum malo quodam genio fuisse exagi-
tatum, qui ejus vestigiis insisteret et eum, tanquam umbra, semper
persequeretur. Cseterum ex hac et similibus loquendi formulis quse in
hac narratione passim obvise sunt recte statuitur, Auctoris nostri stylum
etsi Graecia vel Asia oriundi Latinum dicendi colorem imbibisse, eumque
ipsum lingua, ut par est credere, aliquantulum fiefiapfiapiao-Oai, -^f^viov
17. Locum sic interpunge : eTreiparo eir\ rb irXoiov 6p/j.av Kara TO.
/j.enyvv/jiei'a, TOVTO 8e -f\v eo-rbs cV /xeVy r$ \i/j.Vi" (et sic, uti mine vidi,
Codex) TOV Se Tropfyuews PpaSvvovTos K.T. A.
18. Kara /ue^Tji'i^eVa. Legere mallem KOTO
78 REFUTA TION OF HERESIES.
20 TOV SecnroTriv, &v ev TOJ 7rXo/ft> real yvov? eavTov GVV-
7j\e2<f)0aL, rffalBrjae TOV r)v KOI eo"%aTa ravra \oyicrd-
yLtez/09 eppi^ev eavTov et? rrjv 6d\ao~a-av. Ol Be vavrai,
KaTaTTijBijo-avTes et? TOL o-Ka^rj afcovra avrov avel\ovro.
Twi> 5e a?ro rr}? 7779 fieyaka ftocovTcov, Kal ouro? rci)
2 5 Sea-TTOTrj Trapa&odels eTrav^drj els Tr]v f Pci)iu,r)V' ov o
et? TT La rp LVOV KareOero.
, to? crvufSaiveL yiyvearOai,, irpoa-
TOV Kap?ro0opoi/ OTTW?
djrj TT}? /coXacrew? TOZ^ SpaTreTTjv, <f>do~KOVT6$ avTov
P. 287 6fJLo\oyeiv e^eiv irapd TMTI xpf)fj,a aTioKeifjuevov. C O Se
irapadrjKcov <ppovTiei,v' 7ro\\ol yap
K\aiovTo XeyovTes, OTI roS avTov Trpoa-^/uLaTi 7rlcrTev(rav
5 TO> KaXX/o-ro), a TreTTio-Tevfceiaav' Kal
e^ayayelv avTov.
r O Se /j,7)$ev %(av dTroBio'ovai,, K
fjirj Svvdfjievos Sta TO fypovpeiadat,, Te^rjv OavaTov
eirevorjo-e' Kal o-afiftaTy aKfj^d/jLevos aTnkvai 0)9 7Tt
10 xpecaaTas, wp^crev eirl TTJV (rvvaywyrjv TO>V '
, Kal o~Ta9 KaTeaTaala&v avTWV. Ol
vir ai>Tov, IvvftpicravTes avTov
eavpov eVl TOV
ovTa T7J9 7r6X6co9. 'AireKplvavTo Be
a-vve^prjo-av rjfuv TOi/9 iraTpwov^
4. Cod. r$ avry. 8. Cod. QdopettrQai. g. Cod.
20. Pro vitiosa lectione Codicis <rwn\e?<t>Qai restituendum (rui/et\ij00at,
confusio orta ex syllabarum 6^o<f cavia, uberrimo fonte mendarum, quibus
libri scatent praesertim recentiores, qualis hie est Codex Parisinus.
4. avrov. Sic Miller. Codex avrf.
p
CALLISTUS. 79
lingering, Callistus, being in the ship, saw his master
from a distance, and perceiving himself to be caught,
hazarded his life, and, thinking that all was now over
with him, he threw himself into the sea. But the
sailors having leapt into the boats took him up
against his will. And while those who were on the
shore set up a loud shout, he was delivered to his
master and brought back to Rome : where his master
shut him up in the pistrinum (of runaway slaves).
But in course of time, as is wont to be the case,
certain brethren came to Carpophorus and besought
him to release his runaway slave from punishment,
saying that he declared that he had money vested in
the hands of certain persons. Carpophorus, like a P. 287
pious man, said that he did not care for his own
money, but that he was anxious for the deposits ; for
many bewailed themselves to him, saying that it was
by reason of his name that they confided to Callistus
what they had entrusted to him ; and being thus per-
suaded, he ordered them to bring him out of prison.
But having nothing to pay, and not being able to
run away again, on account of being watched, he
devised a plan for his own destruction. On a Satur-
day, under pretence of going away to his debtors, he
went to the Synagogue of the Jews, who were
assembled in it ; and he stood there and made a
tumult against them. And they being thus disturbed
abused him and beat him, and dragged him before
Fuscianus, prefect of the city. And thus they
answered, " The Romans have given us leave to read
80
REFUTA T10N OF HERESIES.
OVTO$
TJ/JLWV, tfrdafccov elvai *Kpicmav6<$. ToO Se
3>ov(TKiavov TTpo firjfJLctTos Tvy%dvovTO<;, real TO?? VTT
'lovSaloyv \<yo/jievoi<i Kara TOV KaXXt<TTou asyavaKTovvros,
20 OVK eXiTTev 6 e7rayyi\.as rt3 J.ap7ro<p6pa> ra Trpaacrofjbeva.
f O Be (nreixras 7rl TO /3f)fi,a TOV eirdp^ov e'/Soa*
tcvpie <&ova-K(,av6j fir) a~v avTw iriarTeve, ov <ydp
l&pia'Tiavo<$, dffropfjirjv 8e ^ret OCLVCLTOV ^prjfiaTa
vroXXa afyavio-as, to? aTroSe/fo). Twv 5e '
2 5 V7TO/3o\'r)V TOVTO VO/JMO'dvTtoV, O>9 fyjTOVVTOS TOV
(f)6pOV TCLVTrj Tfj 7TpO(f)d<76l, J~6\(70a{, CLVTOVj
TOV Ifrdov. f O 3e Kivr6els vir
JJLOV
, eBa)K6V et? fjL6Ta\\ov
30 Mera ^povov Se eTepwv erect OVTMV
Oekr^aaaa r) M.apKia epyov TI dyaObv epydcraadaij ovaa
1 8. Cod. <t>o<TKiai>ov. 22. Cod. ^ eavrip.
1 6. De Judseis Romse patria sacra liber^ colentibus Csesareanorum
edictorum indulgentia videri potest Joseph. Antiqq. xix. 10, quse vim
obtinuisse videntur usque ad Severum Septimium, qui "Judseos fieri
sub gravi poena vetuit," teste Spartiano, c. 17 ; non tamen ille Judaeis
ipsis jam hereditaria vel patria successione religion! suae publicum exer-
citium interdicens. Post Severi dominationem Judseis favebat Ela-
gabalus. Lamprid. c. 3, et Severus Alexander Judseis privilegia
reservavit. Lamprid. c. 22.
28. Fodinis ferri celebrem fuisse Sardinian! satis notum ex Rutilii
Itinerario, lib. I. " Quae de Sardoo cespite massa fluit." Hinc
hodie " Ferraria" urbs Sardinias, de qui Cluverius ii. c. xi. Sardinian!
pestifero acre infamem fuisse tradit Claudianus, B. Gild. v. 514,
monente Cluverio. Hue Martyras fuisse deportatos ex Chronicis et
Martyrologiis constat. Catalog. Felician. 6. "Eodem tempore
Pontianus Episcopus (Romas) et Hippolytus presbyter exilic sunt
deputati (deportati) ab Alexandro in Sardinian, insulam Bucinam
(nocivam)." Id quod Anastasius de vitis Pontif. in v. Pontiani factum
fuisse tradit, Severe et Quintiano Coss. h. e. A.D. 235, Maximino
CALLISTUS. 81
the Law of our Fathers in public. But this man here P. 287
came in and interrupted us, making an uproar against
us, saying that he is a Christian." Fuscianus being
seated on the bench, and being exasperated by what
the Jews said against Callistus, tidings did not fail to
come to the ears of Carpophorus. He hastened to
the tribunal of the Prefect, and exclaimed, " I entreat
thee, my Lord Fuscianus, do not believe him, for he
is not a Christian, but seeks an occasion of death,
having embezzled much money of mine, as I will
show." But the Jews thought this was a subterfuge,
as if Carpophorus desired to extricate him by this
plea, and clamoured more vehemently in the ears of
the Prefect. And he, being urged by them, scourged
Callistus, and sentenced him to the mines in Sar-
dinia.
But after a time, there being other Martyrs there,
Marcia the concubine of (the Emperor) Com modus,
Thrace annum jam primum imperante, quo anno Pontianus in Sardinia
mortem obiisse dicitur, iv. Kal. Octobres.
31. De Marcia, Commodi Imperatoris concubina, Dio Cassius, Ixxii.
4. Map/eta rts, KovSpdrov ruf r6re <povfvQ4t>Twv evbs TraAAa/c^/, Kal V E-
AeKTos Trp6Koiros, 6 /j.et/ Kal rov Ko/w^Sou irp6KOiros, rj 5e'(Map/aa) TraAAa/c^
yVTO Kal rov 'E/cAe/CTOu pera ravra- "yvvfy Kal tire'iSe /cat eKeivovs
&iaio)S airodvf]<TKovras' iffrope'trai Se OVTTJ TroAAa T virep T&V Xpitr-
rtavuv crirovSdffai Kal TroAAcfc avrobs fvepyeriffKevai ore Kal irapa
K<>[j.fj.68<p irav Svvafj.tv't}. Marciam, Commodi Imperatoris concubinam,
deinde interfectricem, ab Hippolyto vocari <pi\66oi' fortasse mireris :
sed hoc, ut opinor, et uti jam docuit censor Arnoldianus (p. 591),
flpcoviKws scripsit noster, ut, de Callisto loquens, enaprvpyGev p. 285.
Quo, quaeris, animo ? eodem fortasse quo Carpophorum pium hominem
sed tamen foeneratorem, et Hyacinthum presbyterum sed tamen spa-
donem, dixisse videtur, ut Ecclesiae disciplinam turn temporis nutantem
tacite notaret.
82 PHIL OSOPHUMENA .
(f>t\60o$ 7ra\\afcr) KoyiioSoi;, TrpocTKaXeo-a/juevrj TOV
P. 288 pafcdpiov Ovt'KTOpa, ovra eirivKOTrov TT)<; 'EnaeXriffias tear
e/ceivo Kaipov, ejrrjpMTa r/i/e? elev ev ^apBovla
C O Se TrdvTwv dvaoovs TO. ovo/naTa, TO TOV
OVK e8a)Kv 9 etSo)? TCL T6TO\fj f rj^6va Trap avTov.
5 ovv TI}? a^tcoo-eco? 77 Maptcla Trapa TOV K-o/juoSov,
TTJV d7ro\vo-L/jLrjv e7ri(TTO\r)v "TarcivBa) TIV\ O-T
Trpeo'^VTepa), o? \a(Ba>v SteTrXeucrez' els TVJV
Kal a7roSot>? Tc5 KCLT e/ceivo /caipov rr}
TrevovTij d.7re\V(7 TOVS fidpTvpas, 7r\rjv TOV
10 'O Se fyovvireTtov Kal Sarcpvcov liceTeve Kal CLVTOS Tv\elv
. Auo-coTr^^et? ow 6 f Taii/^o9 aftot TOV
<f>daKa)v Operas elvai Map/c/a?, racro-o^evo?
aura) TO CLK'IV'&VVOV. ? O 8e Treto-^et? a?reXuo-6 at TOI;
KaXXto-TO^* oi Trapa^evofievov o QvtKTWp irdvv
15 eVl TO) yeyovoTi,' aXX' eTrel evcrTrXayxvos r)v, rj
$>v\ao-o-6fjievo<; be TOV VTTO TroXXwi/ oveiSov (ov yap rjv
jjiaKpav Ta vir ai>Tov TTO\/j,rjfj,eva), Ti 8e real TOV
K.ap7ro(f>6pov avTiTTiTTTOVTO?, Tre/^Tret avTov KaTapeveiv ev
'AvOelo), opirras avTw ^vialov TL KTpo(j)d<;.
32. Cod. iraA-a/d/. 4. Cod. T^ ToA/iTj/tej/a. 19. " Fort. 'Ai/r/y.
Certe Antium dicere videtur." Miller. ib. "Erat a prima m.
Corrigendum els rpo<f)ds." Miller.
32. Coeterum hie lector meminerit quid in tali re statuerit Ecclesia,
Hippolyto nostro cosetanea ; nisi interpolatricem manum passa sit in
illo capite irapdSoaris 'AtroffroXiK^ 8m 'iTTTroAirroi;, p. 254, ed. Fabr.
Tla\\aK^i TLVOS airiffTov SovXrj fiteivca JJLOVUI o"xoAct^oy(ro 7rpo<rS6_^e(r0w, et
Se /cal irpbs &\\ovs a<r\yaivei, a7ro/8aAAeo-0co. . . .
6. Spadones (a<J>' eavrwv u^ouxo'0ei'Tas) ad sacros ordines promoveri
postea vetitum Canon. Apostol. 21. Cone. Nicaen. c. I. Arelat. ii. 7.
Sed, ut supra monui, Hippolytus tacite innuit hoc epitheto disciplinam
Ecclesise Romanse fuisse luxatam.
12. Codicis lectionem </)ao-wv 6ptyas tivcu Map/cms, vitiosam censent
Millerus et Bunsenius (i. p. 130), hie legendum conjiciens 0d(TKy
CALLISTUS. 83
being- a religious woman and desirous of doing a good
work, having sent for Victor, of blessed memory, who P. 288^'
was then Bishop of the Church, inquired of him what
martyrs were in Sardinia. He gave her all their
names, but did not present to her the name of Callis-
tus, knowing the crimes that had been perpetrated
by him. Marcia having obtained her suit from
Commodus, gives the letter of release to a certain
Hyacinthus, an eunuch, a presbyter, who having
received it, sailed to Sardinia, and having delivered
it to the then Governor of the Island, released the
martyrs, except Callistus.
But he fell down on his knees before him, and wept
and prayed that he might be released. Hyacinthus
then being moved, desires the Governor to set him
free, saying that he himself had brought up Marcia,
and promising him indemnity. He, being persuaded,
liberated Callistus also. But when he reached Rome,
Victor was much distressed by what had taken place,
but, being a kind-hearted man, he held his peace ; but
guarding against the obloquy from many, (for the
crimes of Callistus were recent,) and because Carpo-
phorus still urged his charge (against Callistus), he
sent him (Callistus) to stay at Antium, settling on him
a monthly allowance for his maintenance.
\ikv TOUTO erriTpe^oi MapKiav rb ra<T(r6fiei>ov, avrtp 5e flvai anlv^vvov.
Sed Codicis lectio est prorsus sanissima. Participium Bptyas Map/a'as
dicitur pro nomine substantive rpotpevs Map/a'as, ut Operas ainiav in
cippo sepulchral! apud Schaefer ad Greg. Corinth, p. 614. Vide etiam
Lobeck. ad Soph. Ajac. 358, p. 277, qui exemplorum affatim dabit.
19. 'AvOeicp, i. ^. Antio, quod Antheia vocatur a Stephano Byzantio,
G 2
84 NARRATIVE CONCERNING
20 Me$' ov Kol/ubrjcTLV Zie<f)vpivos avvapd^ievov avTov
?rpo? TTJV KaTacrTdO'iv TOV K\tjpov erliLrjo'e rco ISia)
KOI TOVTOV fj,erayay(DV OLTTO TOV ' ' \.v6etov els TO
Karearrjcrev.. *Ht del avvwv, /ecu /ea#&>? (pdd
vTTOKpicrei avrov Oepa/irevwv e^efydviee ^re Kplvai rd
25 \ey6fjieva Swd/nevov /jb^re voovvra rrjv TOV
e7ri/3ov\r)V } TrdvTa avTO) ?rpo? a rjBeTO 6fjLi\ovvTO<$.
GVTCO //.era TTJV TOV Zi(j)vpivov reXeim)^
P. 289 TeTV^yfcevai ov e0rjpa,TO, TOV ^a/3e\\iov direwaev a>? /j,rj
<fipovovvTa opOws, SeSot/cft)? ejjLe /cal VO/JLI^COV OVTCO SvvaaOat,
rdai Trjv TTpo? ra? eV/cX^a-ta? /caTrjyoplav, &)? yJr]
(ppov&v. 'Hi> ovv yorjs /tat Travovpyos /cal eVt
20. Cod. Kvnr)<Tiv. ib. Cod. Ze^uptVoi/ . . apdfj.evov, " duabus literis
exesis, quarum- prior <r fuisse cognoscitur : <rvapd/j.ei>oi'." Miller.
stadia CCLX. ab Ostia distans, XXXVIII. M.P. ab urbe Roma,
meridiem versus in litore maris Tyrrheni, hodie Porto <?Anzo; de eo
Horat. i Od. xxxv.
19. fjLt]viatdv. Auctor Parvi Labyrinthi (idem qui noster Hippolytus)
apud Euseb. v. 28. aveireia-Qi] 6 NardXios VTT' avr&v tirl <ra\api<f TrlffKoiros
/cA.r/ptwOrjcat rauTTjs rfjy atpfcrtus SHTTG Xa^avtiv Trap avrSav /UTj^ioTa
fiyvdpia Karbv irevrfiKovTa.
ib. Pro itTpo<pas legere rnallem els rpocpds. Literse K et IS (i. ^.
1C) ssepe in MSS. confunduntur.
20. Kol^o-iv, confer infra, v. 32, ZeQvptvov reAcirrVj unde satis
liquet Zephyrinum non martyrio animam efflasse, quod contra recentiores
Martyrologiorum Romanorum consarcinatores monere fas sit.
ib. ourbv ad Carpophorum refert vir eruditus in Censura Arnoldiana,
p. 592. Sed ad Callistum potius retulerim, ut av-r'bv et avr$ duobus
supra versibus de Callisto indubie dictum. Quod TOVTOV /j.era'yay&i'
de Callisto quoque addiderit id non sine ludibrio factum hunc
hominem !
22. De coemeteriis Christianorum non tantum inhumationis causa
usitatis, sed ad divina officia peragenda, et sacros coetus celebrandos,
ide6que ad scholas habendas, vide Baronium ad A.D. 226. 258. 260.
CALLISTUS BISHOP OF ROME. 85
After Victor had fallen asleep in death, Zephyrinus
having had him (Callistus) as a coadjutor for the
control of the Clergy, honoured him to his own
damage, and, having transferred him from Antium,
set him over the Cemetery. And Callistus, being
always with him, and, as I said before, courting him
with hypocrisy, eclipsed him being incapable of form-
ing any judgment on the arguments used, and not
perceiving the stratagem of Callistus, who accommo-
dated all his language to his taste.
Thus it came to pass, that after the death of Zephy-
rinus, Callistus presuming he had gained that to
which he aspired, cast off Sabellius as heterodox, p -
through fear of me, and supposing that he might thus
be able to wipe off the reproach to which he was
exposed in the eyes of the Churches, as if he were
not of unsound belief. In good truth he was a juggler
262. De Callisli Coemeterio in Via AppiS. videri potest Aringhi Roma
Subterr. iii. c. xi. i. Ruggieri, p. 397.
24. Cod. e'le^avitre. Legendum e^rj^dviffe.
1. De Callisto, Zephytmi Episcopi Romani successore, hsec leguntur
in libro Damasi, p. 608, Labbe, " Callistus natione Romanus ex patre
Domitio de regione nrbis Ravennatum sedit annos v, mens. ii, dies x.
Fuit temporibus Macrini et Heliogabali a consulatu Antonini et Alex-
andri. . . . Fecit coemeterium Via Appia ubi multi sacerdotes et
martyres requiescunt, quod appellatur usque in hodiernum diemoeMMfo
rium Callisti"
2. Hippolytus noster c. Noe't. I. r^re TOVTOV eAeylavres ot irpe<r-
frvrepoi e'leWac TTJS eK/cATjo-tas, quo quidem ex loco satis patet, ut id
obiter notemus, jus excommunicationis, Hippolyti setate penes fuisse
Presbyterorum Collegium, Episcopo, (dubitari nequit,) praesidente et
omnia moderante. Noetum a Papa Victore damnatum ait auctor libelli
Synodici a Pappo editi c. 20. a Tranquillo Episcopo Chalcedonensi,
scribit Auctor Prsedestinati, c. 36. Theodotum majorem rbv cr/cureo at)
Episcopo Victore aQupiaQat narrat Hippolytus. Routh. ii. 9 23.
86 NARRATIVE CONCERNING
5 Xpbvw (TvvrjpTraffe vroXXou?. "E^coz/ 8e teal TOV Ibv
ey/celfjLevov ev rf) /capBiq, KOI evOecos prjo'ev (frpovwv, apa
8e fcal alSovjjievos TCL d\r)6fj \eyeiv, Sia TO SrifJLocriq rj/juiv
elirelv SlQeoi, ecrTe, aXXa /cal Sia TO VTTO TOV
a-vj(yw<s tcaTrjyopelo-dai, a>? 7rapa(3dvTos TTJV
10 TrpcoTfjV iricmv, efyevpev alpecriv TOidvbe, \eycov TOV
\6yov avTov elvat, vibv, avrbv /cal iraTepa, OVO^CLTI pev
/caXovpevov, ev 8e ov TO irvevfjua dSialpeTOV ov/c aXXo
ewai TraTepa, a\\o Se vibv, ev Se /cal TO auTO vTrapxeiv,
/cal Ta TrdvTa tyepeiv TOV deiov Trvev/jLaTos TO, Te avco teal
15 KCLTW, teal elvai, TO ev Ty irapdevw aapKcoOev Trvevpa ov%
6Tpov Trapa TOV TraTepa, d\\a ev Kal TO avTO. Kat
TOUTO elvai TO eiprj/jievov " Ov inaTeveis OTL eya) ev rw
iraTpl, Kal b jraTrjp ev e/ito/;" To pev yap /3\e7r6/jLevov,
12. Cod. OVK &\o. 14. Cod. ye/jLelv. 17. Joann. xiv. II.
6. evBeoos. Sic Miller; sed Codex, quern inspexi, clare habet
quemadmodum conjecerat vir eruditissimus Robertus Scott, Decanus
nunc Roffensis, in Censura Arnoldiana, ii. p. 538.
9. irapapdvros Codex : mallem irapapdvTa. In MSS. o et os (i. e.oc )
saspissime confundi notum est.
II. bv6p.a.ri /iej/ KaXovpevov Cod. Ante Ka\ovp.evov excidisse videtur
&\\o.
ib. ovra. Sic Bunsenius recte pro Codicis lectione %v r6.
1 8. Vide has Noetianorum exceptiones recitantem Hippolytum c.
Noetum, 7* locum huic nostro plane gemellum. ov iriffTeveis on e-yci>
ev rip Tlarpl /c.r.A.. Kal 6e\ov<ri \eyeiv (ol NofjTiavol) Sia TOVTO KpOTwetrflat
rb 56yfj.a avrSiv. Vide etiam quse his regerit ipse Hippolytus c. Noet.
c. xiv. ed. Fabr. ii. 15, ubi rbi/ A6yov Deum prsedicat, duos autem Deos
se agnoscere diserte negat. Tavrrjv T^V oiKovo/jiiav irapaSiSeaa-ii' yfjtiv /cal
6 fj.aKO.pios 'Iwdvvys ev EvayyeAicp fj.aprvpwv, Kal TOVTOV r'bv AO'FON
0EO V N 0/^0X076? OVTCOS Ae-ycoV 'Ev apxy ^v 6 Aoyos Kal 6 A6yos "?iv irpbs
rbv ebv, Kal ebs ^v 6 A6yos. Ei Se ovv o A6yos irpbs rbi> tbi/ &fbs S>v,
rl o?>v ^rjtreief tcv ris Svo htytiv &eovs ; 8vo fj-fv OVK epu Qeovs, a\\'
ty eW, irp6<T<ai>a Se Svo, o\Kovop.io.v 8e rpiTrjv, T^V x^-P tv T u 'Aylov
Uar^p p.lv yap els, irp6(ro:ira Se 5vo OTI Kal 6 vibs, rb Se
CALLISTUS BISHOP OF ROME. 87
and impostor, and in process of time drew many along P. 289
with him. And harbouring the venom in his bosom,
and having no rectitude of mind, and at the same
time being ashamed to profess sound doctrine because
he had before calumniated me in public and said
" You are a Ditheist," and because also he was often
charged by Sabellius with having swerved from his
first faith, he invented such a heresy as follows. He
said that the Word is the Son and is also the Father,
being called by a different name, but that the indivisi-
ble Spirit is one ; and that the Father is not one thing
and the Son another, but that they both are one and
the same thing, and that all things are full of the
Divine Spirit, both things above and things beneath,
and that the Spirit which was Incarnate in the Virgin
was not different from the Father, but one and the
same, and that this was the meaning of our Lord's
saying, " Believest thou not that I am in the Father,
and the Father in me?" (John xiv. 10;) for that
rpirov rb "Ayiov Hvfv/ua. Unde satis refellitur Bunsenii suspicio ex his
Noetianorum argutiis colligentis vel Meiero colligenti adstipulantis,
duorum Deorum dogma respuentium, de tertid sacrosanctse Trinitatis
Persona nihil adhuc innotuisse, ideoque Hippolyti setate de Sancti
Spiritus Deitate nihil fuisse definitum. Reclamat hie ipse Hippolytus,
reclarnat, inquam, in sermone c. Noetuni, 8. avdyK.?] bp.o\oyfiv Tlarepa
fbv UavTOKpdropa Kal Xpivrbv "\f\aovv vlbv eoD, f'bv avQpw-jrov yev6-
H.vov y cp Trdvra Harfyp fore'ra^e irapfKTbs eavrov Kal I\.vi>p.aros 'Ayiov, Kal
TOVTOVS ovrws flvat Tpia, et alio in loco c. Noet. 14. 6 yap /ceAeiW
Tlartjp, 6 8e viraKovwv Tibs, rb Se awrri^ov "Ayiov Uvevpa. 'O &v Tlar^p
firl irdfTuv, 6 Se TiJ>s Sia Ttavrtav, rb ?>"Ayioi> Tlvev/jia ev ira<nv. *A\\<as
" va. *bv vo/jt-iffat ov Svvd/jieOa fav ft)] OVTQOS Harpl Kal Tl(f Kal 'Ayicp Hvev-
fjLan jrio'Tfvo'wfAcv. Adde locum c. Noet. 9. et doxologiam in fine,
p. 20, ed. Fabr. Caterum cum his conferas quse scripsit Tertullian. c.
88 NARRATIVE CONCERNING
OTrep eo-Tiv avdpcoTros, TOVTO elvat TOV vlov, TO Be ev TO>
20 via> ^wprjOev Hvevfia TOVTO elvai TOV TraTepa' ov yap,
<j>r)criv, epco Bvo Oeovs, TraTepa xal vlov, aXX' eva. 'O
yap ev aura) yevo/j,evos iraTrjp, Trpocr\al36jjLvo$ TTJV crdpfca
eQeoTTOirjaev evwo-as eavTq>, ical I'jroi^aev ev, &)? Kakeicrdai
iraTepa /cal vlov, eva Oebv, fcal TOVTO ev ov Trpovtoirov fjurj
25 Bvvacrdai elvai $vo, teal OVTWS TOV TraTepa crv/JLTreTrovOevat,
Tw via)' ov yap Oekei \eyeiv TOV TraTepa TreTrovOevat, /cal
ev elvai TTpocrtoTrov, K(f)vyelv TTJV et9 TOV TraTepa
P. 290 (pquiav, 6 avorjTos /cal Troi/ciXoSj 6 avw KCLTW cr^e
P\a(T(f)r)/jblai<;, iva /JLOVOV /caTa r^5 a\r)6eia<s \eyeLV
TTOTe aev et? TO Sa/SeXX/ou Soy/jua ifmliTTUV, TTOTC Be et
TO QeoBoTov OVK
70775
Kara T}? 'E/c/cX^o-ta? OVTOX; SiSa^a?, /cal TT/OCOTOJ Ta TT/OO?
25. Cod.
Prax. 13. "Duos tamen Deos et duos Dominos nunquam ex ore
nostro proferimus, " ubi illorum insanisequos "vanissimos Monarchianos
(c. 13)" appellat, respondet. Idem argumentum tangit Novatianus, de
Trin. c. 28. Vide et c. 29, qui quidem loci his Hippolyti nostri
sententiis lucem affundunt.
19. &v6pwiros. Sic Miller ; sed Codex habuit, ut opinor, avQptairivov.
Litura est in voce.
26. Haec sunt referentis ipsa Callisti verba vocesque in vulgus sparsas,
ad se suamque ipsius hseresim tuendam.
Ceeterum Callisti orthodoxiam, ide6que Hippolyti hsereticam pra-
vitatem, ex his verbis evincere pro virili nititur vir doctissimus nobisque
amicissimus Ignatius von Dollinger, in libro celeberrimo Hippolyttis und
Kallistus, pp. 218 236 ; quibus viri egregii conatibus reponere satis
est, Hippolytum a Catholica Ecclesia inter primores suos doctores
unanimiter esse receptum, licet Callistum haereseos arguerit, eique
strenue restiterit.
27. fKipvyelv. Sic Cod. "Ante futyvyelv quaedam omissa esse
apparet " ait Miller. . . . Legendum fortasse ^Ktyvycav. Callistus pro-
fitebatur se evasisse blasphemiam illam in quam alii inciderant. De re
CALLISTUS BISHOP OF ROME. 89
which was seen, that is man, was the Son ; but the
Spirit which was contained in the Son, was the
Father. For, said Callistus, " I will never speak of
two Gods, the Father and the Son, but One God.
For the Father being in Him, having taken human
flesh, divinized it -by<uniting it to Himself, and made
it one, so that One God is called Father and Son ; and
this being One Person -cannot be two." And so he
said that the Father had suffered with the Son ; for he
does not like to say that the ^Father suffered and was
One Person, because he has escaped from the blas-
phemy against the Father, he (forsooth) who is so
infatuated and versatile, and extemporizes blasphemy P. 290
hither and thither, in order only that he may appear
to speak against the truth, and is not ashamed of
falling at one time into the dogma of Sabellius, and at
another into that of Theodotus.
This deceiver having ventured to do such things,
set up for himself a school against the Church, teach-
ing these doctrines. And he was the first to devise
ipsa vide Tertullian. c. Prax. 29. " Directam blasphemiam in Patrem
veriti, diminui earn hoc modo sperant, si Filius quidem patitur, Pater
vero compatitur. . . Times Patrem dicere passibilem quern dicis(Filio)
compassibilem."
4. De Theodoto Byzantio, qui tyiXbv HvQpwirov xp lffr ^ v dixit,' supra
257, infra 328. 113. Confer item quae de Theodoto scripsit noster,
c. Noet. 3, et quae scripturus est infra, lib. x. p. 330. 58. de Callisto,
qui dicitur TTOTC /uei/ T<jJ NorjroD Soy pan irfpipp-riyvv^vo^, if ore 5e TCJJ
eoSJrov, jUr;Sej/ d<r$aA.s uparuv.
5. o-ui/ea-T^o-aTo SiSatr/caA.tToi', scholam, non Ecchsiam. Simili loquela
utentem vide Hippolytum nostrum c. Noet. c. I. els TOVTO <pv<ri(a/j.a
Tjj/e'xfo] (NOTJT&S) ws SiSatr/caAetoj' ffvffTrjffai. Vide infra p. 96.
90 NARRATIVE CONCERNING
T9 rjoovds rot? dv0poi)7roi,$ avy^wpelv errevorjcrej Xeyroi/
Trdaiv VTT avTov d(j)ieo-0aL a/juapria^. 'O yap Trap 1 erepct)
Tivl avvayo/juevos /cal \ey6/jL6vo$ Xpi<rriavos el TI av
10 dfjidpry, <f>acrlv, ov \oyi^6rat, avrq) rj dpapTia, el Trpoa-
Spd/Jiot, TTJ TOV KaXX/<7Tou a")(o\f)' ov TO>
iro\\ol crvvei&ricrLv 776^X7770x69, a/aa re ical VTTO
aipeaecov a7ro/3X77#eWe9, rtz/69 Se Kal eirl
eicfB\r)TOi, T?}9 eKK\rj<7ia<; v(f> rjfA&v ryevopevot,
1 5 o~az/T69 avrols, e7r\r}6vvav TO iaa-Ka\elov avrov.
OVT09 eSo7yLtttTtCT6Z/ O7Tft)9 t 7ri<7/C07TO<; dfJidpTOt Tlj el
/cal 77/369 OdvaroVj fjirj Sew /carariOeorOai. 'E?rt TOVTOU
r)p%avro eTricr/coTTOi Kal TrpecrfSvTepoi Kal Sid/covoi, Slya/Jioi
Kal rplja/JLOi KadlaracrBai et? K\r}povs. Et Se Kal rt9 V
20 K\rjfxp cov ryafAoiri, /jieveiv TOV TOLOVTOV ev ru> K\ijpm 0)9 /AT)
enrl TOVTO* (frdaKow elpijcrBai, TO VTTO TOV
prjOev, fi ^v T/9 el 6 Kpivwv d\\6rpiov OLKerrjv; "
7. Cod. ffvyx a P^ iV - 9- "Leg. 8 n &v." Miller, recte. 14. Cod.
20. Cod. &V yvu/j.71. 22. Rom. xiv. 4.
9. Vide locum Tertulliani infra citandum, et quae adnotavit doc-
tissimus Antistes, Joannes Kaye, in Tertullian. p. 239. 257.
II. Videtur esse qusedam antithesis inter Xpiarbs et KaAAtaros et
inter Xpta-rtarby et Ka\\i<TTLav6s. Christiani, inquit, quantopere
peccatores, peccatorum suorum reatu scilicet sunt soluti, si modo fiant
Callistiani !
14. eK$\t]Toi TTJS KK\r)ffias v(f>' rifjiiav yfv6/j.evoi. Notandum igitur
nostrum Episcopal em auctoritatem sibi vindicare.
17. 'Eirl TOUTOU, i. e. illo Episcopatum obtinente. Vide p. 279. 39.
Tovrcav Kara SiaSo^p de Zephyrino ejusque successore Callisto ; et 2/9.
30. Z.c<f)vpivov Sifirfiv vofAi&vTos TT}V 'Efc/cATj(rtai/, et 284. 78. KaAAicrros
Q-npujjifvo^ T^V TTIS 7Ti(r/coir7js Qp6vov, et 288. 96. fj.ra r))V TOV Zf(pvpi-
vov reAeyrrji/ vo/j.ifav Tervx^Kevat ov e^Tjparo.
1 8. Tertullian. ad Uxor. c. 7, "disciplina Ecclesiag et prasscriptio
Apostoli digamos non sinit praesidere." Vide ad I Tim. iii. 2. Tit. i.
6. De Exhort. Cast. c. 7, " Quosdam memini Digamos loco dejectos,
CALL1STUS BISHOP OF ROME. 91
also to gratify men in their lusts, saying that all men's P. 290 y
sins were forgiven by himself. For whatever sin any
one commits who is a member of another man's con-
gregation and is called a Christian, his sin (they say)
is not imputed to him if he runs off to the school of
Callistus. And many persons being delighted with
this man's decree, who were wounded in their con-
sciences, and had also been thrown off from many
sects, and some cast out of the Church by me after .
judicial sentence, flocking to them, swelled his school.
This man promulgated as a dogma, that if a Bishop
should commit any sin, even if it were a sin unto
death, he ought not to be deposed. In his time
Bishops, Priests and Deacons, digamists and triga-
rhists, began to be enrolled in the Clergy.
And if any one being in the clerical body should
marry (he determined) that such a person should re-
main in the clergy as not having sinned, saying that
the words of the Apostle were spoken with a view to
this matter : " Who art thou that judgest another
de suis Montanistis testatur de Pudicit. c. I. ' Digamos ' (i. e. etiam
laicos) 'foris sistimus, eundem limitem liminis mcechis quoque et
fornicariis figimus.' De iis autem quos ipse Psychicos pro suo arbitrio
vocat, audi exclamantem de Monogam. c. 12. ' Quot enim et digami
president apud vos ! ' " Digamorum quorundam exempla in nonnullis
Ecclesiis ad Episcopale fastigium provectorum videas apud Bingham.
iv. v. 4. Hsec et caetera Callisti acta sibi tuentia suscepit vir eru-
ditissimus Ignatius Dollinger, pp. 150154; quo successu viderint alii.
Equidem in Hippolyti nostri verbis qusedam Novatianismi gliscentis
semina deprehendi minime infitior: de qua re plura inferius dicturus sum.
19. els K\-fjpovs : de hac locutione vide Euseb. vi. 43.
20. Super hac re consulenda egregia doctissimi Henri ci Whartoni
diatribe, De Cleri Ccelibatu, Lond. 1688.
92 NARRATIVE
'AXXa /cat 7rapa/3o\r)v TWV ftfaz/tW Trpbs TOVTW e(f>rj
\e<yea6ai' ""Ac^ere ra fy^dvia avvav^eiv roS crtT&>,"
25 Tovreanv ev rfj 'E/c/cX77<rt'a rou? afjLaprdvovTas. 'AXXa
/cat T^J> KL/3a)Tov rov Ncoe et? ofjioiw^a 'E/c/cXTyo-ta? e</>7;
yeyovevai, 4v y /cat MWMi /cat \VKOL Kal /copatces, Kal
vrdvra ra Kadapa teal atcdOapra' ovra) (frda/ccov &elv zivai
ev ^KK\r)crla 6/Wft><?' /cat oaa TT^O? TOUTO Svvarbs rjv
P. 291 awdyew oi/ra)? rjp^jvevaeVy -ov ol dtcpoaTal rjadevre^ rot?
$6<y/uLaai ^na^evovcnv e/x7ratfoi/T6? eavrols re /cat TroXXot?,
c5i/ Tw SiBacrKa\ia) crvppeovcrw o^Xot. A to /cat 7r\rj0v-
VOVTCLI, <yavpia)p,6vot, eirl o^Xot<? Sta ra? ^Soi/a?, a9 ou
5 Gvve'Xtopricrev o Xpto-ro?, oy KaTa<f>povtfo-avTes ov&ev
dfiapreiv /cwXuowrt, <aV/coz/re9 ai)rG5 a^tei/at rot?
ev^oKovat," /cat 7ap /cat yvvaiglv eTrerpe^rev el avavSpoi
elev Kal ^Xt/c/a re re Kaiovra eva^ia 77 eavrwv d^iav TJV
24. Matt. xiii. 30. 2. Cod. ^ir^ovrfs. 3. Cod.
7, 8. " Ita hsec scripta sunt in codice. Nisi gravior corruptio
inest, post eirerpetyev supple a^apre'ii' (scilicet assumendo crvyKoirov), et
SCrib. T]\iKia. KaioivTO at eV a|(o, T^V favTW? aiav fyv (sive potius et) /*i)
fiovXoivro KaOa.ipe'ii/." Miller.
29. Quae hie vituperat noster, post Hippolyti setatem, docuerunt
Catholici Patres ; S. Cyprian, de Unit. Eccles. p. in, et Epist. liv.
p. 99, Fell. " Etsi videntur in Ecclesia esse zizania, non tamen
impediri debet aut fides aut caritas nostra, ut, quoniam zizania in
Ecclesia cernimus, ipsi de Ecclesia recedamus. Nobis tantummodo
laborandum est, \ti frumenturn esse possimus." Fulgent, de fide, ad
Petrum, c. 42, et S. Aug. Epist. cv. 16. " Ecclesiam Catholicam
agrum suum Dominus docet tanquam zizania inter triticum." S. Aug.
c. Faust, lib. xii. 15. " Cuncta animalium genera in Area dauduntur.
Sicut in Ecclesise sacramentis et boni et niali versantur." Sed venia
detur Hippolyto nostro alia rigidius statuenti. Illi enim nondum,
cum hsec scriberet, contigerat videre quse postea deliraverunt Novatiani
et 'pars Donati.' Sed " oportebat hcereses esse, ut probati essent
manifesti," Oportebat schismata oriri, ut disciplinae Christianse leges
melius dispungerentur, et ut veritas " de permixta Ecclesia " a Catharis
CONCERNING THE CHURCH OF ROME. 93
man's servant ? " (Rom. xiv. 4 ;) and he said that the
parable of the tares was spoken with reference to him : /
" Let the tares grow together with the wheat " (Matt,
xiii. 30), that is, let sinners remain in the Church.
Besides, he said that the Ark of Noah was made for
a figure of the Church, and that in it were dogs and
wolves and ravens, and all clean things and unclean ;
affirming that it ought to be likewise so in the Church.
As many passages for this purpose as he was able p. 291
to collect he expounded in this manner ; and his
disciples being pleased with his doctrines remain,
deluding themselves and others, and crowds flock to
their school. Hence they are increased, vaunting
their multitudes, on account of pleasures which Christ
did not permit, and in despite of Him they restrain
from no sin, professing that they themselves forgive
the sins of their own votaries. For he also gave
permission to women, if they had no husband, and
were enamoured of a comrade unworthy of them-
in dubium vocata, piis Sanctorum Episcoporum, Cypriani, Optati,
et prsecipue Augustini laboribus feliciter vindicaretur, et in perpetuum
solidaretur. Interea fas sit monuisse, hsec et plurima similia, quse
lector paullo attentior ipseperseanimadvertet.luculentaafferretestimonia
quibus hujusce libri audevria et yvr)<ri6T-r)s corroborentur. Cseterum his
placitis Novatianismum redolentibus renuntiasse postea nostrum et
saniora docuisse infra videbimus. Vide Capp. ix. et x.
6. Cod. avTw. Legendum videtur avrol, vide supra p. 290. 32.
8. Sic Cod. Legit Bunsenius, i. p. 134. Kal yap Kal yvvai^lf eV aiq
(irfTpcfyev ei avavbpoi elej/ Kal i]\iKia ye tKKaioirro, TTjpetV eavruv aiav
V /*^ fiovXoivro Kadaipeiv. Audaciuscule. Sed in loco salebroso
dandum aliquid licentise. Age, nos quoque symbolam afferamus.
Locum integrum sic reprsesentandum conjecerim, Kal yap Kal
, et uvavtipoi eler, Kal TjAtKtcorp rivl Kaioivro o.va^i(f }
94 NARRATIVE CONCERNING
fir) @OV\OIVTO KaOaipeiv. Ata TOVTO vofjLifjbto
e^et eva ov av alpTJcroyvrat o-vyfCoiTov, eire OucenjV, elre
e\ev9epov, /cal TOVTOV tcpivew avrl dvBpos /ULTJ VOJJLW
"QvOev ijp^avTo eiTL^eipelv Tna-ral \eyo~
aroKia TrepiSecriieivOat, ical (papfjud/cois ?rpo? TO ra
o-v\\a/J,{3av6fJLva KarafBaXkew, &ia TO /JLIJTC etc SovXov
15 {3ov\ea0aL e^eiv retcvov, /jujre ej; eureXoO? Sta rrjv
veiav Kdi vTrepoyicov ovcriav.
'Opare et? ocnjv d<re/3eiav e%(*)pr)crev 6 az/o/xo?
KOI <f)OVOV V T() aUTft) $l$d(TK(i)V' KOI 7Tt TOVTOLS
roXfjitj/ubaoriv eaurovs ol aTnqpvQ piav pkvoi
20 eKKkriaiav dTTOKa\elv eirixeipovcri, KaL rives vofjii^ovre^ ev
Trpdrrew crvvTpe')(pv(Tiv avrols. 'Evrt TOVTOV
T6To\imrjTaL Sevrepov aurot? /SaTrrtcr^a.
TaOra fiev ovv 6 0av/jbacria)TaTo<; KaXXicrro?
ov ^ia^evei TO 8iSao-/caXeto^ fyvKdcraov TO, e0rj
12. Cod. $paTo. 19. Cod. roK^ffaffiv. ib. Cod. airepvQp.
22. Literae 6hfj. in codice exesse. ib. Cod.
aiav fj.)] ftovXoivro KaflaipetV, Sio TOVTO vo/ii/ueos
atp"f]cr(i}VTai ffvyitoiTov. Secundum TC corruptum puto, nam Codex cum
accentu habet. De KaioivTo TJ Xutuarri conferas Horatiana 4 Od. xi. 33.
" calebo foemina ;" 3 Od. ix. 5. "non alia arsisti;" Epod. xix. 9.
" arsisse Bathyllo." De ya/j.tiQrjvat, nubere, vide Lobeck. Phryn. p. 742.
Iren. v. 9. f} vv^i] ya^ffai ov Swarai, yafj.r)0fjva.i Se Svi/arai.
9. Etiam hsec Callisti facinora tueri studet vir doctissimus Ignatius
Dollinger, pp. 170 184 ; sed, me quidem judice, parum feliciter.
II. j/oVo> yeya/j.f]fj.fvnv. Conferas quse in Traditione Apostolica Sia
'\inro\{)Tov statuuntur, p. 254. Trto^rbs eav exy Tra\\aK^)v, eav /j.ev
irav(rd.ffQct), Kal v6/j.(a ya/uLelroi), el Se \tvdfpav, ya/j.iT<a
13. Pro aroKia legendum videtur OT^KIO (et sic Codex, quern nunc
inspexi), i.e. ligaturas abortum efficientes ; et ante vocem <f>ap/mdKois sup-
plendum einxftp^-
17. De Episcopo quodam, Romanse, ut videtur, Ecclesise (nomen
non liquet) similia narrat Tertullianus, jam Montanista, de Puclicitia
CALLISTUS BISHOP OF ROME. 95
selves, or did not wish to degrade their own dignity, p. 291
that therefore they might lawfully marry any one
whom they chose as a consort, whether a slave or
free, and that she who was not married to him
lawfully, might regard him as a husband. Thence it
was that women, called believers, began to venture to
bandage themselves with ligaments to produce abor-
tion, and to deal with drugs in order to destroy what
was conceived, because they did not like to have a
child from a slave or a mean person, on account of
their kindred, and haughtiness of wealth.
Behold to what impiety this lawless person pro-
ceeded, teaching adultery and murder at the same
time ! And yet after all these enormities these men y
are lost to all sense of shame, and presume to call
themselves a Catholic Church ! And some persons
thinking to fare well resort to them. In his time, ,
first it was dared by them to administer a second
i t ***7i
baptism.
These things this most admirable Callistus con-
trived, and his school still survives preserving its
c. i. "Audio Edictum esse proposition et quidem peremptorium ;
Pontifex scilicet Maximus, Episcopus Episcoporum, dicit, Ego et
mcechise et fornicationis delicta poenitentia functis dimitto. "
22. In ipsam Romanam Ecclesiam iterationem baptismi inductam
fuisse non asserit noster (quod quidem esset falsissitnum, uti ex Stephani
Episcopi Romani Epistolis ad Sanctum Cyprianum apparet), sed Callisti
tempore, eoque non obnitente, invasisse Christi Ecclesiam, quod verum
est, et sub Agrippino Episcopo Africano fieri cceptum est. Vide
Augustin. de Baptismo, ii. 12 ; Dollinger, p. 191.
24. ov Sta/ieret Ra\\i(TTiavoi ; et per orbem terrarum diffusam esse,
dum haec scriberet, testatur noster. Hinc colligas librum hunc confectum
fuisse, et non paucis annis, post Callisti mortem A. D. 223.
96 NARRA TIVE
25 /cal rrjv Trapd&oaiVj pr) SiaKpivov rial Bel KoivatveiV,
aKpirws Trpocrcfrepcov rrjv Kowwviav' d(f) ov Kal rrjv rov
P. 292 bvo/Jiaros fj-erecr^ov erritcXyo'iv Ka\el(70ai Sia rbv rrpwro-
(rrarrjo-avra rwv roiovrwv epycov KaXXtcrroz/, KaX-
\io-riavoL
TOVTOV Kara Trdvra rov /coo-fjLOV SiTj^rjOela-r)^ TT}?
5 SiSaoricaklas, 6Vi$a)V rrjv irpa^^areiav dvrjp SoXto? real
JC/JLCOV, 'AX/a/StaS??? Tt9 /caXou/zci/o?, oltcwv ev
ia r?}? 2u/j/a9, yopyorepov eavrov Kal evfyvecrrepov
ev Kvftelais Kplvas rov KaXX/<7Tou, eVrJX^e rfj 'Pcoftrj
(f>pcov /8//3Xoz/ rivet,, fydo-icdov ravryv drfo ^rjpwv T?}? Tlap-
10 6ias 7rapei\r)(f)evai, riva av$pa Si/cawv 'HX^acra't, rjv
TTape&w/ce nvl \6yofjLevcp So/3tat' ^pTjfjuarL
dyye\ov, ov TO ^-^09 CT^OLVLWV S o <ylverai jjii
TO Se ?rXaT09 avrov G'Xpivlwv 8, KOL drro wpov 6t9
wfiov a"xpivia>v <z* ra &e tx vr ) T ^ TroS&v avrov eVt
15 /jufjtcos o-'xpivwv y rjfiio-ovs' a <yiverai /uXta Setcarecro-apa'
TO Se ?rXaT09 o"%olvov 1/09 f)fj,iaovs, rb Se vtyos rj/jbio-^oivov.
Se crv^ avra) Kal OrjkGiav, ^9 Ta /u-eT/oa /caTa Ta
elvai Xeyei* at TOV /xez/ dpaeva vibv elvai
rov Oeov, rr)V e 6rj\,eiav Ka\ela6ai ayiov TIvev/j<a. Tavra
20 reparo\o<ywv, vo/jui^ei rapdaaeiv TOW /JLcopov^, \eyoyv
rovrov evr] r y r ye\l(r6aL T0t9 dvOpwrroL^ /cawrjv a
6. Cod. aAKTj/Sid&Tjs. 9. Cod. airoartipuv. 2O. Cod.
\ey(av, Xtyuv. Xeywv X6yov R. Scott.
Cseterum notandum est nostrum Callisti gregem Ecclesicz nomine
indignum existimare, et scholce tantum in loco habere : quse quidem
clarissime indicant, ut mihi videtur, Hippolytum in Novatiani partes
futurum fuisse propensum. Sed de hac re plura alias dicturi sumus.
Capp. ix. et x.
25. rtVt Set. Ita Miller ; sed ScT in Codice non extat.
CONCERNING THE CHURCH OF ROME. 97
practices and its tradition, not making any distinction
as with whom it is fit to communicate, but offering
communion indiscriminately to all, from whom his
scholars derived their appellation, so as to be called, P. 292
on account of him who took the lead in these matters,
namely, Callistus, Callistians.
When his teaching had been noised through the
whole world, a person full of subtlety and madness,
called Alcibiades, dwelling in Apamea in Syria,
deeming himself a more august person, and more
adroit in jugglery, than Callistus, came to Rome,
bringing a Book, which he said that a certain just
man, called Elchasai, had received from the Seres
of Parthia, which he gave to a certain Sobiai, being
delivered by an Angel.
8. Vide Theodoret. Haeret. Fab. ii. 7. Epiphan. Haer. xix. c. 5.
Caeterum hanc Helcesaitarum haeresim, non adeo imrthitatam, nostr&
setate recoctam vidimus ab iis qui se Mormonitas appellant, et suam
disciplinam a Libro quodam portentoso, divinitus dato, hausisse se pro-
fitentur.
H
98 PLAN OF THE PHILOSOPHUMENA ; OR,
&v, eVl ^palavov /rtocrtXeia? rplra), /cal /3a7TTo>ta
L, o /cal avro Sirjyrja-o/uiai,, <j)d<7Ka)V TOI>? eV irdcrr)
dcre\yeia Kal /u<zo>t&> /cal dvo/JLrjfjiao-iv eacfrvpevras, el /cal
25 TTio-ro? 677, eTTiaTpe^ravra KOI TT}? /Si(3\ov icar a/cover avra
/cal TTKTTevcravTa, opi^ei fiaTrrlcr/AaTi \afi/3dveiv afaaiv
Tavra Se eroX/^rjae re^vdaai ra TravovpyijfjLaTa avro
rov 7rpoeipr)/JL6vov 8o7/u-aTO9 dcfrop/JLijv \a/3cov, ov Trap-
30 eertfaraTO KaX,Xt<rro?. 'HSoyue^ou? yap
293 TroXXou? eVt Toiavrrj 67rayy6\ia ev/caipax; evo
f,7TL^6ipLV. Kat rouTft) Se ^et? a^Tio-Ta^re?, ov/c
7TL7ro\v nr\avr)Qr}vai t vroXXou? eXey^avres elvai TOVTO
7TVV[j,aTO$ v66ov evepyeiav Kal i'jrlvoiav Tre^fo-fw/xe^?;?
5 apS/a?, Kal TOVTOV \VKOV Si/crjv eTrey^yeppevov 7r\avci>-
TTjOoySarot? TroXXot? [a] diroTrXavcov $L<r/c6p7rt(76v
309 Ao/eet /itez/ ^tz/ tVaz/w? ra irdvTwv 'EXX^ojz/ re /cat
(Bapftdpwv Soy/mara e/creOeio-Qai, fjuybev Se d7ro\e\oi,7revai
pyre TWV <pi\ocro<pov/JLev(i)V fj,r)T TWV UTTO aipTitca)V <f)[a<r-
/co]fjLevci)v dvaTToSei/crov. OI? e' avrwv rcov etcredevrwv
5 <az/epo9 yeyevrjTai 6 6\6y%os fj K\6^fri\,oyr)adi>T(t)v TJ Tiva
epaviaa/uievcov avra TO, VTTO f EXX^i/coi/ ireirovrifjieva irapa-
Oe/Jievcov ax; ^6ta.
Ata TrdvTcov ovv StaSpa/JiovTes Kal pera TroXXou irovov
23. Cod. ouT(jD. 24. Cod. aVeyefa. 25. " Vocis TTJO-T^S literse <TTO
exesse. Addendum videtur ns." Miller. ib. Cod. ^irirp4^a.vra.
26. Cod. &<(>f(riv &(p((Tiv afj-apriGov. I. Cod. v6(j.i\<rev. 3. Sic
codex ; sed post iro\\ovs distinguendum videtur. ib. Cod.
AAe7|aj/Ts. 6. Addidi a. 2. Cod. e s /cTe0fj(r0at. ib. Cod.
cbroAcA.uTre/'CK. Miller ciTroAeAeiTr^at. 3. "Literae suppletae lacunam
exacte implent ; supersunt vestigia literarum o et /c." Miller.
REFUTA TION OF ALL HERESIES. 99
These artifices he. ventured to contrive, having
taken occasion from the dogma aforesaid, which
Callistus adopted. For having perceived that many P. 293
were pleased with such promises (of indulgence), he
imagined that he made the attempt at a favourable
opportunity. And I resisting him did not suffer the
heresy to spread wide, convincing many that this
was the working of a spurious spirit, and the imagi-
nation of a proud heart, and that he had risen up like
a wolf to ravage the numerous sheep whom Callistus
had led astray and scattered.
The dogmas of the Greeks and Barbarians appear p. 309
to have been now sufficiently expounded, and we seem
to have left nothing undeclared, either of Philosophical
systems, or of the assertions of Heretics, who have
been clearly convicted, by what has been propounded,
of having either plagiarized their systems, or of having
gathered them (like banquets made by contributions)
from different quarters, and served up things that
have been prepared by Heathens, as if they were
divine.
Having run through all these, and having with much
3. tTwroXb TrAcwTjflfji/cu. Sic MS. Pro DAANH0HNAI mallem F1AA-
TTN0HNAI, /. e. lat& diffundi.
H 2
100 THE AUTHOR'S ADDRESS
ev ra<? evvea j3i/3\oi<s ra iravra SoyfJiara e
10 Traai re dvBpMTTois efabbiov ev fBLw fJLLKpov
KOI rot? Trapovaiv OVK o\lyois %a/?a? fcal 6v(Jir}la<$ <j)i\o-
fidOeiav Trapao"XpvT<$ ) ev\oyov r)yov/jL60a wcrTrep Kopvtyrjv
TOV 7raz>T09 [rbv'] 7Tpl d\r)9eta<; \6yov eireve^Kai, KOI
TOVTOV ev fjua j8t/3Xft> rfj fte/cary TrepLypd-tyai,, OTTW? 6
15 VTvy%dvatv {Jirj JJLOVOV dvarpOTrrjv rwv TeroKfJb^KOTMV
o-vo-T^araadai eTTiyvov? /caracfrpovrjcrrj rwv
d\\a KOI rrjv rr)? dXrjOeias Svvafuv eiriyvovs,
aftoj? @6ft) Trtfrreucra? o-coOrjvat, SvvrjOfj.
Lib.X.
P- 333 Tovrov TOIVVV TOV \6yov KpaTr)o~avT6<$
, A.lyv7TTioi,j XaXSatot Kal irav yevos dvOpcojrav
TI TO etop teal rj TOVTOV evTciKTOs SrjfjLiovpyla Trap' rj/JLwv
TWV <f)L\a)v TOV deov, /cal iJLr] K0^7ro\6y^ TOVTO r/atcij KOTWV,
5 aXX' rj aXyOeias yvdoffei /cal do~KrjCT6i aax^pocrvvrj^ et?
airbei%iv avTov \6yovs Troiov/JLevtov.
P 334 (B)eo9 el? o Trpwro? Kal fiovos Kal ajravTCOV iroirjT^ Kal
g. Cod. roTy. n. Cod. Qv/j.i8ias. 13. ' ' Addidi r6v. " Miller.
3. " Post TIIJLUV vel alio loco hujus period! excidisse videtur cXafiov.
4. Fort. Ko/j.iro\6ycas." Miller. I. Titulus rubricatus in codice :
Kal TLpiyfvovs 8o|o.
10. c.<$>6fiiov ev &iq> /j.iicpbi> Ka.Ta\nr6i'Tfs. Legendum videtur o v p.inp6v.
Vide supra, Philosoph. p. 3, 57. ouSe yhp/uuKpdv nva Qo-fiOeiav r$
rwi> dvOpdircov fticp Kara\i^ofj.ev. Anne hue respexerit Nicephorus
Callisti, iv. 31, de Hippolyto scribens, quern reliquisse memorat <rvv-
rayna irpbs Tc6.<ra.s ras alpe
11. 0X170/5, An legendum o
I. TOVTOV TOV \6yov Kpar^ffavrfs /maOr]Tal "E\\f}i'S. Legendum
juci0T6, ut rect^ Harius apud Bunsenium. Confer Hippolyti locum
simillimum in Libro irepl TOV TTOI/TOS, Fabr. i. p. 221. & \\v^.eva opajj/res,
Cseterum hanc perorationem ad Nationes apprime Hippolyti personae
convenire facile agnoveris, qui "Nationum Episcopus " appellatus
TO THE HEATHEN. 101
labour displayed in our Nine Books all their theories,
and having bequeathed no small viaticum of life to
men, and having afforded to our contemporaries a
love of learning, of no slight pleasure and intellectual
gratification, we deem it reasonable to add, as the
sum of the whole, a discourse concerning the Truth,
and to include this in one book the Tenth, so that the
reader, not only recognizing a Refutation of those who
have presumed to fabricate Heresies may contemn
their vanities, but recognizing also the power of Truth,
may be saved by worthy Faith in God.
Making yourselves masters of this argument, learn P. 333
O ye Greeks, Egyptians, Chaldaeans, and all the race
of men, what the Deity is, and what is His well-
ordered creation, from us the friends of God, not
handling this matter in sounding speeches, but utter-
ing our words in the knowledge of truth, and in the
exercise of sobriety, for the demonstration of Him.
God, One, the First and only One, and Maker and P. 334
fuisse, et in Portu Romano, Nationum peregrinarum Emporio, vixisse,
et Ecclesiam rexisse, videtur.
3. 77 rovrov e&raifros SirjfAiovpyia. Vide infra, p. 338. Sic Hip-
polytus, in ejusdem libri fragmento Barocciano, quod ad calcem hujusce
voluminis inveniet lector, et quod cum hoc Epilogo libenter comparabit,
Sia TTJS TOV eura/CTOu vo/J.ode(rias.
4. Ko/j.iro\6yc l >. Ita Millerus ; sed legendum videtur KO/J.^^ \6y(p.
Cp. inf. "EAA.rji'es Ko/j.fy<p T \6y<f.
I. In hac Hippolytea veri enarratione perlustranda meminerit lector
earn non pro concione ad clerum, imo neque ad populum Christianum
fuisse emmtiatam, sed Sancti Praesulis et Martyris orationem nunc ad
Ethnicos convert! ; earn igitur f^uTtpiKoTs potius quam eVwreptKoTs
\6yots venerandi Doctoris, esse annumerandam. Quare si qua hie desi-
102 THE AUTHOR'S ADDRESS
KVpiOS, <TV<Y%pOVOV e(7^eV OV$V, OV %09
vBa)p dfAerpyrov fj <yr)v crreppav, ov%l depa TTVKVOV, ov rrvp
OepfJLov, ov rrvevfJLa \67rrbv, ov% ovpavov f^eydXov Kvaveav
5 /JLOptyrjv aXX' rjv el<? /-toVo? eavrw, o? 6e\r)<ra<s erroi^ae ra
ovra OVK ovra irpoTepov, 7T\rjv ore rjOeXrjae Troielv a)?
T&V ea-ofj,6vo)v. Hdpea-Ti yap avrw Kal
, Siatyopovs re rot? eao^evo^ a/o^a? Trporepov
i, Trvp Kal TTvev/jia, vScop KOI yrjv, e'f &v
10 Siacfropwv Trjv eavrov KTIGIV eVo/ei, Kal ra /Jiev, /jLovooixria,
ra &e } 6K Svo, ra Se, etc rpiwv, ra Be, K reo-adpav a-vv-
eSecr/zef. Kal ra pev ej; evos, aOdvara rjv' \vais jap ov
irapaKo\ov6el. To <yap ev ov \v6rjcrerai, TrooTrore, ra Se
CK Bvo y r) rpiwv, rf reaadpwv, \vra, Sib Kal Ovrjra
15 ovo/jid^erai. az^aro? yap rovro K6K\.rjrai, rj r&v
SeSefjievoDV \vo-is.
*lKavbv ovv vvv roi? ev fypovovaiv arroKeKpiaOai, ot el
(f>L\o/jia6^a-ovo'i, Kal ra? rovrcov overlap Kal ra? atrta? rrjs
Kara rravra Srj/jiiovp'ylas eTTi&rijo-ova-iv, e'icrovrai evrv-
deraveris ad Christianae religionis mysteria, et ad fidei capita disertius
declaranda, ea a reliquis S. Hippolyti scriptis jam superstitibus colligas,
quae quamvis laciniosa, et tanquam divitum stragulorum fimbrias, tamen
ad omnes istiusmodi defectus supplendos abunde sunt suffectura.
2. Gemellus locus, quern vide apud Hippol. c. Noe'tum, 10, Oebs
p.6vos virdpxw Kal /iTjSci/ tx '" fa-vrQ avyxpovov, e/3 ov\"fi&rj
4. ovpavov Kvavtav MOP*HN. Ita MS. Mallem OPO*HN, laquear,
"the azure vault," usu loquendi Hippolyteo, qui poeticas notiones et
poeticas locutiones sectari solet, ut Irenaei discipulum facile agnoscas.
Sic ccelum dixit ovpaviov S'KTKOV Hippolytus in Theophan. p. 261, et
Theophilus Antiochenus (cujus ad Autolycum libros legisse videtur
Hippolytus), T^V iroii}ffiv TOV ovpavov rp6wov eVexovTo OPO*H2. Sed
hanc conjecturam jam occupavit vir eruditissimus R. Scott in Censura
Arnoldiana, p. 541, cujus lucubrationes post hsec exarata vidi ; et qui
insuper recte animadvertit haec lyricum colorem prse se ferre, et
fortasse ab haeretico vel ethnico hymno hausta videri.
TO THE HEATHEN'. 103
Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself, not P. 334
infinite Chaos, nor immeasurable Water, nor solid
Earth, nor thick Air, nor hot Fire, nor subtle Breath,
nor the azure vault of the vast Sky. But He was
alone with Himself. He by His Will created the
things that exist, which did not exist before, but when
He willed to create them, as having foreknowledge of
what would be. For Prescience is present with Him.
He also first created divers Elements for the things
that were to be, namely, Fire and Air, Water and
Earth, from which divers elements He formed His
own Creation ; and some things He made of one
element, some He combined of two, some of three,
some of four. And those things which are of one
element are immortal : they have no concomitant
solubility ; for what is one will never be dissolved.
But those which are of two elements, or three or four,
are soluble, and are therefore called mortal. For this
is called Death, the solution of what is bound.
Let then this answer now be given, which will
suffice for the intelligent, who, if they are desirous of
further information, and would investigate the essence
of these things and the causes of the Universal Crea-
6. Act. xv. 1 8.
7. Millerus post ^ao^ivwv plene interpungit : quod incuria factum
videtur. Sed rationum, quas mihi praescripsi, memor, nihil mutavi,
satius ducens sententiam meam interpretatione et notis explicate, quam
in textum intrudere.
17. \K.o.vbv o&v vvv rdls 5 <ppovov<ru> aTroKeKpivdai. Ita MS. Vix recte.
Vel post airoKeicpicrQaL adjiciendum 5o/ce?, vel pro a.iroK*Kp(ffda.i legendum
videtur
104 THE A UTHORS ADDRESS
%6We9 rjfjiwv /3//3X&) Trepie^ovo-rj jrepl rrjs TOV TTCLVTOS
ova-las' TO e vvv IKCLVOV elvai efcBeadat, Ta? alrias, a? ov
EXA,77^69 KOfJi^frO) TU> \6^W TO.
TOV KrlaavTa dyvorfcravTes' wv
01 aipecridpxcu O/JLOLOIS \6yois ra VTT efceivwv 7rpoeipi)fj,eva
25 /j,erao")(r)iJLaTio-avT<;j at/oeVei? KaTaye\d<TTOV$ o-vvearij-
(Tavro.
Ovro? ovv fj,6vo<; Kal Kara Trdvrcov eo?, \6yov Trpcorov
evvoyOeis airo^evva, ov \6yov a>9 (frcovrjv, aXA,' e
335 TOI) TravTos \oyia /JLOV. TOVTOV povov ef QVTWV e^e
TO 7p 6^ auTO? 6 Trarrjp fjv, ej; ov TO yWi)0i)VCU ainov
TOA? ^LVO^kvQl^. Ao^O? ^V ll' O-UTftJ (frepGOV TO 6e\lV TOV
yeyevvr) KOTOS, OVK aTreipos T)9 TOU iraTpbs Ivvoias' d/ja
22. Cod. 7>'cDj'T6s. 24. Cod. TO uire/c6t//o. 4. Cod.
20. De quo libro ("dk Universo ") vide quse dedimus supra, cap. iv.,
et Fabricii Hippolytea, i. p. 220, et airo<Tfj.driov quod Fabricio nondum
compertum ad finem hujus libri adjicietur.
21. Supplendum 8o/ceT vel vo/j.iw.
24. Eadem locutione utitur noster p. 94. 27, unde forsan hie legendum
cuff &v. Deinde pro 6noiois mallem avo/j.oiois.
27. \6yov. Codex habet rbv \6yov. Conferas Hippolyti nostri locum
C. Noet. c. IO. Oebs fj.6vos virap-^div (fiov\-hQir) K6<r/jLov Krtffai' 6 K6<T(j.ov
28. Theophil. Antioch. p.. 129. IT fib TOV TI ylyveffdai Tlar^p Adyov
e?x6 ffv/ji.&ovXoi' eavrov Novv ovra, &ir6r Se T}&t\y(Tc f> &ebs Trotr)<rai '6<ra
t/3ov\v<ra.TO rovrov rbv A6yov eyevv^ffe irpotyopiKbi' Trpur6roKov trda-rjs
Krlffd)s. Novatian. de Trin. 31. "Est Deus Pater omnium Institutor
et Creator, solus originem nesciens, unus Deus. Ex quo quando Ipse
voluit, Sermo Filius natus est, qui non in sono percussi aeris aut tono
coactse de visceribus vocis accipitur, sed in substantial prolatse a Deo
virtutis agnoscitur. Hie cum sit genitus a Patre semper est in Patre."
i. TOVTOV fjiovov Q OVTUV 4y4wa. Quse quidem verba vertit
Bunsenius, " Him alone of all things He begat," adeoque evidentissi-
mum nostri de Filii 6/xoouo-fy testimonium obscuravit. Quod autem dicit
Hippolytus hoc est : Pater ex nihilo ccetera fecit, VERBUM autem ex
substantia jam existente generavit, hoc est .ex SEIPSO ; velut in alio
TO THE HEATHEN. 105
tion, may learn them by referring to my Work, con-
taining an Essay " On the Essence of the Universe?
For the present it seems enough to expound the
causes, which the Gentiles not knowing, with all their
ornate diction glorified the parts of Creation, being
ignorant of the Creator. From whom the Heresiarchs
derived occasions for their Heresies, and having
travestied their systems in similar words, have com-
posed Heresies which are ridiculous.
This One and Supreme God generates the Word
first in His own mind ; He generates the Word, not
as a Voice, but as the Indwelling Ratiocination of the
Universe. Him alone He generated of what exists. P. 335
For the essence of things is the Father Himself, from
whom is the cause of generation to what is generated.
The Word was in the Father : The Word, bearing
the will of Him Who begat the Word, and not uncon-
scious of His Father's cogitation. For simultaneously
loco c. Noet. II. ircti/Ta Sia A6yov, avrbs Se fj.6vos e/c Harpbs, unde
clarum lucramur testimonium contra Arianos creaturam ex nihilo factam
Dei Filium somniantes. Miror doleoque Bunsenium, cujus ingenii
dotes suspicio, non sine amarulenta quadam irrisione dixisse se minime
dubitare, quin orituri sint nonnulli, qui Sanctum Hippolytum de Verbo
Dei unigenito op0o8d|o>s sensisse contendant, quorum quidem conatum
temerarium atque adeo frustraneum fore non obscure innuerit. Sed
pace viri egregii, ipse sanctum Antistitem perverse intelligendo, ipse
Sanctum Hippolytum aliquoties perperam interpretando, paene fecit
hsereticum. Sed salva res est. Non eget Hippolytus defensoribus qui
ejus opdoSo^iav propugnent. Absint tantum pravse interpretationes :
ipse pro se loquatur : ipse se tuebitur.
4. Hippol. c. Noet. IO. r&v yivopsvuv apxiqybv /cot <rv(j.fiovhov Kai
ipyaTtlv sysvva. A6yov, *bv A6yov e^wi/ eV kawrcfi, a6par6v re ovra., ry
KTio(jievca K6(T/j.c i ) bpa.'r'bv Trote?, ubi A6yov appellat TOW 0eov T&J/ f8iov vovv t
a.vT(f p.6t>(p trporepoir dparbv fnrdpxovra.
106 THE AUTHOR'S ADDRESS
5 yap rco e/c rov yevvijaavTos Trpoe\6elv TrpcoroTOKos TOVTOV
e^et, ev eaimo ra<? ev rq>
bOev /eeXeuoi/ro? Trarpo?
TO Kara ev Aoyos aTrereXetro apear/cwv ea>. Kal
5- Cod. -rb eK. 6. Cod. x f '" *"
6. <J>a>/V EXEIN ev eairrcp ras ev TO? TrarpiK^ (forsan irarpiKtf v$)
evvotjf) tiaras t5ea9, odev KeXevovros Harpbs yiveaQcu K6<r^ov rb Kara ev
A6yos AHETEAEITO APE2KHN 06<. Sic Codex, manifesta corruptela.
Legit Bunsenius <p<av^ pro tfxav^v et sic interpretatur, " For when He
(the Word) came forth from Him, being His First-begotten Speech,
He had in Himself the ideas conceived by the Father." Sed jam ipse
negaverat Hippolytus AOrON esse (pw-fiv. Liquet, opinor, (fxarfv
sanum esse, deinde pro EXEIN legendum EXEI, et pro AIIETEAEITO
'APE2KHN 0<? reponendum 'AHETEAEI TO 'APE2KON &ey. Vel
potius, uti nunc inspecto Codice, qui habet aTrere\eiovTO apevituv c$,
melius puto, legere mallem 'AHETEAEI TOTTO, 'APESKHN e^J (cf.
Euseb. H. E. i. 2, irarpmals eirird^effiif virovpyuv}. Non enim in his
dicebant Patres a-jroTe\e?a0ai sed OLiroreXe'iv.. Testis ipse Hippolytus in
simillimo loco, indicio catholicae doctrinae evidentissimo, c. Noet. 14.
IloT^p fjiev efy, irptivuira. 8e 8vo, '6n KOI 6 vl6s' rb Se rpirov rb ayiov
irvev/na. Uar^p eVreAAerai, A6yos 'AI1OTEAEI. Hinc S. Irenaei vetus
interpres, ii. 47, " hie mundus factus est apotelestos a Deo."
7. KeXevovTos Uarpcs. Subordinatur enim Filius Patri tanquam sui
Auctori et omnium Principio. Ut Fabricii verbis utar (Hippol. ii.
p. 15) mandandi et prcecipiendi vocabulo de Patre, et obediendi de
Filio sine ulla offensione usos esse constat non modo ante Concilium
Nicsenum, Clementem, Origenem, Irenseum, Hippolytum, et alios ; sed
et post illud Concilium adversaries et hostes Arianae haereseos acerrimos,
Athanasium, Basilium. Vide Petav. de Trin. ii. vii. 7. Georgii Bull,
defensionem Fidei Nicaenae, p. 133. 165. 170 ; iv. 2, et in Epilogo
Operis, vol. v. pt. ii. p. 291. Waterland. iii. p. 319, 320. Meminerit
lector hac item uti protestatione Nostrum de Filio omnia Patris jussu
formante contra haereticorum illorum somnia, qui ab Angelis vel
^Eonibus omnia facta fuisse impie comminiscerentur, de quibus Irenaeus,
ii. 55 ; iv. 37. Vide hie Clem. Alex. Paed. iii. ad fin. Strom, v. c. i ;
vii. c. 2.
Fortasse hie dixerit quis, Hippolytum nostrum VERBI generationem
facere, quod aiunt, xpovutty sive temporariam, non autem sempiternam.
Quare adolescentes monitos velim, quorum praecipue causa haec com-
mentatus sum, duas Patrum Ante-niceenorum fuisse quasi familias, de
TO THE HEATHEN. 107
with His procession from Him Who begat Him, being P 335
His First-born, He has as a voice in Himself the ideas
conceived in His Father's substance, whence, when
the Father bade that what was single (or one by one)
should become a world, the Word executed it, doing
what was pleasing to the Father.
hoc fidei capita specie diversa loquentes, re tamen idem sentientes ;
quorum alii quidem Generationem Filii manifeste praedicabant ceternam;
alii vero ut Justinus, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Tatianus, Tertullianus,
inter quos etiam eminebat noster Hippolytus, quum Deitatem TOV
declarassent, eumque ab <zterno extitisse in Mente Patris,
Uarpbs Aoyov docuissent, turn vero pergebant dicere Eum in tempore
factum fuisse irpofyopiKbv, et exinde KOT' evepyfiav et per ffvyKard^aa-iy
TrpoTTTjSTjo-ai sive processisse ad Patrem Seseque manifestandum, et ad
creanda universa. Hanc Ejus irpoeXsvcriv sive processionem ad opus
Creationis exequendum, aliquoties appellabant Generationem, memores
illius flos Mov e? 2i>, -2,-n^pov rEFENNHKA 2e (Hebr. i. 5 ; Ps. ii. 7).
Haec Ejus Generatio indubie fuit temporaria. Qui vero, ut Hippolytus
noster, T^V &6yov ab seterno extitisse statuerant, Eum ab aeterno fuisse
gentium agnoverant, ideoque temporariam ejus generationem ad creanda
universa declarantes, Generationem Ejus vEternam minime abnuebant,
immo vero validissime adstruebant. Qui enim ex Patre yevvt)-r'bs et
Patri ffvfatSios, oel (rv^irap^v avry Kal ffv/j.ftov\os, Eum ab seterno
genitum fuisse satis constabat. Rem optime expressit nostri fere sequalis
Novatianus de Trin. 31. " Hie (A6yos) cum sit genitus a Patre semper
est in Patre, semper autem sic dico, ut non innatum sed natum probem.
Sed qui ante omne tempus est, semper in Patre fuisse dicendus est.
Nee enim tempus illi aequari potest qui ante tempus est. Semper enim
in Patre, ne Pater semper non sit Pater. Hie ergo quando Pater voluit,
processit ex Patre ; substantia scilicet ilia Divina cujus Nomen est
VERBUM per quod facta sunt omnia. Omnia post Ipsum sunt, quia
per Ipsum sunt, et merito Ipse est ante omnia quando per Ilium facta
sunt omnia, qui processit ex Eo Cujus voluntate facta sunt omnia."
8. rb KO.T& ev. Doctissimo Dollingero nequeo adstipulari haec
ad Platonicum unitatis dogma trahenti. Non enim ait noster rb ev
(umtrn), sed rb naff e/, quod prorsus diversum est : 6 Kadfls singulus
significat, sic rb /co0' ev unumquodque singulatim. Vide Novatian.
de Trin. p. 5. * Ideas,' cum Platone, et Clemente Alexandrine et aliis,
in mente divina extitisse, quasi typicas creaturarum formas, censet noster.
108 THE AUTHOR'S ADDRESS
ra /juev eirl yeveaet, irKyOvvovra, apaeva /cal Orjkea
10 elpyd^ero' ova Be 7rpo9 VTrrjpeo-iav Kal \eiTovpylav, rj
dpaeva f} OjiXeiwv /UT) TrpoaBeo/jLeva, fj ovre apaeva, ovre
6rj\ea. Kat 'yap at rovrcov irp&rai ova'iai ef ovtc ovrwv
yevo/jievai, irvp Kal 7rvev/j,a, vBcop real 717, ovre apaeva
ovre 6r[Kea virdp'^etv etcdo-Trj TOVTCOV Bvvrai, i jrpoe\delv
15 apaeva Kal 6r)\ea } I jr\r]v el (3ov\OLro 6 Ke\evcov eo<? Iva
Ao70? VTrovpyfj. 'E/c irvpbs elvai dy<ye\ovs 6^0X070), /cal
ov Tovrois irapelvat, 6rj\eia<s \eya). f/ HXioz/ Se ical cre\ijvrjv
/cal da-repas ofjuoiw^ etc irvpo^ Kal irvevfAaTos, Kal ovre
apaevas ovre #77X6/0,9 vevo^iKa^ ei; ;SaT09 Be a>a vrjtcra
20 elvai 6e\a>v Kal Trryva apaeva /cal Orf\ea' ovrco yap
exekevcrev 6 6e\r)<ra<; eo9, ^OVL^OV elvai rrjv vypav ovcriav.
f OyLto/ft)9 etc 7779 epirera Kal 6rjpia Kal iravro^arroiv ^axav
apaeva Kal drj\ea' OVTCO? yap eveSe^ero rj rwv yeyovorcov
yap ^deX^o-ev, eVo/et 6 eo9. Tavra \6yq>
n. " Medium ^ delendum videtur. " Miller. 14. "Fort,
e/cao-rrjs rovrtav Svvarai. Aut, si malis, virdpxovffiv oi/re." Miller.
1 6. Cod. U7roup76?, rnutatum in -y. Miller.
g. 7rl yeveffei Miller. Mallem una voce einyevfffti, i. ^. continuA
serie procreationis ; et sic (ut nunc video) Codex.
ib. Hpfffva Kal 07jAea. Sic Miller ; sed Codex habet &pfftv Kal 8rj\v.
II. i.e. mascula tantum sine famind ; quod propter Millerum
monuerim delentem ^, et propter Bunsenium ejicientem ^ apa-fva.
13. oijTf apffeva oi/re 07jAe'a virapx^t" e/caarTj (imo uti credo inspecto
Codice, e/ca(rTa) TOVTWV Svvrai irpoeXd^v apfftva. Sic MS. mendose.
Millerus vwdpxei* eKaa-rrjs TOVTWV Svvarat. Praetulerim virapx^t'
Ka<rra TOVTOOV Stivarai K.T.A..
15. Junge et jSouAotro 'Lva. A6yos virovpyrj. Novatian. de Trin. 31.
" Filius nihil ex arbitrio suo gerit, nee ex consilio suo facit, nee a se
venit, sed imperiis paternis omnibus obedit, ut quamvis probet ilium
nativitas Filium, tamen morigera obedientia asserat ilium paternse
voluntatis ex quo est Ministrum, ita quamvis sit et Deus unum tamen
TO THE HE A THEN. 109
And some things which were to multiply by sue- P. 335
cessive generation He made male and female ; but
whatsoever were for ministry and service, He created
either male, or not needing any female, or neither
male nor female. For their first elements being pro-
duced of nothing, such as Fire and Air, Water and
Earth, are originally neither male nor female, but each
of these may come forth either male or female, pro-
vided God, Who bids, so will that the Word should
minister in making it. I profess that the Angels are
of Fire, and say that to them there are not females.
I believe that the Sun and Moon and Stars are like-
wise of Fire and Breath, and are neither male nor
female ; believing that swimming and flying animals
are of water, male and female, for so God commanded,
Who willed that the moist element should be genera-
tive. In like manner from the earth are creeping
things and beasts, and male and female of all kinds of
creatures, for so the nature of what was born allowed.
For whatsoever He willed, He made. He created by
Deum Patrem de obedientia sua ostendit." Inter recentiores qui hoc
argumentum tractaverunt satis erit nominasse Bull. Def. Fid. Nicsen.
iii. 5. I, et iii. 8. 4. Waterland, vol. i. 2. p. 114. 134 140. 288;
vol. iii. p. 100. 268 274. 296. ed. Van Mildert. Oxon. 1823, et
p. 200, i, de Hippolyto confitente unumDeum in tribus Personis, Patre
Filio et Spiritu Sancto.
19. e| ZSaros 5e wa vr]Kra elvcu OeXuv. Sic MS. Bunsenius 0eAo>,
sic vertens "I conceive that from water have come swimming and
flying animals, male and female." Confer sup. Philos. p. 258. 77.
TOVTOV yeyovsvai avr^v de\ovffiv, de Theodoti placitis.
24. '6<ra yap ^fleA^ey. Conferas similem Hippolyti nostri locum
c. Noet. c. 10. (Fabric, ii. p. 13.) firoir)(rev us r/fleATjo-ej/, flefcs yap fy.
110 THE AUTHOR'S ADDRESS
25 eSrjfJUOvpyei, erepo)? <yevecr6ai jjirj Svvdpeva, rj o>9 eyevero.
"Ore Be (rj) 0)9 r)0e\r)(re KOI eTroirjaev, ovofjuan tcaXeora?
'JEvrl TOUT019 TOV Trdvrcov apxpvra Srj/jLLOVpybv e/c
P- 336 Tra&tov avvOercov OVGIWV eGKevaaev' ov Qebv 6ekwv iroielv
ea^rfX.ev, ovBe dyye\ov (fjirj 7r\az/w), a\V avOpwTrov. Et
yap deov ae ^eXT/cre 7rotr)a-at, eSvvaro' e^et? TOV A.6yov
TO 7rapd8et,y/j,a' avOpwirov OeX-wv, avdpwjrov ere eTroirja-eV
5 el Se ^eXet? /cat ^eo? <yevecr6ai, vTrd/cove rat TreTroirjtcoTi,
/cal fJirj dvrlfiaive vvv, 'iva eirl TCO fjiLKpq) Trtcrro? evpedel?
teal TO /jLeya Trta-revQfjvai, SvvrjQfjs. TOVTOV 6 A 070?
/Lt6^09 ef avrov' Sto /cat ^eo9, ovaia vTrdp^cov eou. f O
Se /c6(7/>609 e 0^86^69* Sto ou ^eo9' OVT09 eVtSe^eTat /cat
10 \v<nv ore (3ov\erai, 6 Ttcra9. f O Se Kridas 609 K.CLKQV
ov/c eiroiei ovSe iroiel Kakov teal dyaObv, d^ado^ yap o
26. " Ex praecedentibus male repetitum 3) quod post #re Se legitur."
Miller. 6. Matt. xxv. 21.
28. Clem. Rom. ad Cor. i. C. 33. 6 ^/jnovpybs eVl irao-i
Kal Tra/j./j.ey0f5 Kara Sidvoiav, &vdpeairov rats lepais Kal
eTrAaaei/ T^S 'Eawrou eludvos ^opa/fTTjpa.
ib. 5r)fj.ioupy6v. Sic Miller. In Codice vox non plene scribitur sed
compendiose. ^/jLiovpyuv recte Bunsenius.
1. Vide Phot. Bibl. Cod. 48, qui Scriptorem de Natura Universi,
quern Hippolytum esse vidimus, sic disserentem proponit, 8o|cei 0-1/7-
KflffQai r'bv foBpiairov e/c Trwpbs Kal yfjs Kal vSaros Kal ert e/c Tri/ev^oTos,
hoc est e/c n-atroij' crvvderov ovffiiav. Pro (Tvi/Bercav legit trvvQerov vir
doctissimus R. Scott, fortasse recte. Simillima habet Hippolytus
noster c. Noetum, c. 10.
2. MH IIAANn, eadem loquendi formula utitur Scriptor Demonstra-
tionis de Christo et Antichristo, quern ex indiciis cum extrinsecis turn
intrinsecis eundem ac nostri hujusce libri Auctorem eumque Sanctum
Hippolytum, Episcopum Portuensem satis, ut opinor, liquet. Vide
supra p. 165, sive 2. vol. i. p. 5. ed. Fabric, ov yap e| ISias
tyQtyyovro, (pi irpo^TjTaj) MH IlAANn.
6. evrl rqJ /j.iKp$ iriffrbs respicit S. Luc. xvi. n.
TO THE HEATHEN. Ill
the Word these things, not having a capacity to "be
otherwise than as they were. But when He made
them as He willed, calling them by name He marked
them by signs.
Over these, when fashioning the master of all (man),
He formed him of all essences blended together. He
did not fail, desiring to make a god or an angel (be P- 33 6
not deceived), but a man. For if He had desired to
make thee a deity, He could have done so. Thou
hast the example of the Word. Willing thee a man,
He made thee a man. But if thou desirest to
become even a deity, hearken to Him Who made thee,
and do not resist Him now, in order that having been
found faithful in that which is little, thou mayest be
able to be entrusted also with what is much. The
Word alone is of God of God Himself. Wherefore
He is God, being the Substance of God. But the
world is of nothing ; wherefore it is not God : the
world is liable to dissolution also, when He wills Who
created it. But God, Who created it, neither made
nor doth make evil : He makes what is beautiful and
7. Myos igitur Hippolyto Deus, isque Patri 6/j.ooixrios idemque
(TwaiSios. Caeterum de re ipsa confer Tertullian. c. Prax. c. 5. Sibi
Filium fecit Sermonem suum, c. Marcion ii. c. 27. Sermonem quern
ex semet ipso proferendo Filium fecit.
IO. 0ebs K.a.Kbv OVK eTrotet ouSe TroteT Ka\bv Kal aya06v. Sic MS. Bun-
senius, e&s Kaitbv OVK eTroier ovSev eTrofei ov Ka\bf Kal ayaQov. Sed
leviore negotio res transigenda. Interpunge post itoifi, deinde
iterandum Trote?. Caeterum his comparari merentur Novatianus de
Trinitate, cap. I 4, de Deo Mali non auctore, et qui expressisse
Hippolytum, Hieronymo dicitur auctore, in Hexaemero Ambrosius,
c. 8. Argumentum, iroQev rb Kcmbv, in singular! libello, ut lemmata
operum statuae dorso inscripta satis decent, ipse tractavit Hippolytus.
112 THE AUTHOR'S ADDRESS
TTOIWV. 'O Se yevofjievos avOpcoTros, %a>ov avre^ovcnov yv,
OVK apxpv, ov vovv 6%ov, OVK eirivoiq /cal eovo~lq Kal
Swd/jLei Trdvrcov Kparovv, d\\a Sov\ov /cal TTCLVJCL e^ov ra
15 evavria' SS--T avre^ovo-iov vTrdp^eiv, TO KCLKOV e
K (rvfjftefBrjKOTOs aTroT\ovfj,vov fj,ev ovoev, lav /JLTJ
'Ei/ <yap r&> 6e\eiv Kal voai^ew TL icaKov, TO Kaicov
ovo /jLa^erai, OVK ov air dpxf)S, aXX* 7ri^iv6/j>6vov. Qv
avre^ov(Tiov 6Wo?, i/6yu,o? VTTO eoO wpi^ero, ov /JLarrjv' ov
20 yap fjbrj el^ev 6 avOpwrros TO 6e\eiv Kal TO fir) 6e\ew TI,
Kal VO/JLO? Q)pi%eTO. ? O vojjios yap a\6ya) &> ov^
opLdd^o-eraLj a\\a ^aXtw? Kal fjLa&Tij;, avOptoiru) Be
evTo\r) Kal Trpoo-Ti/Jiov Tov TTOieiv TO 'JTpoo-reTa^fjLevov Kal
fjurj 7TOL6LV Tovrq) vofjbos a)pladr) Sia SiKaiwv dvSpuv
25 eirdvwOev. "Etyyiov TJ/JLWV Sta TOU Trpoeipijuevov M.covo-ea)<;,
14. Cod. Kpariav. ib. Cod. tx VTa * v ' l &- " Vox ou prorsus
evanida." Miller. 22. Cod. ^da-riy^ 25. Cod. Mwutreos, sed
cum liturzl.
12. Magistrum suum S. Irenasum hie sequi videtur noster, adv. Hser.
iv. 9. ' ' Homo rationabilis et secundum hoc similis Deo, liber in
arbitrio factus et suse potestatis ipse sibi causa est ut aliquando quidem
frumentum aliquando autem palea fiat." Vide et Tertullian. c. Marcion
ii. 5, 6, quern citavit Grabius.
13. OVK &pxov ov vovv e%oj/ OVK tirtvoiq Kal e|ov<ra Kal Suca/iet ir&vrwv
KpaTOvv a\\ct SovXov KOI travra exoi/ TO eVai/rfo. Sic Codex. Bunsenius
legit OVK &PXOVTO. vovv ex ov ' Deinde Kal irdvra %x ov ra evavria ita vertit
"having all sorts of contraries in him." Parum grammatice, et contra
sensum Scriptoris, qui sic videtur ratiocinari : "Homo libero arbitrio
prceditus, non tamen dominio supremo donatus est; rationem habuit
divinilus inditam, non tamen m rationis omnia potuit moderari, sed servi
loco positus, et 2 variis elementis conflatus (vide supra, p. 335) omncs
contrarietates in se complexus est. " Quare, ut brevi rem prascidam, pro
OVK &pxov Of vovv exov levissima mutatione corrigendum arbitror OVK
apxov ON, vovv X OV >
14. Similiter Novatianus de Trinitate, p. 3. "Liber esse debuerat homo
ne incongruenter Dei imago serviret, et Lex addenda." Plane inter
Hippolytum nostrum et Novatianum commercium quoddam doctrirae,
et discipline, intercessisse videtur.
TO THE HEATHEN. 113
good, for He Who maketh is good. Man who was P. 336
born was a creature endued with free will, but not
dominant ; having reason, but not able to govern
every thing with reason, authority, and power, but
subordinate, and having all contrarieties in himself.
He, in having free will, generates evil accidentally, but
not in any degree taking effect, unless thou doest it.
For in the volition or cogitation of evil, evil receives
its name, and does not exist from the beginning, but
was subsequently generated.
Man being endued with free will, a Law was given
him by God ; with good reason ; for if man had not
the faculty of volition and non-volition, wherefore
was a Law given ? For Law will not be given to an
irrational creature ^ but a bit and a whip. But to man
is given a precept and a penalty, for doing or not
doing what is commanded. To him a Law was given
from the' first by the ministry of righteous men. In
15. rb KaKbv fTnyevva, e/c o-y/ij8e/37j/e<$Tos. Ita Miller, et Bunsenius,
sed jungenda videntur tiriyfvva-tK (ri/Mj8ej8rj/coTos. Malum enim non
directe vel ex necessitate oriri dicit, sed mediate et quasi per accidens,
et " peccatum" (ut cum Augustino loquar) " non est natura, sed vitium
naturce" Quare sic reddidi.
17. Prseclare S. Irenseus, iv. 72, ravra irdvra (i. e. dispositions Dei
per Legem et Prophetas) rb avrej-oiHriov eTriSet/cvuc'i rov avdpuirov Kal rb
rov 6eov, airorpeirovros p.\v rov a.ireiQsiv avry a\\a pfy
18. ov MS. ei cum Millero reponendum videtur, vel ov, ubi.
20. fleAeij/ n, Kal VO/JLOS upi&ro. Sic Miller. Sed parum feliciter.
Equidem mallem eeXeiv, rl Kal v6nos wpl&ro; et in Codice (quern
nunc inspexi) distincte post fleAe^ interpungitur, et rl clare legitur ; et
jam video viruni doctissimum R. Scott, idem ex conjectura voluisse.
22. Vide Ps. xxxii. 9.
23. Trp6arifji.oy. Vide ad Clem. Roman, c. 41.
I
114 THE AUTHOR'S ADDRESS
KOL BiKaioavvrjs. Ta Se rrdvra
A6<yo? o eoO, o rrpwroyovos Trarpo? 7rat9, 77 vrpo e
337 (/)&)<J</)0/30? (jxovij' erreira Slfcaioi, av Spe? yeyevrjvrai <f)i\oi,
eov' OVTOL 7rpo<f>rjTai Ktc\'r)VTaL Sta TO Trpotyaiveiv ra
fjLe\\ovra. OI? ou^ eyo<? Kaipov ^670? eyevero, a\\a Bici,
Traawv yevewv al TWV TrpoXeyo/Jievwv (frcoval euaTToSet/crot
5 Traplo-ravTO' ov/c e/cet fiovov rjvUa rot? Trapovcnv
aTre/cplvavTO, a\\a real &ia Tracr&v yevewv ra eao^eva
' on /nev ra Trapw^rj/jueva \eyovres, vire-
rrjv avOpooTroTTjra' ra Se eVecrrwra Seifcvvvres,
lv 7TL0ov' TO, 8e fJLe\\ovra TrpoXeyovres, TOV
10 Kara eva THJLWV opwvras Trpo TTO\\OV Trpoeiprj/jieva fj,<f)6/3ov-;
Ka6tcrra)v, rrpoa^OKWvra^ Kal ra peXXovra. Toiavrrj rf
KCL& TI^CL^ rrio-ris, a> rrdvres avQpdsrroi, ov Kevols prj/
rrciOofjievdDV, ovSe a^eStao-
ov$e rriOavbrrirt, cveTreias \6ycov OeXyofJievwv, a\\a
15 Svvdfjiei Oela \6yoL? \\a\rjfJ<vo(,'S OVK aTreiOovvrwv . Kai.
II. Cod,
27. Ut praeclar& dixit Hippolytus noster, c. Noet, n, 12, OVTOS
(6 A6yos) eSiaxev N^oi/ Kal TLpo^ras, Kal Sovs Sia nveu/ioros c A7iou
i)vdyKaffev TOVTOVS (pBfyytffBai OTTWS Trjs Harf>(aas Svi/d/jiews r^v a.ir6-
irvoiav \afi6vres T^V )8ouAV Kal rb fiov\ev/u.a TOV IlaTpbs KaTayyeiXuaiV
(v rovrois TO'LVVV iro\iTv6/j.fVos 6 A.6yos fQQeyyfro TTCOI favrov, ijSij yap
avrbs eauroC Kr)pv eyevero.
28. Ex Psalmo ex. 3, e yavrphs irpb fcoatySpov f^fvvrjffd 2e, unde
citat Hippolytus c. Noet. c. 16.
3. De Prophetarum veterum officio vide eodem fere dicendi tenore
disserentem Hippolytum, de Antichristo, 2, ol naKaptoi irpotyrJTai
o<f)6a\fj.ol -rjnuv eyevovro, ov p.6vot> TO 7rap^x ? ?' co ' Ta l'^l r T' l a\\a
KOI ra eveffTUTa Kal /ieAAovra Aeyovrey, 'iva ^ p6vov irp6<TKaif>os flvat 6
ixOfi, a\\a Kal Trdffais yf veals irpoXeywv TO fit \\OVTO, (as
/ai vo/j.i<r6fj.
TO THE HEATHEN. 115
times nearer to our own, a Law full of sanctity and
justice was given by the instrumentality of that Moses
who has been already named, a devout man dear to
God. But the Word of God regulates all things, the
First-born Son of the Father, the light-bearing Voice
before. the Morning Star. Afterwards just men were P. 337
born, dear to God, who are called Prophets, because
they foretold the Future.
To them came the Word, not of one time only ;
but through all generations the voices of things
spoken before were manifestly present, not only in that
spot when they made replies to those persons who
resorted to them, but they predicted what would
happen through all ages. Sometimes uttering what
was past they reminded mankind ; and displaying the
present they persuaded men not to be remiss ; and
foretelling the future they inspired us with awe, when
we saw events each of them long since foretold, and
thence expected also the future (which was foretold, to
be fulfilled also).
Such, O all ye men, is the faith of us who do not
listen to idle words, nor are carried away by impro-
visations of the heart, nor bewitched by the beguile-
ments of eloquent speeches, and do not disobey words
spoken by divine power.
5. rots Trapovffiv, i. e. prsesentibus, qui eos consulturi adibant.
Prophetas Veteres cum Oraculis Ethnicorum comparat, quae non
edebant vaticinia sua sponte, sed responsa tantum sciscitantibus dabant.
7. on Codex. Mallem ore, cum R. Scott.
9. r6v. Sic Miller ; sed compendiose habet Codex, fortasse TO.
10. tva. Sic Miller ; sed Codex, ut puto, *y. Scriptio Codius
ad finem libri est intricatissima.
I 2
116 THE AUTHOR'S ADDRESS
ravra eo? e/ceXeve Aoyo). 'O Se Acfyo?
\eycov, $i avro)V emo-rpefywv rbv avOpatrrov IK Trapatcorjs,
ov plq avd<yKr)<; SovXayopywv, a\V eV eXevdepLq eKOVcria)
rrpoaipeaeL Ka\a)v. Tovrov rbv Aojov ev vo~repot,<$
20 a7re<7T\\6V 6 Tlarrjp ovfceri SLO, Trpotyijrov \a\eiv, ov
fcrjpvcrcrofjievov virovoeicrQai 6e\wv, aXX' avrotyel
ai TOVTOV \eycov, iva KOCT/JLO^ opwv BvcrcoTrrjOfj
OVK evreXXofJievov SLO. irpoatoTrov 'jrpocfrrjTwv, ov$e Si?
dyye\ov (froflovvTa ^v^rjv, aXV avrov irapovra TOV
25 \eXa\r) Kor a. TOVTOV eyvco/Jiev e/c irapdevov
aveiXy^OTa, KOI rov 7ra\atov avOpwjrov Sia
7r\ao-ect)9 TrefopTj/cora, ev fflq) Sta Trawls r}\ucia<;
\r)\v6oTa, Iva Trdcrr) fjKiKiq avro<s vbfjuos yevrjOf} /cal
(T/coTrbv rov f&tOM dvOpwirov rcaaiv dvOpdoTrois
30 Trapwv, /cal Si avrov e\y^y on firjo'ev ircoi^aev 6
p. 338 TrovrjpoV /cal a)? avre^ovo-to^ 6 avOpwrros e^cov TO 6e\iv
Kal TO /jirj 6e\iv Bwaros 6jv v d/juporepois' ov rbv
18. cKovaicp MS. lit* f\v9epiav e/coua^ irpoatpetrft R. Scott, et sic,
ut nunc vidi, Codex.
19. Post vffTfpois supple Kaipo'is. aTreVreAAej/. Sic Miller. Codex,
uti reor, aTreVraA/cei' ; sed scriptio est ambigua. Mallem aTreVretAei', et
pro AoAcTv praetulerim AoAcDv.
26. rbv ira\aibv foBpuirov Sia KaiVTJs ir\d(re<as TIE^OPHKOTA. Sic
Codex et Bunsen. qui sic vertit, "to have put on the old man through
a new formation." Sed mendam subesse suspicor. Neque enim
veterem Adamum sumpsit et gessit Christus sine peccato conceptus, sed
veterem refinxit et renovavit, ut nos protinus essemus in Eo Kaiv^ KT'HTII,
vel/fojj/bv4>TPAMA. i Cor. v. 7. VideetiamS. Iren. v. 1416. Neque
leges loquendi dicere sinunt <f>opf?v 8t^ TrAotrecDs. Legere mallem
riE*TPAKOTA. Vide inf. v. 3, Qvpd/jiaTos. &vpuv apud LXX et
Patres Ecclesise passim legitur. Vide Hippol. c. Noe't. 17, Ka6' 6i/
Tp&irov Kf]pi>x0'r], Karh TOVTOV Kal iraptav etyavepufffv eovrbc ^
irapOevov Kal ayiov Tlvev [AUTOS, Kaivbs avQpcairos *yev6fj.evos, Tb juei'
ovpdviov %x. 0>v r ^ Tfo-fptpov ws A.6yos, ri> Se eiriyeiov us (K iraAatoD
'ASajU Sta TrapQevov <rapKovfj.evos. Vide etiam Scholion Hippolyti in
Danielem (p. 205, Mai). A6yov irpcaT6TOKov e/c eov. . . . irptin6roKov
.7*0 THE HEATHEN. 117
These things God gave as mandates to the Word,
and the Word uttered them by His Voice, turning
man thereby from transgression, not leading him
captive by the force of necessity, but calling him to
liberty voluntarily with free choice. This Word the
Father has sent in the latter days no longer
by a Prophet ; and not willing that being obscurely
preached He should only be surmised, but bidding
Him be manifest face to face, in order that the world
might reverence Him when it saw Him not giving
His behests by the person of a Prophet, nor alarming
the soul by an Angel, but beholding Him Who had
spoken, present in Person.
We know that He took a body from a Virgin,
and fashioned the old man by a new creation, and
that He passed through every age in life, in order that
he might be a Law to every age, and by His presence
might exhibit His own Manhood as a pattern to all
men, and thereby (by Himself) might convince man
that God made nothing evil, and that man is endued P. 338
with free will, having the power of volition or non-
volition in himself, and being able to do both. Him
e/c UapQtvov 'Iva r~bv irpwrfaXaffTov 'A5a/i eV avrcp a.vair\a<T fftev
A6yos K /capStas (Uarpby) irpb ira.vr<av yeyevriiJ.ei'os' eTriyeluv 0a<n\evs STI
&v6p<airos ev av6p(f>irois eyevvriOr) avairXafrffcav SL avrbv rbv 'ASa/u. Ka-
dem fere leguntur apud nostrum, de Antichristo, 26, unde Scholium
Vaticanum corrigatur, ava-n \6.a<r<av 5t' lavrov rbi/ 'ASd/*. Cf. S. Iren.
v. 6. " Glorificatur Deus in suo plasmate conforme-illud et consequens
suo Puero adoptans. Per manus enim Patris, id est per Filium et
Spiritum Sanctum, fit homo secundum similitudinem Dei."
27. Hsec ab Irenaeo mutuatus est ii. 39, Irensei errorem devitans <ad
annum fere quinquagesimum Christ! in terris vitam prorogantis.
2. Codex ov rbv &v9ptairov yeyovevai els p.ev. Bene Miller. TOVTOK,
optime Bunsenius tvpev, novimus, pro (is ^iv.
118 THE AUTHOR'S ADDRESS
av0p(i)7rov et? fjuev rov /cad 1 ?7/ua? ^vpd/juaro^ yeyovevai.
Et jap /AT) /c rov avrov V7rrjpe, fjbdrrjv vofj,o0erei
5 fjiijJieicrOai rov Bid(T/ca\ov. Et yap eicelvos o avOpwrro?
erepas ervy^avev ovcrias, ri rd o/jioia Ke\evei e/jiol TOJ
dcrOevel Tre^v/cort, /cal TTCU? ouro? dyaObs fcal 8//
f iva 8e fj,ij erepo? Trap T^yua? vofj,ia6ri, /cal
VTTCjjieive, /cal Treivrjv rjOekrjae, /cal Bi^rjv OVK
10 /cal VTTIO) rfpe/jir/ae, /cal TvaQei OVK ai/retTre, /cal
vTrrJKovo-e, /cal dvao-raaiv efyavepwaev, d7rap%d/j,6vo$ ev
Tracri, TOVTOIS rov iBiov av0pa)7rov, f iva av Travywv pr)
O&vpffo, aXX' avOpWTTOV aeavrbv 6fjLO\oya)v, irpoa-Soicwv
real (TV o TOVTto TTajoecr^e?.
1 5 ToioOro? o Trepl TO iov d\r)0r)<; \6yos, a> avOpcoiroL
g. Cod. 5ii//i^.
10. Christum, Dominum Nostrum, humanum Corpus vere sumpsisse
et humanam animam, ^WXTIV Xoyiufy, et splendidissima documenta
dedisse rrjs avQpuiv6rT]r6s re ical TTJS 0(^TrjTos, eloquentissime docet
Hippolytus in nobili ilia peroratione sermonis sui contra Noeti
deliramenta, quern integrum fere exscribere operse pretium duxissem,
nisi plerisque obvium fecisset et notis adornasset vir sacra eruditione
non minus quam annis venerabilis M. I. Routh. Eccl. Opusc. i. pp. 48
94.
13. ctAA* &v0puTrov ffeavrbv dpoXoycav, irpoafioKuv av b Tovrta trapecrxes.
Sic MS. Corrigit Bunsen. TrpocrSo/cas Kal av & rovrta iraT^p irapf(TX el '
audaciuscula mutatione et a tenore sententiamm aliquantum devia.
Consolationis fontem indicat Hippolytus in rfj rov Aoyov eva-apK<ixrfi.
Suspice, inquit, Incarnatum jam glorificatum. Deinde teipsum aspice.
Vidisti tuam ipsius carnem, quam a te assumpsit, coelo admotam, im6
in coelo regnantem, Deitate insolubiliter consociatam 5ta iradrj/jidTwv
5e5oa0>eV?7i'. Macte, igitur, homo, bono sis animo J Passiones tuse
terrense tibi viam sternunt ad gloriam coelestem ! Si compateris Christo,
cum Christo regnabis. Tu carnem Ei dedisti. Tu carnem ab Eo accipies
glorise consortem. Vide Irenaeum, v. 32, de hoc argumento disserentem.
Sed quid cum a\\' faciendum ? Est enim a\\' bvOpiairov, ut opinor,
mendosum. Vide igitur ne pro AAA' AN0PnnON reponendum sit
TO THE HEATHEN. 119
we know to have been a Man of the same nature with P. 338
ourselves.
For if He was not of the same nature, He in vain
exhorts us to imitate our Master. For if that
Man was of another nature, why does He enjoin the
same duties on me who am weak ? And how then
can He be good and just ? But in order that He
might be known to be not different from us, He
underwent toil and consented to feel hunger, and did
not decline thirst, and rested in sleep, and did not
refuse His Passion, and became obedient to Death,
and manifested His Resurrection, having consecrated
as first fruits in all these things His own manhood, in
order that when thou sufferest thou mayest not
despond, acknowledging thyself a man of like nature
with Christ, and thou also waiting for the appearance
of what thou gavest to Him.
Such is the true doctrine concerning the Deity, O '
*AMAN0PnnON, i. e. hominem connaturalem cum Christo Deo. Quare
sic interpretatus sum. 2 Pet. i. 4. Commentarii vicem expleat Ter-
tullianus de Resurr. Carnis, c. 51. " Quum sedeat Jesus ad dextram
Patris, homo etsi Deus, Adam Novissimus etsi Sermo primarius, idem
tamen et substantia et forma qua ascendit talis etiam descensurus. . . .
Quemadmodum enim nobis arrhabonem Spiritus reliquit, ita et a nobis
arrhabonem carnis accepit, et vexit in coelum pignus totius summse
illuc quandoque redigendae." Vide et Apostoli cohortationes, Eph. ii. 6.
Phil. iii. 20, 21. Col. iii. I 4. Tit. ii. 13.
15. Hanc Sancti Antistitis irapaiveviv non ad fideles esse directam,
sed ad Christianis mysteriis nondum initiates, jam supra monuimus.
Quare ne expectet lector quae cum O/AI/^TOIS communicari non licebat.
Ne, inquam, requirat disertam et specialem Christianas veritatis arti-
culorum enarrationem. Verum enimvero recordetur, plura in animo
habere Hippolytum, quam quae palam ore proferat. Kas igitur
Praesulis venerandi sententias interpretari non aliter possit quis, quam
120 THE AUTHOR'S ADDRESS
e? re KOI /3dp/3apoij XaXSatot e teal ' Avorvpioi,,
AlyVTTTLOi 76 fCal At/3u9, 'I^Sot T6 KCii A^t07T69, Ke\TOt
re Kal ol crrpaTijyovvTes Aarivoi, Trdvres re ol TTJV
JLvpa>7rrjv 'Acr lav re KOI Aiftinrjv KaroiKovvres, 0X9
20 av/jifSovkos eyo) ^ivo/tai, (j)iXav0p(i)7rov Aoyov VTrd
/cal faXdvOpcoTTOs, OTTO)?
Trap* r)^iS>v Tt9 o OZ/TO)? Oeo? /cal 77 TOVTOV
&r]/juovp<yia, fj,r) irpoo-e^opre^ ao^io-^a^LV ev-
Xoywv, fjurj&e {JLaraiois eTrajyeXia^ K
2 5 alperifccov, aXX' akyOeias dfcofiTrov a7r\6rrjri
a7Ti\r)v, KOI raprdpov J^ofapov o//,/xa a^xw
Aoyov 0&>z^9 /^ fcaraXa/ji^flev, fcal Ppaa/jLov aevvdov
339 X/yLti/^9 yevvrjTopos (f)\oyb<i, teal Taprapov^wv dyye\ayv
KO\adT(av ofjLfj,a del pevov ev aTreikf], real o-/ca>\rjKa <r&)/LtaT09
26. Cod. e0eu|6o-0at. 27. Cod. <o$tp6v. 28. Cod. KOTO-
I. Cod. yevv-nrpos sine accentu. 2. Cod.
oculo intente fixo in arcana Christiange fidei mysteria. Quod ideo
monendum duxi, quia quam hie labi proclive sit, monstravit in his
Anglice reddendis (i. 185 192) vir eruditus de quo jam verba feci-
mus.
24. K\^i\6ytav atpertKuv, "of delusive heretics," Bunsen. Sed vide
Philos. p. 5. 3, et p. 92, 91, ubi eandem vocem (KAe^i'Aoyos) usurpat
Noster, qua hsereticos plagii reos agat, utpote placita sua a Philosophis
Ethnicis suffuratos. Cp. supra, p. 98, 1. 5.
27. raprdpov. Hanc Ethnicis familiarem vocem quasi consecraverat
Apostolus, 2 Pet. ii. 4, aeipais o'<ov raprapitxras. Praeiverant LXX
Interpretes, modo sana sit lectio, Hiob. xl. 15; xli. 24.
28. His similiahabet Hippolytus noster in libro "contra Platonem
de Universe" (vide titulum libri in statua Hippolyti) apud Fabric,
p. 22O, Lagarde p. 68. '6 o(87js TOTTOS early -^capiov inroyeiov ev <j> (pus
OVK 67rtAc/U7rei' (fxarbs TOIVVV ev TOVTU T$
K.T.\.
ib. aevvdov. Lege aevdov.
TO THE HEATHEN. 121
ye Greeks and Barbarians, Chaldaeans and Assyrians,
-Egyptians and Africans, Indians and ^Ethiopians,
Celts and ye army-leading Latins, and all ye that
dwell in Europe, Asia, and Africa, whom I exhort,
being a disciple of the man-loving Word, and a lover
of men, come ye and learn from us, who is the Very
God, and what is His well-ordered workmanship, not
giving heed to the sophistry of artificial speeches, or
the vain professions of plagiarist heretics, but to the
venerable simplicity of modest Truth, by a knowledge
of which ye will escape the coming malediction of the
Judgment of fire, and^the dark and rayless aspect of
tartarus, not irradiated by the voice of the Word, and
the surge of the generating flame of the everflo wing lake,
and the eye of tartarean avenging Angels ever fixed P. 339
in malediction, and the worm the scum of the body,
2. etel fAevov Miller. Codex
ib. Lectionem Codicis, quam dedi, Bunsenius ita refingit ffKca\r}Ka
airava'Tcas fTria'Tpe(p6/j.cvoi> eirl rb fKfipdo'ai' ffufj.a us evrl Tpo<p))v, quse sic
vertit, "the worm which winds itself without rest round the mouldering
body to feed upon it;" comparari jubens quae scripsit S. Hippolytus
noster de Universe, i. 221. 24, ed. Fabr. o-/cwA7?| cbravirry oSw?; &
a<6/j.a.Tos eK/tyatra-wj/.' Hippolytus vermem ilium are \CVTIJTOV humani
corporis peccato obnoxii et vitiis inquinati naturalem quendam foetum,
emanationem, ebullitionem, et quasi despumationem a corrupto fonte
scaturientem et gurgitantem cogitare videtur. Quare sanissirna est
lectio vulgata airovalav. 'A.irov<rla enim, (excrement) vox medicis usitata,
rem denotat ab ipsa substantia (curb TTJS ovaias) profluentem, airo^po-
V> a.TrocnrepnaTHT/ji.bi', quo sensu utitur voce airovaia S. Petr. Alex. ap.
Routh. Rel. Sac. i. 47. Hinc in vetusto Glossario apud Labbeum
'ATTOUO-I'O Detrimentum. Csetera proclivia sunt. Pro eiriffTp<poov mallem
firiTp^ov. Simili fere sensu ovaiav dixit Noster in opere "de
Universo " <acov cKftpaaffo/j-evr) ouam, p. 222, ed. Fabr. Minucius
Felix, 35, de igne gehennae disserens : " Illic sapiens ignis membra
122 THE A UTI1ORS ADDRESS
cnrovo-iav, e7n,o-rp(f)6/jivov eVl TO etcftpdo-av awjjia o>9
eTTKTTpefywv. Kat Tavra /JLCV /c<t>vt;r}, ebv TOV ovra
5 Si8a^$et9, efet? Se addvarov TO aw/JLa KOI a<f>6aprov apa
ty v Xfl 0<W&efo* ovpav&v dTToXtj^rj, 6 ev 777 /3tou? /cal
ejrovpdviov /3aai\6a liriyvovs, ear) Se o/uX^T?}? eov teal
o~ixyic\ripovbiJLo<s XpHrrov, OVK eiriOvfjiiais r) irdOea-^ /cal
vbaois Sov\ov/jLvo<;. Teyovas <yap ^eo?' oaa <yap vire-
10 yuet^a? Trddrj av0pa)7ros wv, Tavra SiSou on avOpwrros els"
e irapaKokovOel &(*>, Tavra Trape^eiv eTnjyyeXTai
ore Oeoiro^dfj^, aOdvaTOS yevvrjOek. TourecrTt TO
creavTov, eTTiyvovs TOV TreTroirjicoTa eov. Tco 7^
13. Cod. rb yap.
urit et reficit, carpit et nutrit, sicut ignes fulminum corpora tangunt, nee
absumunt pcenale illud incendium inexesa corporum laceratione
nutritur." Comparari possunt quae in re diversa scripsit S. Clemens
Romanus, i. 25. enjTro/xei/rjj crapubs <rK<i)Xi}% rts yfwarai (tanquam
airovaia.) t>s CK rrjs iKftdSos TOV TeTeAeuTrj/cJros (?ov avaTpe<p6/.ifvos
1TT(pO(f>Vf'l.
5. Vide Hippoly turn nostrum de Resurrectione et Incorruptione, ap.
Anast. Sinait. in Hodeg. p. 356. Hippol. ed. Fabr. i. p. 244, et
oratoria vi et pulchritudine insignem et lectu sane dignissimam Homi-
liam Hippolyti nostri de Baptismo in Theophania, p. 264. 6 Qebs
avayfwfiffas (^/uas) irpbs atyQapffiav ty v X*l s T Ka ^ ffdparos (lavacro
baptismi) eVc^yo-Tjcref TJJJUV irvev/uia. fays.
8. 2 Pet. i. 4.
g. Dixerant jam Apostoli, homines, Christi corpore insitos, ems
fyvffews flvai Kotvcovovs. Vide I Pet. i. 23 ; 2 Pet. i. 4; Ephes. i. 10;
I Joh. iii. 9, et similia ex Psalmo Ixxxii. 6, traducta vero Gnostico
tribuit Clemens, Strom, vi. p. 816. Swarbv rbj/ yvaxTTiKbv ^5rj yevcff-
6ai eov. "'E7<i> e?7ra 0EOI 'E2TE, Kal vlol'ftyiffTov, robs avayvovras
avrbv vlovs dvayopevei Kal &ovs," et Psed. i. 8. Strom, vii. 3;
vii. 10. Similiter Origen. in S. Joann. t. xii. 3. Similiter etiam
S. Irenaeus, iv. 75. " Non ab initio Dei facti sumus, sed primo
quidem homines tune vero DEI," et v. 2.
10. 8i8ov. Sic MS. Bunsen. eSt'Sou, vertens " He gave them to thet."
Pro AIAOT fortasse legendum AIA SOT, "per teipsum sunf." Vel,
quss lectio ad compendiosam Codicis scriptionem propius accedere
TO THE HEATHEN. 123
turning to the Body that foamed it forth, as to that P. 339
which nourisheth it.
These things you will escape, if you learn to know
the true God, and you will have your body immortal
and incorruptible, together with your soul ; you will
receive the kingdom of heaven, you who have lived
on earth, and have known the King of Heaven ; and
you will hold converse with God, and be a coheir with
Christ, not being enslaved by lust, or passion, or
disease. For you have been divinized. Whatsoever
sufferings you have endured, these are through your-
self, because you are a man ; but whatsoever belongeth
to God, this God has promised to bestow on you,
because you have been divinized, having become
immortal.
This is the precept, " Know thyself ;" to know God
Who made thee. For the knowledge of himself to
videtur, ravra AI' 'IAIOT, "these things are through your own proper
self."
12. #TC OfOTroirjQfjs. Ita Cod. Bunsenius scribit OTO.V OeoironriBfjs,
reddens ''"when thou shalt be deified," sed supra dixerat ycyovas e6s.
Legendum igitur videtur on edeo-rroi^Qrjs, et sic R. Scott.
ib. ysyovas e6s, aBdvaros yev-rjdeis. Ad haec recte intelligenda
meminerit lector Hippolytum nostrum docere ir-ny^v aOavacrias sive
fontem immortalitatis esse ndelibus et obedientibus Sanctum Baptismum.
Vide simillimum locum, qui commentarii instar erit, Hippol. Homil. in
Theophania, i. 264, ed. Fabric, et ovv aQdvaros yeyovev foOpwiros,
Kal e6s' el 5e ebs Si' vSaros nal Trvev/j.aTos ayiov /xer^ rfyv rrjs
(baptisterii) avaytvvrjfftv, evpiffKerai Kal <rvyit\r)pov6fjios
a TT]V etc vtKpwv ava.<na.ffiv. Vide S. Iren. v. 8 ; v. 12.
13. TOUT* fffrl ri> Tvudi ffeavrbv eiriyvobs rlv TreTrotTjK^ro e6v' rb yap
tiriyvuivai eavrbv, eTriyi/dxrdTJyai ffv/j.p&r)K.e r$ Ka\ovp.4v(f UTT* avrov.
Sic MS. teste Millero. Sed lectio tirtyvovs incertissima est, im6 ex
Codicis tortuosissimis elementis expiscari videbar eiriyvuvai. Deinde pro
124 THE AUTHORS ADDRESS
eavrbv, eTTi^vwaOrivai (TVfju^e^rjKe TcT fca\ov-
VTT avrov.
M^ (f)t\e'%0r)a"r]r6 roivvv eavrols, avOpwiroi,, /jLTjoe rb
7rd\i,vSpo/j,eiv Sio-rdcnjre' X/MO-TO? yap eariv 6 Kara
rb yap firiyvcavai Millerus ry y. I. Dicere videtur Noster, hominem
pervenire ad notitiam sui ipsius per notitiam Dei. Quare sana videtur
Codicis lectio, sed distinctione mutata explicanda, ri> yap ciriyvuvai
riva.!., O"u/x,j8ej8rj/c rip K. v. a.
16. fj.^} (pi\fx^ a "n re MS. quod Grsecum esse negat Bunsenius, qui
legi jubet, sed ex#os non minus legitur quam fX^P a ' e ^
non minus quam <f>i\xQp s > quare nihil muto.
ib. ftTjSe ira.KivfipoiJ.tiv Si<rrda"r]Te. Vertit Bunsenius " Doubt not that
you will exist again" Mira sane interpretatio. Quod quidem viri
clarissimi irap6pafj.a inter alia quibus Bunsenii paginse scatent, minime
commemorassem, nisi eum fundamenta fidei, ut mihi quidem videtur,
labefactantem, et doctissimorum vironim, et nominatim veneraridorum
Antistitum, Joannis Pearson Cestriensis et Georgii Bull Menevensis
bonam famam dedita opera Isedentem non sine magno dolore vidissem.
Sed hoc piis eorum animabus, hoc causae veritatis, hoc juventuti
prsesertim nostrae Academicse debebatur officium, ut quanti sit facienda
Bunsenii ipsius auctoritas, probe perspiciant, et ne ejus effatis commoti
maximorum Angliae theologorum nomina venerari dediscant. Sed de
Nostri sensu videamus. Hippolytus, ut Portus Romani, civitatis
maritimse et commercio deditse, Episcopus, locutiones a re nautica
desumptas sectari videtur ; id quod in hoc loco factum vides. Ua\iv-
Spo/j.e'tv enim dicitur de eo qui procella in mari aperto subito deprensus,
in portum, ex quo in altum imprudentius provectus est, se illico recipere
nititur. Hinc, "0 quid agis ? fortiter occupa Portum;" ipse sibi
succinit, et " nunc iterare cursus Cogor relictos" hoc est TroAii'Spo/ueiV,
sive ut se ipsum interpretatur noster, Philos. p. 81. afypovvv-qv ruv
vftdonei'tai' KaTT)yop-f)ffai/Testrei<ro[J.ev ira\t v dpofj.e'tv eirl rbv TTJS a\r)6eias
etiSiov \ifi 4va, Vide p. 224, 29. e'xpV TOUS aKpoaras irapairXe'iv firifr-
Tovi>ras rbv eitiiov \ifj.fva, ubi pro nPAEEHN er)p>i> lege ITAPAEENflN
8-npw, monstrosarum ferarum. Cf. p. 81, et de ira\ivSpofj.f?v Origen.
c. Cels. ii. 12, Theodoret., iv. 1222. ira\ivSpo/j.ri<rai irpbs fjavx'iav.
17. Hoc quoque S. Hippolyti testimonium de Christo Deo corrupit
Bunsenius, legendum edicens, Xpto-rbs yap ZffTlv if 6 Kara irdvTiai/ ebs
rV apaprlav e| av6p(>ir(av airoTr\wfii> irpofftra^, neque enim dixisse
potuisse Hippolytum, ait Bunsenius, "Christus jussit homines abluere
TO THE HEATHEN. 125
have been known by God, is the lot of him who is P. 339
called by Him.
Do not therefore cherish enmity with one another,
ye men, nor hesitate to retrace your course.
For CHRIST is the GOD Who is over all, Who com-
peccata." Quare hanc esse sententiam Hippolyti statuit Bunsenius :
" Christ is he whom the God of all has ordered to wash away the sins
of mankind, renewing the old man." Nollem factum. Primum
enim quidni dixerit Hippolytus Xpiarbv elvai /ccrrci iravrtav ebv, quiim
in plurimis aliis locis Christum Deum praedicaverit, et cum id ipsum
prsedicantem Sanctum Paulum legerat (Rom. ix. 25) ? Legerat item
Hippolytus quae de hac re scripserat Irenseus, iii. 17. "In principio
Verbum existens apud Deum, per Quern omnia facta sunt, Qui et semper
aderat generi humano et Hunc in novissimis temporibus passibilem ;" sic
iii. 18. " Ipse Deus et Dominus et Unigenitus Rex ^Eternus et Verbum
incarnatum, pnedicatur a prophetis omnibus et Apostolis." Quin et
ipse dixerat Hippolytus apud Theodoret. Dialog, ii. p. 88. C. rb irotrxa
T]v.uv virep r)/j.cav eriJflT; Xpurrbs 6 e6s. Deinde quidni affirmaverit
Hippolytus Christum jussisse homines abluere peccata, quiim Christus
Baptismum instituerit, ut esset \ovrpbv iraXiyyfveatas (Ep. Tit. iii. 5)
et quum Idem Apostolos ad baptizandas omnes nationes legates Suos
per orbem terrarum miserit, et omnes baptizari jusserit ? quapropter
his ipsis verbis, quae sine dubio respexit Hippolytus, usi sunt primores
Evangelii Prsedicatores, quiim ad baptismum recipiendum Christi
nomine invitarent, (Acta Apost. xxii. 16,) avao-ras fiaimffai Kal
airoXovo'ai ras a/jLaprias <rou, eVt/caAeo'^juei'OS rb ovo^a. Kvpiov. Quare
ipse Hippolytus alio loco sic scripsit, de Antichristo, 3. efs 6 &eov
TTOIS Si' ov Kal rjfj.e'is TfX^VTes r))V 8ib TOV ayiov irvfv/j,a.Tos a.vayevvria'iv.
Sic etiam Hippolytus noster contra Noetum, 6, ubi notandum citare
eum, ad Christi Deitatem adstruendam Apostoli verba Rom. ix. 5.
Xpiarbs 6 &>v eVl trdvruv ebs ev\oynrbs ty robs ai(ava.s. Quod
autem a Bunsenio (i. p. 340) video allegatum, Hippolytum in airo-
a"jraa/j.a.Ticf quodam a Cardinali Mai (Collect. Vat. i. P. ii. p. 205)
nuper edito, Patrem vocare Christi 8e<rir6Tr)v id ab hac re est sane alie-
num, ut quod maxime. Ibi enim Hippolytus enarrans vaticinium
Danielis, vii. 13, loquitur de Christo Filio Hominis, ut ibidem dudum
monuit ipse Cardinalis Angelus Mai, minime autem de Verbo Patris
SiJ.oovffici>. Quare hue ilia Hippolyti verba non erant violenter trahenda.
De Hippolyti doctrina in hoc fidei articulo satis jamdudum dixerat vir
126 THE AUTHOR'S ADDRESS
TTCLVTUV 0605, 05 rrjv dpapriav e dv0pa>7rwv a7roir\vveiv
Trpocreralfe, vkov TOV 7ra\aiov avOpwirov aTroreXo)^ el/idva
20 TOVTOV /ca\eaa<; air ap%^5 Sta TVTTOV rrjv e/5 ere eVt-
GropyrjV, ov Trpoardyfjiaaiv
21. Cod. ou irpoffTdy/j.ao'iv.
eruditissimus Daniel Waterknd, Vol. iii. pp. 41. 105, ed. Van Mildert,
(A Second Defence of some Queries, Qu. ii.,) cujus verba candido
lectori attentius consideranda liceat commendare. Sarta igitur et tecta
manet Codicis Parisini lectio, Bunsenii rationibus inconcussa ; et
nobilissimum affert catholicse veritatis contra hsereticos neotericos, sive
Socini asseclse sint, sive Baptism! efficaciam in dubium vocantes,
testimonium.
Rem fortasse non injucundam lectori fecero, si alium Hippoly'.i
locum hue apprime facientem, mantissse loco, subjecero. Quod quidem
facio lubentius, quia emendatricem manum adhuc expectare videtur.
Fervidioris animi ingenio frsena dans, et Asiatico more exultans,
Ecclesiam Navi comparat Hippolytus, mundi, tanquam Oceani, fluctus
sulcanti. Ipsum audiamus ; (De Antichristo, 59,) 6d\aff(rd ecrnv 6
K6o-u.os, eV ^ y 'EKKAH21A, us Naus 4y UeXd-yei
OVK dir6\\vrai' %x l (**" J&P M^' eawTTjs rbv
XPI2TON (nihil adhuc de Petro Ecclesiae clavum tenente), <ppei Se eV
/teVw Kal rb TpoTrcuov KO.TO. TOV Qa.v6.rov, H2 TON aravpov TOU Kvpiov
&ao-Tdovo-a. Ubi pro H2 TON legendum conjecerim'I2TON, /. e.ferens
Crucem Domini quasi navis MALUM ; 'Bart 70^ OUTTJS irp&pa. HGV 77
^, Trpv/Ava 5e ^ Svffis, rb 8e KolXov (ita recte Gudius pro KVK\OV)
Mallem 'H nea-ri/^^pia. Otaxes 8e at Svo AiaQrJKai.' ffxoivia 5e
aydirr) TOV XpiffTov ff<plyyovo-a TT\V 'E/c/fA.Tja'mj'. f\Xoiov
8e & 4>epet /J.eO' IOUTTJS rb Aovrpbi/ TTJS IT aXiyyevecri as avaveovo'Tjs
TOVS Tno-TevovTas, (cp. <TKa.<$>T]v Act. Apost. xxvii. 16, 30, 32,) /. e. scapha
verb, quam portat secum, inest lavacrum regenerationis, o6fv Si) raura
Aa^Trpa' TrapecrrtJ', cbs 7r/'6?/uo, rb air' ovpaviav. (sc. "A-yiov Hvevfj.a) St' oS
<r<ppaylovTai ol iricrTsvovTss Tip ey. Ubi reponendum videtur oflev S^j
raura TA Aa/jiirpa, unde hcec gloriosa effunduntur munera ; adest y sicuti
ventus, SPIRITUS ille ccelestis' irapeirovTai SCCIUTT? /cal ^ywupai o~i$i}pa'i,
avTal TOV XpitTTov ayiai evTo\al SvvaTal <as ffiSrjpos' e^et Se /cal J/OWTOS
Serous Kal fvuvv/jiovs us ayiovs ayye\ovs irapfSpovs. Legerem potius,
vocula transposita, exet Se vavTas, 5fiovs /cat GVUVV/JLOVS, TOVS ayiovs
a.yye\ovs irapedpovs, St' Siv ael /cpareTrat /cal (ppovpt'iTai i) 5 E/c/cA7j(rfo.
eV aurp etj u^os av^owo-a eVl TO Ke'pas et^iv (rr}/j.fiov irddovs
TO THE HEATHEN'. 127
manded us to wash away sin from man, regenerating P. 339
the old man, having called man His image from the
beginning, and thus showing by a figure His love to
thee ; and if thou hearkenest to His holy Command-
Xpiffrov, f\Kov<ra TOUS TTKTTOVS fls dvdfiaffiv ovpavcav' YH<fAPOI 5e eirl
rb Kfpas (f>' wJ/7jA.oD AI'NOTMENOI rdl-is irpo<pT]T(t>v p.aprvp(av re /cal
a.TTO(TT6\(av, fls fiaffiXfiav Xpicrrov avairavo/^fvuv. De his vero quid
statuendum ? Equidem locum vexatissimum sic emendandum puto :
H<frAPA Se eirl rb /ce'pas e>' v^rj\ov Al'nPOTMENA rdis Trpo^Twv.
Sed quid, inquies, sunt i|/Tj0apa ? Hippolytus ut apud Latinos loquens
Xareivl^ei, et a Latinis auctoribus explicandus. Veniat igitur Tertullianus,
veniat Minucius : uterque ad eandem rem collineans. Hie aitOctav.p. 287.
'* Signa ipsa et vexilla castrorum, et vexilla quid aliud quam inauratse
Cruces sunt et ornatse ? Signum sane Crucis naturaliter visimus in navi
cum velis tumentibus vehitur, cum expansis palmulis labitur, et cum
erigitur jugum, Crucis signum est." Sed propius ad rem Tertullianus,
Apologet. cap. xvi. "In signis monilia crucum sunt; SIPHARA ilia
vexillorum et cantabrorum stolce Crucum sunt." Vides nostri i^rjcpapd.
Similiter ad Nationes, 12. "In cantabris atque vexillis SIPHARA ilia
vestes crucum sunt." Memineris SIPHARA fuisse coloribus vivis picta,
et formis heroum insignita, ut erat nobilissimus ille peplus Panathenai-
cus. Ecclesiae cogita SIPHARA sublime suspensa, inaerem supra navem
Ecclesise elata, Martyribus et Apostolis, quasi ibi intertextis, insigniter
decorata in regno Christi acquiescentibus. Kepos de mail apice hie
dici persuadent quae supra scripserat /cAi^o| eVl rb /ce'pas dvdyovo-a.
In hac tarn curiose elaborata Ecclesise descriptione nullam facit
S. Hippolytus Pontificis Romani mentionem, qui nunc omnia in
Ecclesia moderari vult.
Locum integrum S. Hippolyti, pro virili parte, a me recensitum sic
Anglice reprsesentandum reor. The World is a Sea, in which the
Church^ as a Ship on the deep, is tossed by storms, but is not wrecked. For
she bears with herself that skilful helmsman CHRIST, and in her midst
she has the trophy of his victory over Death, bearing the Cross of her Lord
as her mast. The East is her prow, the West her stern, and her hold
the South. Her rudders are the Two Testaments. Her ropes, which are
extended about her, are the Love of Christ, which binds the Church together.
The boat which she bears with her is the font of regeneration whence are
these glorious benefits : there is present with her as a breeze, the Spirit from
heaven, by whom they who believe are sealed ; and she has on board anchors
128 THE AUTHOR'S ADDRESS
cre//,z/ot?, Kal ayaBov ayados yevofjievos f44ft/rjrfo, ear]
VTT avTov rifjirjOek. Sou yap Trror^euet Oeo? ical <re Oeov
? S6av avrov.
of iron, the holy commandments of Christ, which are strong as iron ; and
she has sailors (rowers'], on the right hand and on the left, the holy Angels,
by whom the Church is always strengthened and guarded. Her ladder
which leads up to her sail-yard is the likeness of the sign of the Passion of
Christ, which draws the faithful upward to mount to heaven ; and the
streamers which are hung aloft to the sail-yard are the '/uire of Prophets
and Martyrs and Apostles, who are at rest in the Kingdom of God.
Ex hac Hippolytei ingenii scaturigine hortulos suos irrigasse videtur
Auctor njon indisertus Operis Imperfect! in Matthseum, Horn, xxiii.
(ap. S. Chrysost. torn. vi. p. cv. ed. Montfaucon.) " Quamvis infes-
tatione Inimici Ecclesia vel saeculi tempestatibus laborat, quibusvis
TO THE HEATHEN. 129
ment, and becomest an imitator in goodness of Him P. 339.
Who is good, thou wilt be like Him, being honoured
by Him. For God has a need and craving for thee,
having divinized even thee for His Glory.
tentationum fluctibus pulsetur, naufragium facere non potest, quia
FILIUM DEI habet GUBERNATOREM. Navigat enim fidei Gubernaculo,
felici cursu per hujus saeculi mare, habens DEUM GUBERNATOREM,
ANGELOS REMIGES, portans Chores omnium Sanctorum, erecta in
medio ipsa salutari arbore (i. e. iVrep, Italice albero] CRUCIS, in quS
evangelicae fidei vela suspendens, flante SPIRITU SANCTO vehitur ad
portum Paradisi et securitatem quietis seternse;" ad quam nos perducere
dignetur Pater misericordiarum per Salvatorem Nostrum Unicum,
Dominum Nostrum, Jesum Christum. Amen.
CHAPTER VII.
The A uthors Narrative concerning the Church of
Rome. Objections considered.
ON reference to the foregoing narrative, the reader will
see that the Author begins with describing a particu-
lar heresy, the NOETIAN. This consisted mainly in a
denial of the distinct Personality of God the Father and
God the Son, and in an assertion, that the words Father
and Son were merely different appellations assigned
to the same Divine Being accordingly as He existed
in different relations, or manifested Himself in different
modes. 1 Hence, its promoters were called Patripas-
sians ; in other words, they were charged with affirm-
ing that it was the Father Who suffered in fact,
although He whose Passion is described in Holy
Scripture is called the Son. Hence, also, they were
regarded as originators of the heresy which afterwards
became more notorious under the name of Sabel-
lianism, from its principal promoter SABELLIUS, who
followed in the track of Noetus. 2
1 See Philosoph. pp. 284, 285.
3 Sabelliani (says S. Aug. de Hseres. XLI.) a Noeto defluxisse
NARRATIVE CONCERNING THE CHURCH OF ROME. 131
Our Author traces the course of Noetianism from
Smyrna to Rome. It is said by him to have made
its appearance at Rome when Zephyrinus was Bishop
of the Church there. It was not altogether a new
dogma at Rome, for, according to Tertullian, a heresy
had been there propagated by Praxeas, who afterwards
passed over into Africa, which resembled that of
Noetus. Perhaps it was received at Rome with less
suspicion, 3 because Praxeas had made himself con-
spicuous by the part he took against the Montanist
heresy, which was obnoxious to the Roman Church,
and which was combated by the Roman presbyter
Caius, in the time of Zephyrinus. 4
However this may be, our Author relates, 5 that
the Noetian heresy obtained great success at Rome.
Its principal teacher, Cleomenes, organized a congre-
gation there, and attracted numerous disciples. At
dicuntur, nam et discipulum ejus quidam perhibent fuisse Sa-
bellium.
S. Augustine says that in his days the name of Noetians was almost
obsolete (de Hseres. XLL). Noetiani difficile ab aliqtio sciuntur,
Sabelliani autem sunt in ore multorum. Nam et Praxeanos eos a
Praxea quidam vocant, et Hermogeniani vocari ab Hermogene
potuerimt : qui Praxeas et Hermogenes eadem sentientes in Africa
fuisse dicuntur. Nee tamen istse plures sectse sunt, sed ejusdem sectae
plura nomina . . . ; and of the Sabellians he says, Patripassiani quam
Sabelliani pluries nuncupantur.
3 Tertullian, adv. Praxeam I., Praxeas Episcopum Romamim
agnoscentem jam prophetias Montani . . . coegit literas pacis revocare.
Ita duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Romae procuravit : prophetiam expulit
et hseresim intulit. Paracletum fugavit et Patrem crucifixit.
Praxeas and Noetus are mentioned as distinct persons by Philastrius
de Haeresibus LIIL, LIV.
4 See above, chap. iii. 5 See the narrative above, chap. vi.
K 2
132 NARRATIVE CONCERNING
length, partly by persuasion, partly by corruption, he
won over the Bishop of Rome, Zephyrinus, whom
our Author represents as covetous and illiterate ; and
so he obtained Episcopal sanction for the heresy of
Noetus.
The principal agent in this unhappy work of apo-
stasy, according to our Author's relation, was Cal-
listus. He represents Callistus as an ambitious per-
son, aspiring to the Episcopal chair at Rome. He
exhibits him as the confidential counsellor of Zephy-
rinus, and as exercising a dominant influence over
his mind. In a word, he intimates that Zephyrinus
was Bishop only in name, while, in fact, Callistus
administered the affairs of the Roman Church.
Our Author next introduces an episode concerning
the early career of Callistus ; which the reader may
see, in the Author's words, in our foregoing chapter. 8
During the Episcopate of Zephyrinus, according to
our Author's narrative, there were two parties in the
Roman Church ; one the orthodox, the other con-
sisting of those who inclined to the opinions of Sabel-
lius, who, it seems, was then at Rome. Our Author
describes his own intercourse with Sabellius, and he
had (as he informs us) almost prevailed on him to
renounce his errors, and to embrace the truth. But
Callistus stood in the way. He, to increase his own
influence, and to promote his own designs, communi-
cated with both parties, and endeavoured to ingratiate
himself with both. With the orthodox he professed
fi Chapter vi. pp. 74 97.
THE CHURCH OF ROME. 133
orthodoxy, and with the Sabellians he was a Sabellian.
Callistus inveighed with great virulence against our
Author, 7 who (it appears) stood almost alone on the
opposite side, and publicly denounced him with slan-
derous appellations, calling him a Ditheist, or believer
in two Gods. So great, however, was the address of
Callistus, and so successful were his manoeuvres in
dealing with both parties, and in gaining them over to
his own interests, that on the death of Zephyrinus,
when the See became vacant, Callistus (to use our
Author's words) " presumed that he had attained the
object of his ambition," which, we learn from another
passage, was no less than the Episcopal chair at
Rome. 8
Upon this, " Callistus threw off Sabellius as hetero-
dox, through fear of me (says our Author), and be-
cause he supposed that he would thus be able to wipe
off the stain of obloquy to which he was exposed in
the eye of the churches, 9 as not being of a sound
faith."
Being, however, pressed by Sabellius on the one
side, and by our Author on the other, and being
* See p. 285, ed. Miller. Above, p. 75. The pages of Miller's edition
are given in the margin of chapter vi.
8 P. 288, 96, ed. Miller, /*erct vfyv TOV Z,f<pvpivov reAeuTTji/, vo^i^uv
TeTvx i ? K6I/a ' v fdr/paro, compared with p. 284, 77- Tairrrjj/ T^V alpeviv
(KpaTvve KaAAta"Tos Qr\p(a^vos rbv TTJS emffKoirris Qp6vov.
9 Perhaps, as was usual with Bishops in ancient times, Callistus
had sent missives to other Churches to notify to them his election ; and
some inquiries or remonstrances may have been addressed by them, and
some requisitions may have been made that he should clear himself from
the charge of heresy.
134 NARRATIVE CONCERNING
ashamed to retract his opinion, and to profess the true
faith, Callistus made a compromise, and devised a new
Heresy, denying the divinity of the Son as a distinct
Person from the Father, and yet not professing that
the Father had suffered in the Son.
Our Author proceeds to say, that in .the time of
Callistus, 1 corrupt doctrine in the Church was accom-
panied with laxity of discipline ; and he affirms that
the popularity of Callistus was due, in a great measure,
to the indulgence he gave to the vicious passions of
those who were under his charge. And yet, says our
Author, they whose life and belief are such, "presumz
to call themselves a Catholic Church." 2 Our writer,
however, treats them as Heretics. He calls their con-
gregation a school, and says that it survived at the
time he was writing, which was after the death of
Callistus, and that they were named Callistians?
Such is our Author's account of the CALLISTIAN
HERESY.
In the perusal of this narrative, two questions arise.
We know that from about A.D. 192 to A.D. 223, 4 the
1 Above, p. 91. 2 Above, p. 95. s Above, p. 97.
4 Jaffe (Regesta Pontificum, Berlin, 1851,) arranges their Episcopates
thus, pp. 4, 5 :
VICTOR, A.D. 190 or 192? 202.
(Euseb. v. 22, 23.)
ZEPHYRINUS, A.D. 202 218.
(Euseb. v. 28; vi. 21.)
CALLISTUS, A.D. 218223.
(Euseb. vi. 21.)
See also Concilia, i. pp. 591615, Labbe, ed. Paris, 1671.
THE CHURCH OF ROME. 135
See of Rome was occupied in succession by Victor,
ephyrinus, and Callistus ;
I. Does then the Author intend to convey to his
readers the impression, that the CALLISTUS whose
Heresy he is describing, was Callistus the BISHOP of
ROME who succeeded Zephyrinus ?
II. If so, is this narrative worthy of credit ? could
it have been written by Hippolytus, who was a scholar
of Irenseus, a Bishop and Martyr, and who is vene-
rated as a saint by the Roman Church, and has ever
been regarded by the Universal Church as one of the
greatest theologians and Christian teachers in the
third century ?
I . As to the former of these two inquiries, it will
be observed that the Author nowhere ascribes to Cal-
listus, whom he charges with Heresy the style and
title of Bishop of Rome. He appears, in some re-
spects, to regard him rather as a professorial teacher,
than as an Ecclesiastical Primate. He calls his dis-
ciples "a school" a name often applied to heretical
teachers, 5 but never gives them the name of "a
church." This is the more remarkable, because when
speaking of Victor, who was Bishop of Rome, from
A.D. 192 to A.D. 202, and who was succeeded by
Zephyrinus, he uses no such reserve. He openly and
* See Euseb. iv. 7 ; iv. 1 1, MapKiwv Tj^rjcre rb 8i$affKa\e'iov ; iv. 29 ;
v. 13, &t\& passim.
136 NARRATIVE CONCERNING
explicitly calls him " the blessed Victor, Bishop of the
Church'.' 6 And when in the course of his narrative
he comes to the death of Zephyrinus, and we expect
to hear it recorded, perhaps with an exclamation of
sorrow and indignation, that Zephyrinus was suc-
ceeded by Callistus the Heretic, we seem to be put off
with a vague and equivocal phrase ; " After the death
of Zephyrinus," we read, 7 "he (Callistus) presumed
that he had gained the object of his ambition " which
we learn from another part of the narrative to have
been the Bishopric of Rome.
There is something almost mysterious in this seem-
ing ambiguity of language, which at first excites
suspicion. If Callistus Callistus the Heretic was
really Bishop of Rome, why does not our Author
say so ? Why does he seem to decline the assertion ?
Is it because it was not true ? Did he mean to con-
vey the idea that Callistus attained the place to which
he had aspired ? If so, why this hesitation- ? Why
does he not say plainly, Victor was succeeded by
Zephyrinus, and Zephyrinus was succeeded by Callis-
tus, in the Roman See ?
2. In considering these inquiries, let us remember
that our Author's narrative was written after the
death of Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome. He mentions
that event. 8 Our Author, living at Rome, must have
known that a Callistus had succeeded Zephyrinus in
the Roman See. And, if Callistus the Heretic was
6 Above, p. 85. i ove, p. 85. * Above, p. 85.
THE CHURCH OF ROME. 137
not Callistus the Bishop, he would have taken good
care that no one should confound the two. But he
has not done this. On the contrary, he produces the
impression on his reader's mind, that they are one
and the same person. He speaks of the succession of
Zephyrinus and Callistus ; 9 he mentions that on the
death of Zephyrinus, Callistus thought he had attained
the object of his wishes. He thus intimates that,
however Callistus might be regarded by others, he
presumed himself to be Bishop of Rome.
3. Again, he uses the expression " such events
took place under l him," that is, in the time of his rule,
meaning the rule of Callistus ; and the events which
he is describing are Episcopal Consecrations and
Ordinations of Priests and Deacons ; by which he
seems to indicate that Callistus exercised Episcopal
and Metropolitan jurisdiction. And, he affirms that
the adherents of Callistus were the majority of Rome,
and he says that they called themselves " a Catholic
Church." '
4. Besides, if Callistus the Heretic was not Callis-
tus the Bishop, then, living at Rome as he did after
Zephyrinus, he lived under Callistus the Bishop ; for
Callistus succeeded Zephyrinus, A.D. 21 8 ; and Callis-
tus the Heretic propagated his Heresy under him.
And no mention whatever occurs of any opposition
being made to Callistus the Heretic by Callistus
Bishop of Rome. On the other hand, the followers
9 Above, pp. 65, 85. * Above, pp. 8995.
138 NARRATIVE CONCERNING
of Callistus are represented as forming a majority at
Rome.
5. On the whole then we may conclude that,
according to our Author, Callistus the Heretic was
Callistus Bishop of Rome. And this opinion is now
generally accepted by all, whether Roman Catholics
(such as the learned Dr. von Dollinger) or others.
But why then does our Author use such an am-
biguous expression as this, " Callistus deemed that he
had attained the object of his ambition " ? Why does
he not say that he did actually attain it ?
6. To this question we may answer, No one doubts,
we suppose, that Zephyrinus the Zephyrinus men-
tioned by our Author was Bishop of Rome. No
one questions that he succeeded Victor, and sat in the
See of Rome for about seventeen years. No one
doubts that our Author intends us to understand that
the Zephyrinus of whom he is speaking, was Zephy-
rinus, Bishop of Rome, and no other.
Now, what we may here observe is, that our Author
uses almost the same term when he is speaking of
Zephyrinus, as that which he uses when he is speak-
ing of Callistus. " Zephyrinus," he says, "presumed
that he governed the Church (of Rome) at that time." 2
And " Callistus (he says) presumed that he had
attained the object of his wishes," which he had
before told us was " the Episcopal Chair."
Each of these two expressions illustrates the other.
Zephyrinus presumed to be Bishop, and he was Bishop
P. 279-
THE CHURCH OF ROME. 139
of Rome. Callistus presumed to have attained the
Bishopric, and he also was Bishop of Rome.
7. But why did our Author say that they presumed
themselves to be Bishops ? why did he use such ex-
pressions as these ?
The reason, probably, was this : He wished to con-
trast the orthodox Victor with his unworthy succes-
sors. He therefore calls him "Victor of blessed
memory, Bishop of the Church'.' But, according to
our Author, Zephyrinus and Callistus were heretics.
They presumed themselves to be Bishops. But
our Author, when speaking of their false teaching,
would not call them Bishops. He would not give the
title of Bishop to patrons of heresy, who denied the
Divine Personality of Christ.
8. Such would be our reply to the first question
proposed. Let us offer some further remarks in sup-
port of this explanation.
The question of the validity of episcopal and
priestly ministrations, when performed by Bishops
and Priests in heresy, was a subject which tried the
patience, and exercised the charity, of the Christian
Church in the next age to that of Hippolytus, par-
ticularly in the controverted question of heretical
baptism, under St, Stephen of Rome on the one side, .
and St. Cyprian of Carthage on the other, who, with
many bishops of Africa and Asia, denied the validity
of baptism administered by heretics. It was after-
wards illustrated by the learning of St. Jerome in his
disputation with the Luciferians, and was elucidated
140 NARRATIVE CONCERNING
by the wisdom and chanty of St. Augustine, in his
dealings with the Donatists, and has been admirably
handled by our own Richard Hooker, in his argu-
ment against Puritan allegations, in the third book of
his Ecclesiastical Polity. Let me also refer to the
statements on this subject in our Twenty-sixth Article,
and to the Expositors of it.
This grave question has been debated in later times
in our own Church, in her intercourse with opposite
parties on both sides ; and it is a topic which requires
to be handled with prudence, calmness, and discretion,
as has been made abundantly manifest by the evil
results which have arisen, on the one side, from lati-
tudinarian laxity which connives at false doctrine in
those who hold office in the Church ; and on the other,
from unrelenting rigour rejecting the ministrations
of some who bear rule in the Church, and denying
the validity of the office, when the doctrine of those
who hold it is not altogether exempt from serious
admixtures of error. I do not now enter into the
question whether the opinions broached by our
Author in this portion of his work had not a tendency
toward Novatianism and Donatism. Let me reserve
this question for consideration hereafter.
Our present purpose is to note facts.
9. We were at first somewhat staggered by the
manner in which our Author speaks of Callistus. A
reason has been suggested for that language. Callis-
tus, and we may add Zephyrinus, are not fully recog-
nized by our Author in this narrative as legitimate
THE CHURCH OF ROME. 141
Bishops of the Church because they were abettors of
Heresy.
10. Let us now observe, that this language of
reserve in speaking of Bishops in heresy, was charac-
teristic of a celebrated school, to which our Author
belonged. Dr. von Dollinger, in his work on Hip-
polytus and Callistus (p. 326), has made some stric-
tures on this statement ; but I see no reason to retract
it. St. John himself, in the Apocalypse (a portion of
Scripture which appears to have been studied by this
school with special attention), had said in his address
to his own Church of Ephesus, " I know thy works,
and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst
not bear them which are evil : and thou hast tried
them which say that they are Apostles, and are not, and
hast found them liars'' 3
The teachers of this school inculcated the duty of
holding communion and fellowship with those who
possess, what they termed the charisma, grace or
gift, of Apostolical succession? and they also laid great
stress on succession of sound doctrine. This is clearlyex-
pressed in the following sentences, from the pen of one
among the most eminent theologians of that school ;
'' Genuine gnosis," or knowledge says St. Irenaeus,
Bishop of Lyons (whose scholar St. Hippolytus was), 5
3 Rev. ii. 2.
4 S. Iren. iv. 45, ed. Grabe. Ubi charismata Domini posita sunt, ibi
oportet discere Veritatem apud quos est ea quse est ab Apostolis Ecclesia
successio, et id quod est sanum et irreprobabile conversationis, et
inadulteratum et incorruptibile sermonis, constat.
* S, Iren. iv. 63, ed. Grabe.
142 NARRATIVE CONCERNING
as opposed to the false philosophy of the Gnostics
who professed to be the only wise, " is the doctrine of
the Apostles, according to the ancient constitution of
the Church in the whole world, and the badge of the
body of Christ, according to the succession of Bishops,
to whose care they (the Apostles) delivered the Church
in every place : in which 6 (Church) has been trans-
mitted to us, guarded without adulteration, the plenary
use of Scripture, admitting neither addition nor cur-
* tailment, and the reading of Scripture without corrup-
tion, and legitimate and diligent Preaching, according
to the Word of God."
Again, he says, " We must seek the truth where there
is the succession from the Apostles and good conversa-
tion and unadulterated truth? 7 " We must obey those
presbyters in the Church, who have the succession from
the Apostles, and, together with the Episcopal succes-
sion , have received the genuine charisma of Truth ;
and we must shun all others ; " 8 and he compares here-
tical Bishops and Priests to Nadab and Abihu, the sons
of Aaron, who offered strange fire (Levit. x. I, 2),
whereas schismatics are like Korah and Dathan, who
were not priests, but usurped priestly functions (Num.
xvi.). And again, " Every word will be established
to him who has diligently read the Scriptures among
those presbyters who are in the Church, and with
whom is Apostolical doctrine" ^
6 The reading of the old Latin Version is qua : for which we ought
perhaps to read qu&, in which.
^ S. Iren. iv. 45, ed. Grabe. 8 Ibid. c. 43. 9 Ibid. c. 52.
THE CHURCH OF ROME. 143
Such is the teaching of St. Irenaeus, the scholar of
St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John.
A scholar of St. Irenaeus speaks thus as to the
grace of ministerial succession from the Holy
Apostles, together with sound doctrine : " No one "
(he says) " can rightly refute the dogmas of Heretics,
save only the HOLY SPIRIT, given in the Church ;
which Spirit the Apostles first received, and communi-
cated to those who believe aright, whose successors we
are, partakers of the same grace, principal sacerdocy,
and doctrine, and watchmen of the Church." *
Again, he thus speaks in another place :
" Let not a Bishop domineer over the Deacons or
Presbyters, or the Presbyters domineer over the
People. For the constitution of the Church is formed
of them all. Not every one who prophesies is pious,
nor every one who casts out devils is holy. Even
Balaam prophesied, who was a godless man ; and
Caiaphas, -falsely named a high priest. The Devil
himself and his angels reveal many .things that are
future. A Bishop who is burdened with ignorance or
malice* is no longer a Bishop, but is falsely so called"
Such is the teaching of a writer of this school :
that writer is ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 8
1 St. Hippolytus, Philosophumena, p. 3, 60.
2 kyvoia ^ naKovoia. TreTrteo-^eVos. St. Hippolytus seems to refer to
his own personal experience in these two terms, &yvota and Ka.K6voia,
ignorance and malice ; the first was the case of Zephyrinus ; the second,
of Callistus.
3 In TTfpl xapLffna-Tav, a work embodied in the VHIth Book of Apos-
tolic Constitutions (Patr. Apostol., ed. Cotelerii, i. p. 391), whence it is
144 NARRATIVE CONCERNING
12. Another objection to our narrative is made by
an able writer. " Among the bad practices which
this work (p. 95) attributes to Callistus, is that of
repeating baptism. Now, how could this circumstance
fail to be mentioned when rebaptism became the sub-
ject of dispute with St. Cyprian, who was made
Bishop only twenty-five years after the death of Cal-
listus ? St. Cyprian is supposed to have been nearly
coeval with the century ; though not a Christian,
therefore, he must have been of mature age in the
time of Callistus. How came this circumstance to
escape notice, when St. Stephen adduced the unvary-
ing tradition of the Church of Rome as an argument
against rebaptism ? When St. Cyprian brings Scrip-
tural arguments against the propriety of the usage
(Ep. Ixxiv. 9, ad Pompeium), and Firmilian objects
to the consuetude Romanorum (Ep. Ixxv. 19), how in-
credible is it, that they should fail to notice such a
capital objection, as that the practice of Rome itself
had not been invariable ? Yet how could the events
of their own time have been unknown to men like St.
Cyprian, who was evidently in continual intercourse
transcribed in Hippolyti Opera, i. , ed. Fabricii, p. 247, and it is included
in the recent edition of St. Hippolytus by Lagarde, pp. 7389. See
also Praefat. ibid. p. vii, and Le Moyne's Varia Sacra, p. 1074, and
Fabr. Hipp. i. 260. Pearson, Vind. Ignat. P. i. c. 4. Dorner, Person
of Christ, i. ii. p. 452. It is ascribed to Hippolytus in a Vienna and
an Oxford MS. The title of such a work upon the Statue of St. Hippo-
lytus, as written by him (see the frontispiece to the present volume), is
irepl xa.p\.v\i.a.'T<ava.Tro<Tro\iK.)}Tia.p6off\.<i. The mention of its being derived
from "Apostolic Tradition" may have commended it to the special
regard of the compilers of "the Apostolic Constitutions."
THE CHURCH OF ROME. 145
with the capital, and, like Firmilian, whose activity
twice led him to visit Antioch, in order to investigate
the truth of the reports circulated against its Bishop
(Eus. viii. 30) ? We have said enough to show the grave
doubts which attach to the narrative before us."
This objection is also pressed by another learned
critic. 4 " It is hardly likely that if the fall of Callistus
were known in the days of the rebaptizing controversy,
it would have escaped the vigilance of Cyprian, or
still more, of Firmilian."
These objections have been well answered by Dr.
von Dollinger ; who pertinently observes (p. 189)
that the Author of our Treatise does not say that re-
baptization was practised at Rome, but that in the
time of Callistus it first began to be practised by
some persons in communion with him ; which was
true. He implies that he did not protest against it ;
as he ought to have done, and as was done by his
successor Stephen in his controversy with St. Cyprian.
13. Thus, then, we perceive that those expressions
in this narrative, which at first caused us embarrass-
ment, are explained by reference to the teaching of
the school in which St. Hippolytus was trained, and to
the language used by himself in another place ; and
thus our difficulties have befriended us, and do in fact
confirm the proofs already stated, that the newly-
discovered " Refutation of all Heresies " is from the
pen of St. Hippolytus.
4 Dublin Review, No. Ixvi. p. 404.
CHAPTER VIII.
The A uthors Narrative concerning the Church of
Rome. Other Objections considered.
LET us now resume the inquiry ;
Whether we are justified in affirming that the nar-
rative contained in the Ninth Book of the Treatise
before us, came from the pen of Hippolytus ?
I. In reading that portion of the Treatise, we ob-
serve indications of personal animosity : it is charac-
terized by a spirit of sternness, almost of asperity.
And it was written and published after the death of
Callistus. 1
Supposing the above narrative to be true, are
we authorized to believe that Hippolytus, the scholar
of St. Irenseus, and a Bishop and Doctor of the Church,
who is called, by an ancient writer, 2 " a person of very
sweet and amiable disposition," and laid down his
life as a Martyr for Christ, would have expressed
himself in the language of this Treatise, concerning
1 See above, pp. 96, 97, and p. 330, ed. Miller.
2 S. Chrysostom (?) de Pseudoprophetis, torn. viii. p. 79, ed.
Montfaucon. 'lirir6\vTos yAvKVTaros Kal
NARRATIVE CONCERNING THE CHURCH OF ROME. 147
Zephyrinus and Callistus, who had been Bishops of the
Church, and had now been called away by death, from
a world of strife, to render up their accounts to God ?
In our Author's narrative there are some symptoms
of self-sufficiency, which may appear to be hardly
consistent with the character of a Christian Bishop
eminent for holiness, as St. Hippolytus is believed to
have been. He records his own acts (it may perhaps
be said) with something like self-complacency, and
even with boastful ostentation. " We (he says) resisted
Zephyrinus and Callistus." 3 " We nearly converted
Sabellius." 4 " All were carried away by the hypo-
crisy of Callistus except ourselves." 5 " Callistus
threw off Sabellius through fear of me." 6
May it not be said that this is the language of
vain-glory and egotism ? Could it be the language
of Hippolytus ?
2. Besides, in perusing this history, the reader will
not fail to observe that some of the Author's observa-
tions have a sectarian tendency. He is vehement in >
his denunciations of Callistus for laxity of discipline, j
as well as for unsoundness of doctrine. If his narrative
is true, this is not surprising. But then his own
arguments, with respect to Church discipline, are open
to serious objection. He seems to doubt whether the
Church Visible on earth is a society in which there
will ever be evil men mingled with the good. He
scarcely seems to admit that the Ark, containing
3 Above, p. 67. 4 Above, p. 75.
4 Above, p. 73. 6 Above, p. 85.
L 2
148 NARRATIVE CONCERNING
clean and unclean animals, was a figure of the Church
in her transitory character. He is not disposed to
recognize the Church Visible in the Field of Wheat
and Tares ; 7 he seems almost eager to imitate the
servants in the Parable, and pluck up the tares before
the time of harvest ; and he appears to indulge a hope
that the Church on earth can be a field of wheat, and
of wheat alone.
Here we see signs of impatience. And we know
what evil results followed from the workings of a
spirit similar to this in the age of Hippolytus. It
produced the schism of Novatian at Rome, who was
offended with the facility with which the Roman
Church readmitted to communion heinous offenders,
and especially the lapsi, who had apostatized from
Christianity in persecution ; and who procured him-
self to be consecrated Bishop of Rome, in opposition
to Cornelius, 8 and so (to adopt the language of
modern times) became the first Anti-pope. 9 Nova-
tianism propagated itself from Rome throughout a
great part of the world, and distracted Christendom.
The same spirit displayed itself in feuds and factions,
in outrage and bloodshed, among the Donatists who
disturbed the African Church, in the fourth and fifth
centuries ; and it has never ceased to operate with
disastrous energy, and to produce calamitous effects
even to this day.
Again
7 See the notes above, chap. vi. p. 92. 8 Euseb. vi. 43. 45.
9 A.D. 251 ; below, p. 158. Jaffe, Regesta Pontificum, p. 8.
THE CHURCH OF ROME. 149
3. Suppose this Narrative to have been written and
published by Hippolytus. What impression would it
have produced at Rome ? Here is a Work in which
the Author speaks of two Roman Bishops in terms
of severe censure. He represents himself as their
antagonist. He reprobates them as false teachers.
One of them connives at heresy ; the other founds an
heretical school. Such are the terms which he applies
to Zephyrinus and Callistus. Both of them were
Roman Bishops. Both have been canonized by the
Church of Rome. Both are now venerated in her
Breviary as Saints and Martyrs. 1
Can he who writes thus be St. Hippolytus ? If
so, how is it to be explained that his name has
been venerated for many centuries by the Roman
Church ? Would she have permitted a Statue to be
erected in his honour in a public place in one of her
own cemeteries ? In a word, if two of her Bishops had
been denounced by him as heretics, and if, after their
death, he had published the history of their heresy to
the world, would she have revered Hippolytus as a
Saint ?
Let us consider these questions.
* See Breviarium Romanum S. Pii V. jussu editum iri Aug. 26 and
Oct. 14. Compare Bianchini in Anastas. Bibliothec. de Vit. Rom.
Pontif., where the date of the martyrdom of Zephyrinus is said to have
been 26th July, A.D. 217. In some Roman Martyrologies it is placed
on 2oth Dec., A.D, 2l8. Concerning Callistus, see Mansi Not. in
Baron, ad A.D. 226, and Lumper de^Romanis Episcopis Sasc. iii. ii.
The date of his martyrdom is placed by some authorities on I4th Oct.,
A.D. 223.
150 NARRATIVE CONCERNING
I. As to our Author's demeanour and language
towards heretics.
The Apostle and Evangelist St. John was the
beloved disciple. The mainspring of his teaching
was Love. When in his old age he was brought
into the church at Ephesus, the constant theme of his
discourse was, " Little children, love one another." 2
And yet in his Epistles, when he writes concerning
heretics, " who abide not in the doctrine of Christ,"
St. John says, " If there come any unto you, and
bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your
house, neither bid him God speed : for he that
biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil
deeds." " And tremendous are the denunciations of
his Apocalypse against the abettors of heresy and
corrupt doctrine, and against those who communicate
with them in their errors. 4
The prevalent opinion of the Church, concerning
St. John's sentiments and example with regard to
heretics, is well indicated by the record of the in-
cident related by St. Irenaeus 5 concerning the Apostle.
He quitted the bath at Ephesus, we are told, when
he heard that Cerinthus was there, and exclaimed,
" Let us make haste to flee the place, lest the house
fall on our heads, since it has under its roof
Cerinthus, the enemy of truth."
St. John was full of the Holy Ghost the Spirit of
Truth and Love. He, doubtless, in his own person,
2 S. Jerome in Galat. vi. 3 2 John 10, II.
4 E.g. Rev. ii. 15. 20 23 ; xiv. 9, 10. 6 iii. 3, p. 204, Grabe.
THE CHURCH OF ROME. 151
combined the Christian graces, Faith and Chanty,
in harmonious proportion. Among his scholars he
numbered St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp. In the
Epistles of the one we see love for the Truth ; but
love of Unity appears to be the master bias. In
St. Polycarp we behold ardent zeal for the Faith,
with vehement antagonism to Error. " Knowest thou
me ? " said Marcion the heretic to Polycarp, whom
he met, as it seems, at Rome, whither Polycarp had
come from Smyrna, to visit Anicetus, Bishop of Rome ;
" Yes," was the reply, " I know thee well, the first-
born of Satan." 6
St. Irenaeus, when a boy, had seen " the blessed
Polycarp ;" he treasured his sayings in his memory,
and has recorded them with affectionate veneration.
And in imitation of the frankness of Polycarp, and
of his sternness of speech, when dealing with Heretics,
he tells Florinus, the heretic, that if the holy
Polycarp, whom both of them had known in youth,
had heard the strange dogmas which Florinus was
broaching, he would have stopped his ears, and
exclaimed " O merciful God, to what times hast
thou reserved me ! " and would have fled from the
spot with execration. 7
2. Let us now, for argument's sake, be allowed to
suppose that our Author's narrative is true. Let us
see whether there is anything in it inconsistent with
the character of St. Hippolytus.
6 S. Iren. iii. 3. Euseb. iv. 14.
1 S. Iren. ap. Euseb. v. 20. Routh, Opuscula, i. p. 32.
152 NARRATIVE CONCERNING
St. Hippolytus was trained in this school to which
we have referred, as tracing its succession from St.
John. He was a disciple of Irenaeus, had heard his
lectures, and has shown himself to have been a dili-
gent reader of his works. He trod in his steps, and
dwelt on the subjects which had been before handled
by Irenseus. 8 He firmly asserted the continuity of
spiritual grace, derived by succession from the Apos-
tles in the laying on of Episcopal hands. Thus he
affirmed the principle of Church Unity inculcated in
the Epistles of St. Ignatius. He possessed also, in
abundant measure, the masculine vigour and daunt-
less courage and fervent zeal of St. Polycarp. He loved
the truth ; he fought manfully for it ; and abhorred
Heresy. He had seen its bitter fruits, he beheld it
flourishing and dominant, in one of its most hateful
forms, making havoc far and wide in the fairest
Church of the West. Under such circumstances as
these, it required something more than the spirit of
an Irenseus, an Ignatius, or a Polycarp it demanded
the spirit of a St. John, the divinely-inspired Apostle
and Evangelist, so to contend against Error, as not
to violate Charity ; and so to resist Heresy, as not to
execrate Heretics. And let us bear in mind, that
though Zephyrinus and Callistus were dead at the
time when our Author wrote, yet their Heresy was
not dead : Callistus had passed away, but he had left
Callistians behind him. 9
8 As a comparison of the catalogues of their works respectively will
show.
9 Above, p. 97, and 329 (Miller), alpeffiv eojy vvv CTT! rovs SiaSoxovs
From the terms in which Sabellius is mentioned in this
THE CHURCH OF ROME. 153
Our Author had been engaged in a conflict with
Callistus, and was still at war with his disciples.
That conflict had been a public one. Callistus and
his adherents had denied the Divine personality of
Christ as distinct from the Father. Our Author
asserted it, and Callistus had reviled him openly as
" a worshipper of two Gods." 1 Hence this contro-
versy was a personal one. No one (says a great
Father of the Church) should remain patient under
a charge of heresy. If Callistus was right, our Author
was wrong. If Callistus, Bishop of Rome, did not
impose sinful terms of Communion, our Author was
a schismatic. If Callistus was orthodox, our Author
was a heretic. Nay, he was worse than a heretic ; he
was a polytheist. He must therefore vindicate him-
self. He had been accused publicly, he must ex-
culpate himself publicly. And he could not other-
wise show that he himself was not heterodox, than by
proving Callistus a heretic.
When we consider these circumstances, and that
men, however holy, are men, and are liable to human
infirmities, especially when agitated by strong pas-
sions, or engaged in personal struggles concerning the
most momentous articles of the Christian Faith, it
will not seem to be improbable that one eminent in
the Church, like Hippolytus, should have written as our
Author has done.
Treatise (pp. 285. 289, 290), it may be inferred that it was written at
a time when the name of Sabellius and of his heresy had become
notorious ; and, according to our Author, the prevalence of that heresy
was due in great measure to Callistus.
1 Above, pp. 7375, and p. 87.
154 NARRATIVE CONCERNING
3. When we remember also the particular school in
which Hippolytus had been trained, and when we add
to this the fact, observed by an ancient writer, that
Hippolytus gave evidence of a fervid temperament, 2
and was probably of Asiatic origin, 3 we see no reason
to think that such a narrative as the present could
not have been written by Hippolytus.
4. We do not dispute the fact that there is a tone
of self-confidence in this narrative.
But let us remember the circumstances of the case.
Our Author, whoever he was, was a learned and
eloquent man. Few persons in his age in Christendom,
none probably in the West, could have composed the
Volume before us. It is rich in human learning as
well as divine. The style is somewhat turgid, but it
displays solid erudition, as well as luxuriance of
language. Let us imagine such a person as this
residing at Rome in the second and third centuries.
He was well qualified to be " Bishop of the Gentiles "
on account of his Greek learning and eloquence,
and also to be Bishop of Portus, because it was
the principal harbour of the imperial City, and was
thronged with strangers, Greeks, Asiatics, and
Africans, merchants, shipmen and soldiers, Philoso-
phers, Physicians, Ambassadors, and Astrologers,
Christians, Jews, and Pagans flocking to Rome.
2 Phot. Cod. 202. 8ep/j.oTepas yvu^s. See also some pertinent
remarks by Lardner, Credibility, i. p. 488, on the style and character
of the Author of the Little Labyrinth, i.e. on Hippolytus.
3 A learned friend suggests a parallel in the strong language of St.
Chrysostom against Eudoxia. Similar instances might be easily
collected from every age.
THE CHURCH Of ROME. 155
And let us suppose such a person as this associated
with such Ecclesiastics and placed under the rule
of such Bishops as he represents Zephyrinus and
Callistus to be : the one illiterate, the other profligate,
both promoters of heresy. Let his account of their
doings be exaggerated though it is not easy to say
why an Author who writes likes the Author of the
Philosophumena (and who appears to be no other
than St. Hippolytus, a Bishop and Doctor of the
Church) should be accused of misrepresentation, yet
this we know, that the Western Church at that time
was not endowed with erudition especially such
learning as that in which our Author excelled. He
had the misfortune to be placed under Bishops far
inferior to hirrfself. And "knowledge puffeth up."
His own superiority was a stumbling-block ; their
inferiority was a snare. Suppose such a person as
this to have been formerly intimate with the holy and
learned Irenaeus ; suppose him to have been elated
with his ancestral dignity of doctrinal succession,
derived through Irenaeus and Polycarp from the
blessed Apostle St. John, What a contrast would/
he see at Rome ! What a severe trial of his temper
would be there what a perilous ordeal to pass
through ! Shall we be surprised that under such
circumstances as these, expressions of conscious
superiority, or even of vituperative indignation, should
have escaped the lips of Hippolytus ?
5. But, it may be said, Is there not a sectarian
bias in this narrative ? Is not the Author a parti-
san of Novatianism ? Can this be Hippolytus ?
156 NARRATIVE CONCERNING
There is doubtless a strong bias toward Novatianism
in this portion of our Author's work. Some of his
principles, carried out without reserve or restraint,
would no doubt lead to schism. The mild tone in
which he speaks of Montanism (p. 275 ; see above,
chapter iii. p. 22) which prepared the way for
Novatianism is in harmony with this opinion. But,
when we consider human frailty, we may perhaps
allow, that this might have been expected.
Almost all the evils in the Church are due to ex-
cess of reaction. Our Author represents himself as
living at Rome when the discipline of that Church
v/was very lax. His remedy lay in severity. The
Roman Church had extended the range of communion
too widely : he would have restrained it too strictly.
Her latitudinarian practice gave a sectarian tendency
to his principles. What is there here that does not
occur, even in the best times, among the best men ?
It is the common course of human affairs. His
contemporary, Tertullian, was offended by the same
/licentiousness in the Ecclesiastical system of Rome,
and lapsed into Montanism. 4 Even Dionysius of
Alexandria, in his zeal against Sabellius, is said
by St. Basil 5 to have sown the seeds of Arianism.
St. Chrysostom, in his ardour against a barren faith,
may have prepared the way for the doctrine of merit ;
and St. Augustine, in his strenuous struggle against
Pelagianism, may have been a precursor of Calvin.
4 S. Hieron. Scr. Eccl. on Tertullian, 53.
3 S. Basil, Epist. ix. 2.
THE CHURCH OF ROME. 157
But shall we charge those holy men with the con-
sequences which others deduced from their principles
after their death ? Shall we not rather suppose that
those principles would have been modified by them,
if they had known the consequences which others
would draw from them ; and if they had witnessed
the results to which those principles might lead ?
If, then, we reflect on the religious state of the
Roman Church as displayed in this Volume, if we
recollect the painful provocations which such dis-
ciplinarian laxity and heretical pravity as he de-
scribes rarely fail to minister to pious minds, and if
we remember that we, living in the nineteenth century,
have seen the results of reactions in the opposite
direction, we shall not judge our Author from our
own circumstances, but shall endeavour to place
ourselves in his age and country, and shall attribute
his vehement language against laxity of discipline to
his zeal for the holiness and purity of the Spouse of
Christ.
Further, let us now add, we shall find in these
very expressions, to which we have now referred, an
additional confirmation of the proof that this Treatise
is from St. Hippolytus. But on this point we may
say more in the next chapter.
CHAPTER IX.
On Novatianism, and on the Relation of St. Hippolytus
to it ; and on the Hymn of the Christian Poet
Prudentius on St. Hippolytus and his Martyrdom.
IN the year 251 of the Christian era, Novatus, a
Presbyter of Carthage, who had formed a schismatical
party in opposition to St. Cyprian, Bishop of that
City, came to Rome and excited a Roman Priest,
Novatian, to follow his example, and to become the
leader in a similar schism against Cornelius, recently
elected Bishop of Rome.
The plea urged in behalf of that schism was that
Cornelius, who was of one accord with Cyprian, had
lapsed from the true faith in the time of persecution
under the Emperor Decius ; and that he had relaxed
the penitential discipline of the Church by receiving
v to communion on easy terms those who had fallen
from the truth, and that therefore he ought not to be
recognized as a true Bishop of the Church, and that an
orthodox Teacher ought to be appointed in his place.
Consequently Novatian * was elected by some who
1 Novatian himself was an example of the laxity of discipline in the
Church of Rome. He had received only clinical baptism ; and did not
receive Episcopal imposition of hands after it : and yet he was ordained
to the Priesthood by the Bishop of Rome. Euseb. vi. 43.
HIPPOLYTUS AND NOVATIANISM. 159
held these opinions, and was ordained Bishop of
Rome by three Bishops, in opposition to Cornelius,
and became the first Anti-pope.
A portion of the Laity and some of the Clergy and
Confessors of the Church sided with Novatian, who
maintained that they who had lapsed in time of per-
secution could not be restored to Church communion
in this life, however penitent they might be ; and
however it might be hoped that they might obtain
pardon from God in the life to come. 2
Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, suffered martyrdom on
Sept. I4th, A.D. 252; but the Novatian JSchism, which
was widely extended, and found favour with learned
and devout partisans, 3 continued after his death. 4
We have already adverted to the Hymn of the
Christian Poet, Prudentius, who wrote at the beginning
of the fifth century 5 on St. Hippolytus. 6
In that Hymn Prudentius says that St. Hippolytus,
whose martyrdom he is describing, and for whose
memory he expresses deep veneration, had bordered
upon, he uses a remarkable word, attigerat, ' he had
approached/ ' had nearly touched,' the schism of
Novatus y the name often given to Novatian whose
name was less tractable in poetry.
That St. Hippolytus had at some time of his life,
2 The particulars here stated are gathered from the correspondence
of St. Cyprian, Epist. 42. 46. 49. 52. 55 ; Euseb. vi. 43 ; Theodoret,
Haeret. Fab. iii. 5 ; Socrates, Hist. Eccl. iv. 28.
3 See Euseb. vi. 44 ; vi. 46 ; vii. 5.
4 See Tillemont, Memoires iii. 480, for his history.
5 Prudentius was born in Spain, A.D. 348.
* Prudentii Hymni peri Stephan6n, xi. Prudent, ibid. v. 2O, ed.
Dressel, p. 442.
160 HIPPO L YTUS AND NO VA TIANISM.
especially in the Episcopate of Callistus, inclined to the
opinions on Church discipline which were broached by
Novatian, is clear from his own words, which have
been already quoted from the recently-discovered
Volume, " The Refutation of all Heresies," and which
may be seen in former pages of the present Work, 7
and to which the reader is requested to refer.
Those passages strongly confirm the narrative of
Prudentius.
But that St. Hippolytus, however he may have
been opposed to the later discipline of the Bishop of
Rome, never by overt acts sanctioned the schism of
Novatian, is certain from the fact that in the cor-
respondence of Cornelius Bishop of Rome with St.
Cyprian Bishop of Carthage during the schism, where
the names of the leaders on both sides are mentioned,
that of Hippolytus never occurs. If he had taken an
active part on either side, he was too great a man
to have not been noticed.
It is not improbable that Prudentius, as an ardent
admirer of the Church of Rome, may have placed in
as strong a light as he could the protest of Hippolytus,
at his death, against Novatianism, and his declaration
in favour of that Church. Prudentius dwells on the
former approximation of Hippolytus to Novatianism.
He brings it forward somewhat abruptly at the be-
ginning of his poem. He desires the friend 8 to
whom he addresses it, not to be surprised that
7 See above, pp. 92 95, and the notes.
b Valerian, Bishop of Zaragoza in Spain.
'
HIPPO L YTUS AND NO VA TIANISM. 161
Hippolytus, who had formerly held a perverse opinion,
should be enriched with the prize of the Catholic
Faith, the Martyr's crown. For (says the Poet)
when he was hurried away by the furious foe to
death, and was attended by numerous followers
among his loving flock, and was asked " Which way
was the better one ? " he said, " Fly the execrable
schism of the miserable Novatus ; return to the
Catholic people. Let the one faith thrive, which is
built on the ancient temple ; which Paul holds fast,
and the Chair of Peter. It grieves me to have taught
what once I taught. A martyr now, I perceive that
to be venerable which once I thought to be far from
the worship of God."
Prudentius then proceeds to describe the Martyrdom
of St. Hippolytus. He says that when- the Roman
Governor had arrived at Portus, the harbour of Rome,
an old man in chains was brought before him, and
that this old man was declared to be the Head of the
Christians there, and, it was added, that if this old
man were killed at once, the people would all worship
the Roman gods. Then, adds Prudentius, the crowds
clamoured for a new kind of death, in order that others
might be terrified by it. " What is his name ? " asked
the Roman Governor. " Hippolytus," was the reply.
" Let him then be a second Hippolytus, and be tied
to horses, and be torn in pieces by them."
Some persons have rejected this narrative of Pru-
9 As Hippolytus the son of Theseus was said to have been. Virgil,
JEn. vii. 761 j Ovid, Fasti, iii. 265 ; vi. 737 ; Met. xv. 497.
M
162 FRESCO-PAINTING AT HIS TOMB.
dentius as fabulous. But in addition to the evidence
supplied by the recently-discovered treatise of Hip-
polytus, to which reference has been made, there
are strong reasons for admitting its veracity.
Prudentius mentions two things which confirm his
statements. He himself saw the circumstances of the
Martyrdom of St. Hippolytus delineated in a fresco
which he describes very minutely, 1 and which was on
a wall near the tomb and chapel of St. Hippolytus at
Rome, which he himself had visited. He adds also,
that this tomb and chapel were frequented annually
by a devout concourse of pilgrims, flocking to it from
different parts of Italy on the anniversary of the
Martyrdom of Hippolytus, the ides of August, viz.
the 1 3th of that month.
This picture, and these annual visits of affectionate
friends, must have served to keep alive the record
of the facts of the history, and were not unreasonably
relied upon by Prudentius, 2 who was born in the next
century after the death of Hippolytus.
On the whole, I am strongly inclined to agree with
the learned Benedictine, Theodoric Ruinart, in his
valuable work " Acta Marty rum sincera," 3 who says,
" It is a common opinion that Prudentius has con-
founded three persons who bore the name of St. Hip-
polytus. But inasmuch as this opinion cannot be
confirmed by any ancient testimony, I hope that no
1 See his description, ibid. v. 125, and following.
2 See the circumstantial description, ibid. vv. 184 232.
3 Ed. 2nda, Amst. 1713, p. 168.
HYMN OF PRUDENTIUS ON HIPPOL YTUS. 163
one will be displeased if I prefer the authority of
Prudentius, a writer distinguished by his integrity,
learning, and sincerity, to the conjectures of modern
writers."
To this let me add the words of Ruggieri, who (in
his learned work on the Episcopal See of Hippolytus ')
corrects one statement of Ruinart, and sums up an
elaborate argument as follows : " No other conclusion
seems possible, than that the Hippolytus of Portus
who is celebrated by Prudentius was Bishop of that
City." At the same time it ought to be added that
Ruggieri (who had not our recently-discovered trea-
tise) does not accept the opinion that Hippolytus ever
inclined to Novatianism.
And now let us mention another interesting circum-
stance connected with the same place and person, and
leading to the same conclusion.
In the year 1551, during the excavations made near
the ancient chapel of St. Hippolytus described by
Prudentius, 5 was brought to light the celebrated
Statue, already described (p. 29), the frontispiece of
the present volume. It is a sculptured representa-
tion of the Author of the recently-discovered Treatise,
the " Refutation of all Heresies," St. Hippolytus ; and
was doubtless placed there near the tomb of that holy
Bishop and Martyr, the eloquent and learned Teacher
of the Bishop of the Western Church, with reverential
4 P. 400 in P. G. Lumper's Church History, vol. viii. ed. 1791.
5 See Dressel's introductory note on the Hymn of Prudentius on
St. Hippolytus, p. 441, and ibid, on v. 215.
M 2
164 DATE OF HIS MARTYRDOM.
affection, like that which guided the hand of the
painter of the ancient fresco representing his Mar-
tyrdom, and which Prudentius saw and described ;
and like that which inspired Prudentius himself when
he wrote the hymn still extant on his Martyrdom, and
which animated the crowds that flocked year after
year from various parts of Italy to visit his grave on
August 1 3th.
As to the year of his Martyrdom, I am inclined, on
the whole, to believe that it is correctly placed by
the Roman Martyrology under the Emperor Valerian,
and that it took place on August I3th, A.D. 258. 6 All
agree that St. Hippolytus died the death of a Martyr.
If he was inclined to favour Novatianism, which arose
in A.D. 25 1, he could not have suffered before Valerian :
Dr. Gieseler, Church History, says ( 68), "Hippolytus
suffered Martyrdom at Portus Romanus under Vale-
rian." Prudentius describes him as an old man when
he suffered.
It may be asked, Could Hippolytus, if he suffered
Martyrdom in 258, have been a scholar of St. Irenaeus,
as Photius says he was ? Yes. It has been shown
by Massuet 7 that Irenaeus suffered Martyrdom, and if
this was the case, he died probably about A.D. 208.
The persecution under Valerian began in A.D. 257,
and came to an end A.D. 260, when he was captured
Martyrol. Rom., ed. Baronii, Romse, 1586, p. 362. It describes the
manner of the Martyrdom in the " Ager Veranus, " i.e. near the site of
tte Church of St. Lawrence, near which the Statue of St. Hippolytus
was found in 1551.
7 De S. Irensei Vita, Diss. ii. c. 31.
VERACITY OF PRUDENTIUS. 165
by the Persians, to whom he was betrayed by Macria-
nus, the officer who had excited him to persecute the
Christians, especially their leaders ; and his son
Gallienus issued an edict proclaiming liberty of wor-
ship, and restoring the cemeteries to the Church. 8
Toward the middle of the year 258 the Emperor
Valerian, who had just set out on his expedition
against the Persians, sent a rescript to the Roman
Senate, in which he commanded that the Bishops,
Priests, and Deacons of the Church should be con-
demned to capital punishment ; and that the Roman
Knights and Senators 9 who were Christians should
also suffer the same fate. 1
The veracity of Prudentius has recently been im-
pugned by a formidable adversary, Dr. Dollinger. Dr.
Dollinger refers * to the authority of an ancient Roman
Calendar having this record : " Eo tempore (A.D. 235 )
Pontianus Episcopuset Yppolitus presbyter exoles sunt
deportati in Sardinia, Insula nociva, Severo et Quin-
tino Cons." He supposes St. Hippolytus to have been
an Anti-pope, and to have been banished in company
with the legitimate Bishop of Rome, Pontianus, to the
8 Euseb. vii. 13.
9 St. Hippolytus is called "urbis Romanse Senator" by S. Jerome,
Epist. 84.
1 See S. Cyprian, Epist. 82, ed. Pamelii, on this fierce persecution.
See also Tillemont, Memoires, torn. iv. I 23, ed. Paris, 1701.
* Pp. 69 72. Dr. Dollinger supposes the words of the ancient
Calendar, "in eadem Insula Pontianus Episcopus discinctus est (iiii. Kal.
Oct. )," to imply that Pontian resigned\i\$ Episcopate ; but I conceive that
the word discinctus must mean that he was deprived of it. See Du Cange
in voce, and Valesius in Euseb. vit. Const, ii. 20.
of Sardinia by the Emperor Maximin,
and to have cited there, a\er they had been reconciled,
Drs Dollinger thinks it incredible that swch A ruthless
punishment (as that which Prudenttus describes ia
having been suffered by Hippolytus) should ever have
been inflicted by a Roman Governor on an aged
Ecclesiastic, even in the hottest persecution, Dr,
Dollinger does indeed refer to the manner of the
Martyrdom* of St Lawrence, Archdeacon of Rome,
burnt alive on a gridiron, probably in the same perse*
cut ton, in the year l$8 under the Kmperor Valerian,
and probably only three days before the Martyrdom
of St Hippolytus, August 13,
A Gox^ernor who was capable of condemning St,
Lawrence at Rome to that horrible torture 4 would
not have scrupled to do what Prudentius describes
as done to St, Hippolytus at Portus, Besides, an
Imperial Governor could condemn a delicate Christian
woman, ttlandina, at Lyons, to be tossed in a net by a
wild bull ;* and an Imperial Governor could condemn
another delicate Christian woman, Pcrpctua* to be
goaded by a wild cow 1 at Carthage, Tortures even
more cruel than these are recorded as having been
inflicted in the presence of Emperors themselves at
Nicomedia,' Is it therefore improbable that an
* DSUwger, llippolytus uud KaNfetu*, pi\ 58 6f*
* S Ambrose vto Uflicu*, u 41, anvl th* noNe Uymn of FniUvutiui ou
, tvumice, Teri Sleph. ii
lot,
Kusebius, IL E. viiu $, wul see ibid, c,
VERA CITY OF PR UDENT1US. 167
Imperial Governor, urged on by an infuriated mob,
should have sentenced Hippolytus (whose name sug-
gested such a punishment) to be torn in pieces by
horses, as Prudentius describes ?
The same learned writer, Dr. Dollinger, rejects the
narrative of Prudentius as incredible, 8 because the
Poet says that Hippolytus suffered martyrdom at the
harbour of Rome, Portus, and that his remains were
buried by his faithful friends in the suburb of the City
of Rome, fifteen miles off. 9 Those cherished remains,
he says, would have been reserved by his friends for
burial at the place where he was martyred.
But is this certain ? At first sight, no doubt, there
is something strange in the poet's narrative. But
even its strangeness would have deterred Prudentius
from inventing it.
Let us remember also that the celebrity of Rome
would impart a dignity to Hippolytus, and would
attract more pilgrims to his grave. Besides, it appears
that Hippolytus was interred near the burial-place of
St. Lawrence, 1 where the Church bearing his name
now stands, and near which the Statue of St. Hippo-
lytus was found in the year 1551.
If now our St. Hippolytus was the same Hippolytus
Hippolytus, &c., p. 65.
Prudent, v. 151 :
Ostia linquunt,
Roma placet, sanctos quae teneat cineres.
1 See Anastasii Bibliotheca, in Hadrian o imo ; " Coemeterinm Bea
Hippolyti juxta S. Laurentium renovavit" And see Ruggieri, De sede
Hippolyti, p. 474, and Mr. Augustus Hare's Walks in Rome, ii 142,
and Bunsen's Rom., iiL 117.
168 ST. XYSTUS AND ST. LA WRENCE.
as was martyred on August I3th, A.D. 258,' and whose
name was very famous in the Church, and who suffered
martyrdom the third day after the martyrdom of
St. Lawrence, who suffered, and was buried, at Rome,
it is not surprising that two such noble comrades in
suffering for Christ should be interred in the same
cemetery. And if St. Hippolytus had formerly been
disposed to favour Novatianism, but had protested
against it at his death, as Prudentius affirms he did,
then there was something very reasonable and appro-
priate in this union of St. Hippolytus the Bishop of
Portus with St. Lawrence the Archdeacon of Rome,
who had followed to death his beloved master the
revered Bishop of Rome, St. Xystus, after an interval
of three days. 3
The Bishop of Rome, St. Xystus, was martyred on
August 6th. The Archdeacon of Rome, St. Lawrence,
was martyred on August loth, and St. Hippolytus
(I believe) on the 1 3th ; and St. Cyprian was martyred
at Carthage on the I4th of September of the same
year.
And here we have another incidental confirmation
of the veracity of Prudentius.
2 Cp. Tillemont, Memoires, iv. p. 599. Le nom de S. Hippolyte
Martyr honore le 13 d'aoust est fort celebre dans 1'Eglise. II est dans le
calendrier de Bucherius, dans celui de 1'Eglise de 1' Afrique, dans celui de
P. Fronto, dans les martyrologes de Saint Jerome, dans le sacramentaire
de Saint Gregoire oil il y a une preface propre, et dans le missel remain
donne par Thomasius. Le P. Mabillon dit que celui qui est dans
1'Eglise de 1' Afrique est celui dont parle Prudence.
3 See S. Ambrose de Officiis, i. 41, and the grand hymn of Pru-
dentius, Peri Stephanon, ii. 2730, p. 308 Dressel.
MARTYRDOM OF HIPPOLYTUS. 169
Novatian, the schismatical Bishop of Rome, the
first Anti-pope, died about the same time. 4
If, as we have reason to believe, Hippolytus was
martyred August 1 3th, A.D. 258, the see of Rome
was vacant at the time of his martyrdom by the death
of Xystus, and remained vacant for nearly a year, to
July 22nd, 259, when Dionysius succeeded in the
Episcopate.
At that critical juncture the question, which Pru-
dentius says was put to Hippolytus by the Christians
just before his martyrdom, "quaenam secta foret
melior ? " 5 which party they should follow, was
very pertinent and seasonable ; and Prudentius says
that to it St. Hippolytus replied, " Flee the schism of
Novatus, and return to the Catholic Church."
The narrative of Prudentius receives confirmation
also from the Ecclesiastical Historian Nicephorus, 6 who,
though a late writer, is often of great service, because
he has preserved records from books now lost. He
says that Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus Romanus (the
harbour of Rome), flourished in the time of Severus,
and published many wise works, among which he
specifies the " Refutation of all Heresies" (the newly-
discovered treatise), and others ; some of which are
enumerated on the Statue of Hippolytus. He then
4 Socrates Scholasticus, Eccl. Hist. iv. 28, who says that he died
under Valerian, i. e. not later than A.D. 260. Socrates, even in the
time of the younger Theodosius, writes with a favourable bias to the
disciplinarian system of Novatian.
5 Prudent. Peri Steph. xi. 28.
6 Nicephorus, Callisti, iv. 31.
170 HIS PROTEST A GAINST NO VA T2ANISM.
adds, that there were "some things in his writings
which might be taken hold of as reprehensible (CTTL-
Afji/r^a), but that afterwards, being consummated
* by Martyrdom for Christ, he wiped off the stain of
ignorance in these respects."
Some persons have been perplexed by the application
(in this hymn) of the name "Presbyter" to Hippoly-
tus, who was a Bishop. But there is no difficulty here ;
though a Presbyter is not called a Bishop by ancient
authors, yet a Bishop, especially one who was a learned
and eloquent Teacher of the Church, as Hippolytus
was, is often called Presbyter ; 7 and Prudentius
declares in this hymn that the Martyr Hippolytus,
whose death he describes, was a Bishop, by saying,
that he was the Head of a Christian Church (v. 80).
A pertinent question has been asked. If St.
Hippolytus at his Martyrdom gave a public testimony
against Novatianism (as Prudentius affirms that he
did), how are we to explain that St. Cyprian in his
Epistles never refers to that protest ? The answer is,
St. Cyprian himself was martyred about the same
time, probably about a month after St. Hippolytus.
A great man, St. Dionysius, became Bishop of
Rome in the following year, A.D. 259, and in his
1 E.g. Irenasus is twice called fj.aKa.ptos irpevfivrepos in this treatise,
pp. 202. 222, and never 'ETT'LO-KOTTOS : see also Clem. Alex. Paedag. iii.
p. 291, ed. Potter, and Strom, vii. p. 830, notes, where it is shown that
in the second century Bishops were sometimes called Presbyters. See
also Euseb. iii. 23, where a Bishop is so called ; and Dr. Dollinger
(Hippolytus, pp. 338341) clearly shows that Presbyter was a title of
honour given to Bishops as Doctors of the Church. He refers to Irenaeus,
WHEN WAS HIS STATUE ERECTED* 171
Episcopate the energies of the Church were drawn off
from the struggle with the Novatian schism, and were
concentrated in vigorous resistance to the Sabellian
heresy ; against which St. Hippolytus had (as he
himself tells us in the Recently-discovered treatise)
contended strenuously, when it was favoured by
Callistus, Bishop of Rome.
Perhaps it was at that time that the Statue was
erected over his grave. 8 Perhaps some who erected it
venerated him the more because he had stood firm
against the Sabellian heresy, patronized by two
Bishops of Rome. When, soon after the death of
Hippolytus, Sabellianism (the natural growth of
Noetianism) became widely dominant in Christendom,
and made great ravages in the Church, perhaps
through the previous example and influence of
Zephyrinus and Callistus, as described in the narrative
before us, then that other Bishop of Rome, the learned
Dioriysius (A.D. 259 269) came forward to stay the
plague. He vindicated the true faith from the
8 Baron Bunsen places its erection later (p. 223), viz. at some period
between the age of Constantine and the sixth century ; but there is good
reason to agree with Dr. Dollinger in thinking it earlier. The Paschal
Calendar inscribed upon it, dates from A.D. 222 ; and as Turrianus
observes (ap. Fabricium, Hippol. i. pp. 164 171), and after him Ideler
(Chronol. ii. p. 22), the Calendar appears to have been inscribed there
for contemporary use ; and could not have been long in use, on account
of certain imperfections in its construction. After the lapse of very few
of its cycles of years, it would have been superseded, and no one would
have been at the pains to engrave it. If this reasoning is correct, the
Statue is of more interest and value, as being almost a contemporary
monument, set up in a sacred place of Rome, and a contemporary
tribute at Rome to St. Hippolytus.
172 PEACEFUL END OF THE CONTROVERSY.
aggressions of Sabellianism on the one side, and
of Tritheism on the other. 9 Then probably the
services that had been rendered by Hippolytus to
the cause of Christianity by his gallant resistance
to a pestilent heresy, first by his eloquent denun-
ciations of Noetus l (and of Callistus), and by his
antagonism to Sabellius, were gratefully appreciated
by the Church and Bishop of Rome. Then his name
was beloved, and his memory revered by her.
Thousands flocked to the tomb of one who had con-
tended for the honour of Christ in his life, and had
glorified Him in his death. Then perhaps this Statue
was erected. Then the infirmities of temper, the
vehemence of language, the scornful sarcasm, and
bitter altercation were forgotten. The schism had
been healed by death, and the memory of passionate
conflicts was buried in the Martyr's grave.
9 For a summary of his history in this respect, see Bp. Pearson,
Dissert, i. c. 10. 5. See also Constant, Epist. Rom. Pont. p. 271, ed.
Paris, 1721; Tillemont, iv. pp. 237 242; Routh, iii. 373403;
Neander, ii. p. 369. Fragments of the work of Dionysius called
'ApctTpoTTT/, or Refutation, are preserved by St. Athanasius de decretis
Synodi Nicaanas, 26, and are contained in Routh, Reliquiae, iii. 373
377- & P* v 2dj8eAAios /JAao^Tj^ueT avTbv rbv vlbv eL/cu \eytav rbv Trarepa,
Kal eiu.ira\W ol 8e Tpets 0eois rp6irov nv& Kf]pvrrovffiv, ets Tptts
viroffrdcrfis e'j/as aAA.7jA.coi' iravTanaffi Kex u P lff l JL * l ' as StaipoDfTey T^V ayiav
TpidSa (p. 373).
1 The treatise of St. Hippolytus against Noetus (Routh, Scr. Eccl. i.
49 80) is copied by St. Epiphanius in his description of the Noetian
heresy (Adv. haer. 57, c. i), as has been observed by Tillemont (iv.
p. 238).
CHAPTER X.
Further Remarks on Novatian and Novatianism ; and
on the Relation of St. Dionysius the Great, Bishop
of A lexandria, to them and to St. Hippolytus.
THE name of Novatian holds an unhappy place in
Church history, as connected with a deplorable schism.
But there were extenuating circumstances in that
dissension. Ecclesiastical Discipline was administered
at Rome with remissness, which produced feelings of
sadness and distress among many good men, such as
Fabius Bishop of Antioch 1 and others, who were
therefore inclined to favour Novatianism. Let it also
be remembered, that although Novatian held erro-
neous opinions on penitential discipline, and was
guilty of schism in making those erroneous opinions
to be a reason for setting himself in opposition to
Cornelius, the legitimate Bishop of the Roman Church,
yet he showed himself zealous for Catholic doctrine,
in opposition to heretical corruptions, and entitled
himself to the gratitude of his own and future genera-
tions by his treatise still extant on the doctrine of the
1 Eusebius, vi. 42 44.
174 SOME PLEAS FOR NOVATIAN.
Blessed Trinity, 2 in which, as has been already ob-
served in the notes to our Author's narrative concern-
ing the Roman Church, there are many things which
remind us of St. Hippolytus. On that account, per-
haps, he was endeared to so strenuous a champion of
orthodoxy as Hippolytus was. Novatian was also
eminent for his ability, eloquence, and learning ; for
which reason he was appointed by the Church of
Rome to write a letter, still extant, in its name to
the African Church on the subject of indulgence to
the lapsed. 3
Above all, it ought not to be forgotten that question?
concerning penitential discipline and Church Unity
had not then been fully discussed as afterwards they
were, especially in the time of the Donatistic 4 Con-
2 See S. Jerome de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, c. 70.
3 See S. Cyprian, Epist. 31, 32, and 52.
* An apology for S. Hippolytus in his leaning towards Novatianism
is supplied by the following excellent remarks of S. Augustine in Psal.
54. Multa latebant in Scripturis, et cum prsecisi essent haeretici,
qusestionibus agitaverunt Ecclesiam Dei. Aperta sunt quae latebant :
et intellecta est voluntas Dei. Numquid enim perfecte de Trmitate
tractatum est, antequam oblatrarent Ariani? Numquid perfecte de
poenitentia tractatum est, antequam obsisterent Novatiani ? Sic non
perfecte de baptismate tractatum est, antequam contradicerent foris
positi rebaptizatores. Nee de ipsa unitate Christi enucleate dicta erant
quae dicta sunt, nisi posteaquam separatio ilia urgere ccepit fratres
infirmos. Ut jam illi qui noverant haec tractare atque dissolvere, ne
perirent infirmi solicitati quaestionibus impiorum, sermonibus et
disputationibus suis obscura legis in publicum deducerent. And de
Civ. Dei, xvi. 2. Multa quippe (says Augustine) ad fidem Catholicam
pertinentia, dum haereticorum callida inquietudine exagitantur, ut
adversus eos defendi possint, et considerantur diligentius, et intelli-
guntur clarius, et instantius praedicantur, et ab adversario mota quaestio
discendi exsistit occasio.
WHY NO VA TIA NISM AROSE. 175
troversy. It had not been clearly determined whether
separation from an Apostolic Church was justifiable
by reason of errors of doctrine tolerated in it, and of
prevalent laxity of discipline. It had not been settled
as yet, as a fixed principle, that voluntary and wilful
separation from an Apostolic Church cannot be
excused ; and that nothing can justify separation
from such a Church, except the imposition of heretical
terms of Communion by it ; and that then the guilt of
the schism (and wherever there is schism, there is
guilt) lies with the Church which imposes such here-
tical terms of Communion, and not with those who
do not, and cannot, accept them.
If Callistus imposed his own heretical dogmas as
terms of Communion with himself, Hippolytus could
not have communicated with him ; but Cornelius,
the contemporary of Novatian, was a very different
man from Callistus, and separation from him could
not be justified.
On the supposition that the narrative of Prudentius
is true, and there seems to be no good reason for
doubting its truth, it becomes an interesting subject
for inquiry, " By what means was St. Hippolytus
induced to renounce opinions favourable to Nova-
tianism ? "
May I offer a conjecture in reply to this question ?
There was one man at that time who held a high
position, as the most celebrated theologian of the
East ; he was eminent for soundness of doctrine,
courage in maintaining it, far-reaching sympathies,
176 DIONYSIUS THE GREAT.
and universal charity, and he will hereafter be
numbered among those of whom it was said, " Blessed
are the peacemakers." This was St. Dionysius, de-
servedly called the Great, Bishop of Alexandria. He
was a man of noble family ; had held important
civil offices before he was a Bishop, and was distin-
guished by his love of literature, secular and sacred.
He was married and had children, and lived a
domestic life in honour and peace. 5 He was won
over to Christianity by reading the Epistles of St.
Paul, and became a friend of Origen and of Heraclas
the head of the Catechetical School at Alexandria,
whom he succeeded in that position, and also in the
Episcopal See of that City, in the year 248.
In the year 250, in the Decian persecution, Diony-
sius was a valiant Confessor of the faith, and was
delivered from death by an extraordinary providence
of God. 6
The persecution of the Church came to an end
before the death of the Emperor Decius, which took
place in November or December 251. Cornelius had
been elected Bishop of Rome in the summer of that
year, and wrote to Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria,
a letter concerning the state of the Roman Church,
then distracted by the schism of Novatian.
This letter produced a reply to Cornelius, and also
a letter from Dionysius to Novatian 7 which deserves
5 See the authorities in Tillemont, iv. 243.
6 Euseb. vi. 40, 41. 46; vii. n.
7 Euseb. vi. 46.
HIS LETTER TO NOVATIAN. 177
careful attention. In that letter Dionysius addresses
Novatian in terms of affection as a brother " If, as
you say, you were raised to the Episcopal office
against your will, you will prove the truth of your
words by resigning it. Men ought to be ready to
suffer anything in order to avoid the rending of the v
Church by schism. Martyrdom to shun idolatry is
less glorious than Martyrdom to shun schism. In
the former case a man suffers on behalf of his own
soul ; in the latter he suffers on behalf of the whole
Church. And now if you would persuade or constrain
the brethren to return to unity, your good deed would
be greater than your former fault ; the latter will be
no longer imputed to you, the former will be com-
mended. But if you can prevail nothing with the
unruly, save your own soul. I .wish you health, so
long as you embrace peace in the Lord." Dionysius,
who on many occasions showed tender consideration
for the lapsed, and eloquently pleaded their cause, 8
laboured earnestly to appease the schism. Eusebius
says 9 that he wrote several Epistles "on Repentance"
(the subject debated in the Novatian schism)
to the brethren in Egypt, at Hermopolis, and in
Armenia ; and that he had been invited to a Synod
at Antioch to appease that schism ; and that he
wrote to the brethren at Rome concerning repentance,
and to the Confessors at Rome who had espoused the
cause of Novatian. He was not successful with
8 Euseb. vi. 42 ; vi. 44 ; vi. 45.
9 Euseb. vi. 46.
N
178 DIONYS1US AND HIPPOLYTUS.
Novatian himself, but, in conjunction with others, he
prevailed on the Confessors who had sided with
Novatian, to return to the unity of the Church. 1
Perhaps the letters of Dionysius to the Roman
Church, and to Novatian, may have been seen by
Hippolytus. Cornelius himself, and sixty Bishops
assembled with him in Synod at Rome, offered terms
of reconciliation and peace. 2
To the counsels of such a person as Dionysius,
venerable for his age, piety, holiness, learning, and
eloquence, it may be supposed that Hippolytus would
have been willing to defer. 3
Among the Epistles of St. Dionysius to the bre-
thren at Rome, one was extant in the days of Euse-
bius, 4 which was sent " by Hippolytus" and entitled
Sia t \Tr r jTo\vTov SiaKovifcrj, and St. Jerome (de Scrip-
toribus Ecclesiasticis, 69) says, that he wrote " ad
Romanes per Hippolytum alteram Epistolam de pceni-
tentid"
We are startled by these words Sia 'ITTTTOXUTOU, " per
Hippolytum ;" our attention is arrested by the intro-
duction of the name Hippolytus thus briefly, as if it
were well known ; and we are led to ask, Can it mean
any other person than the celebrated Hippolytus ?
1 Euseb. vi. 46.
2 Euseb. vi. 43. Nicephor. vi. 5. Fronto Ducseus in his note to
Nicephorus refers to Hippolytus.
3 Another labour of love which was performed by St. Dionysius with
wisdom, learning, personal energy, and success, was the allaying of the
Millenarian Controversy. This was in the years A.D. 254, 255. See
Euseb. vii. 24. And may I refer to my note on Rev. xx. 6, p. 268.
4 See Fabricius, Hippolyt. i. 244. 247.
EPISTLE OF DIONYS1US. 179
It would certainly have suggested him to the readers of
Eusebius and Jerome in the fourth and fifth centuries.
Just as the ancient expressions &acrica\La Sia'lTrvro-
\vrov, and nrepl ^eLpoTovLwv <u' 'iTTTroXvrov* sug-
gested, and were generally supposed to suggest him.
And Eusebius himself thus introduces the name
Hippolytus, simply and abruptly, without any epithet
or other qualifying accompaniment, when he is speak-
ing of our Hippolytus in his history (Lib. vi. 22).
But what then is the meaning of Sia/coviKij ? The
critics are in doubt. Goar thinks that it means a
synodical Epistle ; Rufrinus translates it "de minis-
teriis ;" Valesius and Tillemont conjecture that it
signifies u on the duties of deacons." But all these
interpretations are questionable. Perhaps the adjec-
tive Sia/covLKr} is equivalent to eiprjvucr), and a diaconic
Epistle is equivalent to an Eirenikon, a message of
peace. The Prayer for Peace in the ancient liturgies
at the Holy Eucharist was appointed to be said by the
Deacon, and was therefore called TO SLCLKOVIKOV? and a
Diaconic Epistle may have been a prayer for peace, and
an exhortation to peace ; and being addressed to the
Church of Rome, was it intended to heal the Novatian
schism, and restore peace ? In this opinion also we
are confirmed by St. Jerome's testimony, who says
that the Epistle which St. Dionysius wrote to the
Romans by Hippolytus, " per Hippolytum," was " de
Pcenitentia/' " on repentance," the question at issue
5 See Fabricius, Hippolyt. i. 244. 247.
6 See Suicer, Thesaurus, i. 864. 1035, ed. Amst. 1682.
N 2
180 PEACE.
in the Novatian Controversy. It was of the same
tendency as that which he wrote to Fabius, Bishop of
Antioch, who favoured Novatian.
May I therefore be allowed to offer a conjecture ?
Did St. Hippolytus, the most learned Bishop of the
West, repair to Alexandria in order to confer with
St. Dionysius, the greatest Bishop of the East, on the
course to be pursued with regard to Novatianism ?
If so, this absence may perhaps account for the non-
appearance of his name in the correspondence with
St. Cyprian at that time ; or did he, being at Portus,
remain in a state of neutrality, and did St. Dionysius
address his letter of mediation and reconciliation to
the Roman Church through him ?
In either case Dionysius, the greatest Bishop of the
East, corresponding with the most eloquent, learned,
and celebrated Bishop of the West, Hippolytus, and
endeavouring to promote the welfare of the Church
by his means, would have shown gracefulness of tact,
and delicate refinement, blended with Christian wis-
dom and Christian love, which could hardly fail to
exercise a happy and holy influence on the con-
tending parties, and to join them together in faith and
love, in the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace.
CHAPTER XI.
Silence of Church Historians. Objections from it
considered.
WE have already considered some of the various
questions which occur to the reader when he first
peruses our Author's narrative concerning Zephyrinus
and Callistus.
Let us now proceed to examine some others.
I. We see in that narrative two Bishops of Rome,
the greatest Church in the West, not only charged
with Heresy, but with patronizing and propagating it.
And they are represented as disparaging those who
were orthodox, and as assailing them publicly with
calumnious appellations, and other contumelious in-
dignities. If this had been the case, we feel dis-
posed to ask, Would not the whole Church have
sounded an alarm ? Would not the world have rung
with the fame of such doings as these ? Let us con-
sider some parallel cases. What a stir was made in
Christendom, when Liberius, Bishop of Rome, lapsed
into Arianism in the fourth century. And with what
surprise and consternation did the Church Universal
182 POPES DISCLAIMING INFALLIBILITY.
receive the intelligence, that Pope Honorius, in the
seventh century, had communicated with the Mono-
thelites? Notwithstanding all the extenuating cir-
cumstances pleaded in their favour, the names of
Liberius and Honorius have been branded with the
stigma of infamy (the latter by Popes themselves), and
have been generally regarded with sorrow mingled
with abhorrence by a great part of Christendom, from
their own times even to this day. 1
2. But who knows the name of Zephyrinus as
connected with heretical doctrine ? Who knows the
name of Callistus as the founder of a sect ? And if
our Author's narrative is true, they were not only
Heretics, but Heresiarchs. Would they not, therefore,
1 Especially Pope Honorius : anathematized as a heretic even by
Popes themselves, on their accession to the Papacy. See the "Liber
Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum " (ed. Paris, 1680), used in the eighth
century at the consecration of Roman Bishops, who then made a
solemn public declaration as follows : "" Auctores novi haeretici dogmatis
Sergium, Pyrrhum, Paulum et Petrutn Constantinopolitanos, una cum
Honorio, qui pravis eorum assertionibus fomentum impendit . . . cum
omnibus haereticis scriptis atque sequacibus nexu perpetui anathematis
devinxerunt. Cum supra fatis kareticis t Sabellium, Paulum Samosatenum,
Marim Persam, Montanum, Donatum, . . . execramur ac condemnamus"
The reader may see a full and clear statement as to this remarkable
document in Routh, Scr. Eccl. ii. pp. 145 163, ed. Oxon. 1858.
It is certain that Popes then affirmed themselves to be not infallible.
For not only did the Popes declare that'/fc^? Honorius had fallen into
Heresy, but their Profession of Faith goes on to say, " Unde et district!
anathematis interdiction! subjicimus, si quis unquam, seu Nos, sive est
alius, qui novum aliquid prsesumat contra hujusmodi evangelicam
traditionem et orthodoxse fidei Christianseque religionis integritatem. "
What would the Popes of the first eight centuries have said to the
decree of the Vatican Council, July 18, 1870, affirming that the Pope is
infallible ? And can Popes be infallible, since they contradict one
another as to their wn. fallibility ?
SILENCE OF CHURCH HISTORIANS. 183
have taken their place as such in the pages of Church
History ? Would not Eusebius have recorded their
acts ? Would not St. Jerome ? Would they not
have been enumerated in the copious Catalogues of
Heretics, drawn up by the laborious diligence of
Epiphanius, Philastrius, Augustine, and Damascene?
If Liberius and Honorius attained such unhappy
notoriety, surely some records would survive of the
more miserable apostasy of two Bishops of Rome in
succession Zephyrinus and Callistus, who propaga-
ted heresy, and proscribed those who were orthodox.
Such surmises as these have doubtless occurred to
the reader of this narrative, and they have been pro-
pounded by some as objections to its credibility.
Let us consider them.
If in previous Chapters it has been shown to be
certain, that the Work before us is a work of Hip-
polytus, if we have seen reason for believing that
the narrative in the Ninth book is from his pen, then
we have good ground for saying, that the narrative
is deserving of credit. For it comes from a person
of unimpeachable character, who was a Bishop of the
Roman Church in the age of Zephyrinus and Callis-
tus. Therefore we are bound to say, History is not
silent on the subject of their apostasy. On the con-
trary, our Author informs us, that the Heresy patro-
nized by Callistus produced :( a very great confusion
in the minds of all the faithful in all the world." 2
.It did make a great noise: it excited a great com-
2 Above, p. 65.
184 EARL V ROMAN CHURCH HISTOR Y.
motion. It did not escape the notice of History.
St. Hippolytus is its Historian.
But, it may be said, these considerations do not
remove the difficulty. For if our Author is Hip-
polytus, if this narrative is from his pen, how is it
that the facts narrated by him did not become gene-
rally known ? If Zephyrinus and Callistus acted
and taught, as our Author says they did, and if our
Author was a Bishop of the Roman Church, how is
it to be explained that the name and narrative of
St. Hippolytus did not give notoriety to them ?
Such questions, we may first observe, appear to
proceed from a lack of adequate discrimination of
times and seasons in the Church. They seem to
arise from a habit of mind formed under the in-
fluences, literary and theological, subsequent in time
to the epoch at which our Author wrote. The eyes
of men have been so much dazzled with the splendour
with which the Church of Rome has been invested
since the tenth century, and they are . so much im-
pressed with the grandeur and magnificence which she
displayed in mediaeval times, that they are hardly able
to see clearly what she was in the first ages of Chris-
tianity. They reflect their own ideas back from the
thirteenth century to the third. But it is for the calm
and thoughtful student of History to emancipate his
mind from the thraldom of such delusive impres-
sions.
Each age has its own character. The ante-Nicene
period is different from the Nicene. The Christian-
INSIGNIFICANCE OF ROMAN CHURCH. 185
ization of the Empire introduced a new era in the
history and fortunes of the Church. If such events
as our Author describes had taken place in the fourth
or fifth centuries instead of the third, then indeed they
would have been noised throughout the world, and
the echo of them, sounding far and wide, would have
been heard distinctly at this day.
If, again, the Scene of such events as these had been
in the East, instead of the West, then it is probable
the world would have heard much of them for
some time. The Eastern Church, even then, was
eminent for learning. But Rome was barren in
Theological Literature. Noetus, an Eastern
Smyrna, was well known to the Church. But there
were few comparatively in the world to record the acts
of the Roman Callistus. Let us, then, bear in mind
the place and time at which the events in this narra-
tive are represented to have occurred, Rome, in the
beginning of the third century. Rome at that time
did not contain more than forty-six Presbyters, not
more than many of our own Cathedral cities. 3 It was
still almost a heathen city. St. Jerome affirms (Ep.
96, ad Princip.) that many Priests at Rome in his age
fell into Origenistic heresies, through the simpleness
of the Bishop of Rome, and were set right by a
woman. It has been asserted by ^Eneas Sylvius, who
afterward became a Bishop of Rome as Pius II.
(A.D. 1458), that " 4 before the Council of Nicaea little
3 Euseb. vi. 43.
4 Epist. 31, ad Martinum Mayerum. "Ante Nicsenam Synodum
186 EARL Y ROMAN CHURCH H1STOR Y.
regard was paid to the Church of Rome, and that
every one in Christendom looked after their own
affairs," and cared little for the sayings or doings of
Roman Bishops. This is a strong statement ; but we
should be involved in serious error, if we estimated
the importance of Rome and her Bishops in the third
century by the influence which they afterwards
acquired. 5 In external respects, there was almost as
much difference between Callistus and Innocent III.,
as there was between Servius Tullius and Augustus
Caesar. And it was not more strange that Callistus,
the Slave of Carpophorus, should become a Roman
Bishop, than that Servius, the Slave of Tanaquil,
should become King of Rome.
We may pursue the parallel further. To us the
History of the Roman Church in the beginning of the
third century has been hitherto almost an unexplored
region. It has been what the history of Heathen
Rome is under her Kings almost barren of facts, and
peopled with fables of a later age. We have had few
materials whereby to form an accurate judgment con-
cerning it. And in this consists the value of the
unusquisque sibi vixit, et parvus respectus ad Romanam Ecclesiam
habebatur. "
5 Neander justly observes, ii. 483, " Important as the Church of
Rome became . . . yet it was from the beginning comparatively barren
in respect to all theological science. . . . Two individuals only appear
to have distinguished themselves as ecclesiastical authors among the
Roman Clergy, the presbyter Caius the opponent of Montanism, and
Novatian, whom Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, calls 6 Soy/jiaTiffTr)?,"
Euseb. vi. 43, a name which, Neander remarks, suggests that such a
phenomenon was rare at Rome. Tertulhan's home was Carthage.
MINUCIUS FELIX. 187
present narrative in the recently-discovered Treatise.
If it is genuine, if it is authentic, it may almost be
called an historical revelation. It aids us in filling up
a chasm in a very interesting period of Church His-
tory. The rescue of this single Volume from the
monastic cloister of Mount Athos, is a more important
event than the disinterment of a chest of ancient
" Libri Pontificum," composed under Kings of Rome.
There is extant an ancient Dialogue of a Chris-
tian Author, written in Latin, distinguished by
perspicuity and elegance of style, and dating as
it would seem from nearly the same period as the
recently-discovered Treatise on Heresy. And it is
observable, that the Scene of that Dialogue is laid at
Ostia within a very short distance of our Author's
residence Portus. 6 The reader will anticipate the
name of Minucius Felix. This Dialogue, entitled
" Octavius," from the name of the Christian interlocu-
tor, who prevails on his heathen friend Caecilius to
renounce paganism for Christianity, affords no infor-
mation with regard to the doctrinal or disciplinarian
condition of the Roman Church at that time. But it
seems to show that it was then a poor and despised
community, or, as Caecilius calls it, a " latebrosa et
lucifugax natio " 7 a " Church of the Catacombs."
6 It begins with a reference to the Temple of Serapis, which stood
at Portus. See the ancient inscription in Spon. Miscell. erudit.
Antiquit. Lugd. 1685, p. 329 : M. Aupi)\Los "Hpcov Ntwit6pos rov 4v
7 Minuc. Felix, p. 75, ed. Lug. Bat. 1672. See also p. 102, Pars
vestrum major et meliur egetis, algetis, fame laboratis.
188 EARL Y ROMAN CHURCH HISTOR Y.
The History of the Western Church in the second
and third centuries is, as we have said, almost a
terra incognita. Let us consider some causes of
this.
The Christians at that time were engaged in acting
and suffering, and had but little leisure for writing.
Apologies for Christianity against Paganism, Vindi-
cations of the Catholic Faith, and Refutations of
Heresy, were their Literature. Being exposed to
the peril of martyrdom, they had little means or
inclination for the collection of materials for History.
And even if Church Histories had been written
in the second and third centuries, they would
probably have been destroyed in 'the Decian and
Diocletian persecutions. Church History is the
product of Peace. We may thank Constantine for
it.
But it may be said, Have we not Church Historians
who profess to describe the early period of the
Roman Church ? Have we not Eusebius ? Have
we not St. Jerome ? Was not he secretary to Pope
Damasus ? and must not he have known the early
history of the Roman Church ? We have indeed
such writers, and we have reason to be thankful for
them. But let us consider their circumstances.
Eusebius, who brings down his history to A.D. 325,
informs us, that he was the first who attempted to
write a Church History. His words are remark-
able. He claims indulgence because he is " the first
to engage in this enterprise, and because he is enter-
LIMITED KNOWLEDGE OF EUSEBIUS. 189
ing on a desert and untrodden road, and is not able
to find any print-marks of persons who had preceded
him."* Eusebius lived a century after Hippolytus.
Besides, Eusebius was an Eastern ; he knew little of
Latin ; 9 his accounts of the early history of the
Roman Church are very meagre. And St. Jerome,
though a Western by birth, was an Eastern by resi-
dence in his maturer years, and did not much more
for Church History than transcribe from the work of
Eusebius.
Let us here notice some other instances. Eusebius,
it is clear, did not know who was the Author of the
" Little Labyrinth," from which he quotes a long
extract. 1 We know that it was written by Hippo-
lytus. 2
Eusebius mistakes Novatus for Novatian, 3 and
never mentions Lactantius or Minucius Felix. Theo-
doret never mentions St. Cyprian, 4 and does not
8 Enseb. i. I.
9 ' ' Eusebius Latinse linguse perexiguam habuit cognitionem. " See
Vales, and Heinichen in Euseb. i. 13 ; ii. 2 ; ii. 25 ; iv. 8 ; viii. 2.
"Eusebius" (says Bp. Pearson, Annal. Cyprian. Prsef.) " scriptor in
rebus Occidentis parum accuratus" Again: "Eusebiana Pontificum
Romanorum Chronologia merito suspecta," says Bp. Pearson, Dissert.
Posth. i. c. 10, p. 101. Again: "Eusebio res Occidentalis imperil
parum cognitse," says Dodwell, Dissert, p. no.
1 v. 28. See below, chap. xii.
2 Ruggieri says very truly, p. 497, Recentiores Scriptores multa
sciverunt quse Eusebio et S. Hieronymo fuerunt incomperta, and he
adduces various instances in proof, pp. 497 505.
a Euseb. vi. 43. 45, and the Variorum Notes, pp. 511. 534, ed. Oxon.
1842 ; and as to Lactantius, see the notes on viii. 6.
4 "Theodoretus Cypriani utpote Latini nusquam meminit," says
Bp. Pearson, Annal. Cyprian.
390 MEAGRENESS OF OUR KNOWLEDGE
appear to have known the See of Hippolytus, nor
does he mention his martyrdom. 5
Eusebius has fallen into errors in the history of
Bishops of Rome in the age of Hippolytus. For
example, he gives to Stephen an Episcopate of only
two years (Euseb. vii. 6) instead of four ; to Xystus
eleven years (vii. 27) instead of two ; to Eutychianus
ten months (vii. 32) instead of eight years.
If then Church-Historians did not know such facts
in the History of Popes, and of so celebrated a per-
son as Hippolytus, is their silence or the silence
of others, with regard to any events in his life, or in
the History of the Western Church in his age, to be
regarded as of sufficient weight to set aside, or
countervail, positive testimony from a credible source ?
Assuredly not.
When Ruffinus, presbyter of Aquileia, wished to
give to Western Christendom a History of the early
Church, he did not compose an original work, but
translated the History of Eusebius. Sulpicius Severus,
and Orosius writing in the West, show how little was
known by Occidental Christians concerning their own
early Church History ; Socrates, Sozomen, and
Theodoret, are Orientals. 6
5 He calls him eTrur/coTros /col yuaprup in several places iv. 54- 130-
282, and in each of these cases he quotes him after Ignatius and
Irenseus, whose sees he mentions, but he never mentions that of
Hippolytus.
6 How little have we heard of Rome except through the medium of
Greece ! What should we have known of the Scipios if Livy had not
been preceded by Polybius? The names of Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
Appian, Dio Cassius, and other Greek writers suggest similar reflections.
OF EARLY ROMAN CHURCH HISTORY. 191
Hence it has come to pass, that we have hitherto
been obliged to study the early History of the West,
in the pages of the East. The Easterns were not
acquainted with the early History of the Roman
Church, and we cannot learn from them what they
did not know.
Therefore (we may repeat), no argument can be
derived against the credibility of the present Narra-
tive from any silence of Church Historians.
Let us here notice two parallels to the events
recorded in our narrative.
A Bishop of Rome at the end of the third century,
Marcellinus, who afterwards suffered Martyrdom, is
said to have fallen away in the time of persecution
from the Christian faith, and to have sacrificed to
the gods of the heathen. This is generally stated by
Roman writers, who have composed the lives of
Roman Bishops. 7 But Eusebius says nothing of it ;
nor any Historian of that age.
Again ; A Bishop of Rome in the second century
was induced to favour Montanism : he acknowledged
the prophecies of Prisca and Maximilla, and com-
municated with Montanist congregations. And how
do we know this ? From a single passage of Tertul-
Han ; 8 if that had been lost, we should have heard
nothing of this important fact. And to this day it has
not been determined by learned men, wJto that
Montanizing Bishop of Rome was. 9 But no one doubts
7 E. g. Anastasius, and Platina. 8 Tertullian c. Prax. c. I.
9 Valesius in Euseb. v. 4, thinks it was Eleutherus. So does
192 PATRIPASSIANISM AT ROME.
the fact. Whether it made a noise at the time, we
cannot say, but
Ad nos vix tenuis famse perlabitur aura.
These circumstances are important, as showing that,
Bp. Pearson, Diss. ii. 9. Neander asserts that it was Anicetus (on
Tertullian, p. 486) ; in another place he seems to lean to Eleutherus,
Eccl. Hist. ii. 258 ; Baronius, that it was Anicetus. H. Dodwell
affirms, with good reason, that it was Zephyrinus himself, Dissert, (ad
A.D. 173) de Rom. Pont. Successione, xiv. 9. Dodwell argues this
from the close of the Catalogue of Heresies at the end of Tertuilian's
Praescriptiones, "Post hos omnes, i.e. post Theodotum Argentarium
(who was certainly under Zephyrinus, Euseb. v. 28) etiam Praxeas
quidam hceresim introduxit quam Vidorinus corroborare curavit." Now,
from Tertullian c. Praxeam, c. I, it appears that Praxeas did two things
at Rome at one and the same time : one was, he induced the Bishop of
Rome to revoke the letters of communion he had given to the
Montanists ; the second was, he broached his own heresy, /'. e. the
Patripassian heresy, which resembled that afterwards brought to Rome
by the followers of Noetus, and encouraged by Zephyrinus. "Duo
negotia diaboli Praxeas Romae procuravit ; prophetiam expulit, et
hasresim intulit. Paracletum fugavit, et Patrem crucifixit. '
The words "Praxeas hseresim introduxit, quam Victorinus corroborare
curavit," have caused some perplexity. Who was this "Victorinus?"
Gieseler proposes "Victor" ( 60, notes 5 and 7), supposing a
reference to Victor, Bishop of Rome, who excommunicated the
Theodotians, and therefore might be represented by some as favourable
to the opposite heresy, that of Praxeas.
The sentence bears a remarkable resemblance to the words of
S. Hippolytus speaking of Noetianism in our Treatise, as favoured by
Zephyrinus, p. 279, 29, KAeo^ueVTjs e'/cpctruj/e rb 86yfj.a /car' e/cetVo Kaipov
Zetyvpivov SieVeu/ vo^ovros ri]v e/CKA7j(7tai/, and p. 284,
e/cparui/e KaAA.io"ros . . . rbv Zetyvptvov
Perhaps, then, the true reading may be Zephyrinus.
A learned friend communicates a conjecture first made by Dr. Allix
(see Waterland, v. 227. Judgt. of Primitive Churches, chap, vi.), that
the List of Heretics at the end of Tertuilian's Praescriptiones is only a
Latin Translation of the jSi/SA/Sapio*' of Hippolytus, seen by Photius.
If this is the case, then the supposition above mentioned would be more
probable.
HERESY OF CALLISTUS. 193
because Bishops of Rome erred in the third century,
it does not necessarily follow, that a clear and
circumstantial account of their errors is to be expected
from the Church Histories which we now possess, or
that, when we have such an account in a single writer
o
of credit, we should look upon his narrative as
apocryphal. 1
But we are understating the argument. Our
Author is not alone in recording the errors of Cal-
listus. In two Roman Councils held A.D. 314 and 342
(cap. 2) there are decrees against a Callistus who " in
his pride separated the persons of the Trinity." Does
not this refer to Callistus,* Bishop of Rome ?
Theodoret, the Ecclesiastical Historian and Bishop
1 It is observable that Hippolytus in his Catalogue of Heretics never
mentions Praxeas. Nor does Tertullian mention Noetus. Yet who
doubts the existence of either ?
2 Concilia (ed. Labbe, i. p. 1408) de vita Sylvestri ex libro Pontif.
Uamasi. In urbe Roma Papa congregavit Episcopos 277 et damnavil
iterum et Calixtum et Arium et Photinum et Sabellium. Ibid. p. 1542.
Concil. Rom. sub Sylvestro A.D. 324 damnavit tarn Callistum quam
Arium et Photinum atque Sabellium. We find also there, p. 1548.
Cap. ii. primo arbitrio Callisti damnari corroboretur examen, qui se Cal-
listus ita docuit Sabellianum, ut arbitrio suo sumat unam personam esse
Trinitatis, non enim coaequante Patrem et Filio et Spiritu Sancto.
Cardinal Baronius receives these Acts as genuine. Annal. Eccl. A.D.
324. Num. 126. damnavit prim^e actionis exordio Callistum Sabellii
hczresi maculatum : and adds, Quisnam autem hie fuerit, ignoratur. In
earlier times it was no strange thing for one Roman Pontiff to con-
demn another Pope as a heretic, although long defunct, as may
be seen in the "liber diurnus " of the Roman Pontiffs, in which (to
adopt Dr. Routh's words, Proef. Eccl. Script. Opusc. p. viii,)
" Honorium urbis Romanse Episcopum successors ejus anathemate
nominatim feriunt;" see above, p. 182, note.
O
194 HERESY OF CALLISTUS
of Cyrus in the fifth century, in his compendious
account of Heresies, adds to his article on Noetus a
shorter one, entitled " On Callistus,"* as follows,
" Callistus took the lead in propagating this Heresy
after Noetus, and devised certain additions to the
impiety of the doctrine." <
Here then is another witness. It is evident, as will
be shown hereafter, from a comparison of Theodoret's
Account of Heresies with the newly-discovered
Treatise, 5 that Theodoret, in composing his own work,
used our Author's Volume, and derived materials
from it. He regarded Callistus, Bishop of Rome, as a
heretic, and placed him in his catalogue of heretics.
It is certain that the newly-discovered Treatise was
written before the time of Theodoret ; and that he
regarded our Author as trustworthy, and followed him
as such.
Let us also recollect the character of the Callistian
Heresy, as described by our Author. It had no
elements of permanence. For it arose from a com-
promise due to personal and local circumstances. It
was an attempt to reconcile two incompatible systems
the system of Noetus and Theodotus. It was not
therefore likely to make any great stir after the
death of Callistus. It would soon be obsolete and
3 It is headed, in the Roman edition of Theodoret, irepl KaAAiV-
TOV.
4 Haeret. Fab. Comp. iii. 3, torn. iv. pt. i. ed. Hal. 1772, p. 343.
5 See below, APPENDIX B. to this Volume.
MERGED IN SABELLIANISM. 195
forgotten. 6 It would be absorbed in Sabellianism,
as even the more consistent theory of Noetus was
soon merged in that Heresy. " The Noetians," says
St. Augustine, 7 " are scarcely known by any one now ;
but the Sabellians are in many people's mouths."
No wonder that the world soon forgot the Heresy of
Callistus.
It may be here observed, that Theodoret states
that no vestige even of Sabellianism remained in
his age. 8 He is speaking of the East. And probably
it was almost extinguished at Rome, by Dionysius,
Bishop of that Church, in the middle of the third
century. 9 Can we then be surprised that the doctrines
and acts of Zephyrinus and of Callistus, should not
have found a prominent place in the annals of the
Church ?
If History had been silent with respect to them,
there would not therefore have been much cause for
surprise. But, as we have seen, History is not silent.
And let us proceed to observe that there are also
various scattered notices in ancient ecclesiastical
writers, which, though not directly adverting to the
events recorded in this narrative, yet throw light
upon them, and are illustrated by them.
Thus the laxity of discipline with which our Author
6 Sabellius is called a disciple of Noetus by Philastrius, Haeres. 54.
See also S. Aug. Hseres. 41.
7 Aug. de Hseres. xli. Noetiani difficile ab aliquo sciuntur, Sabelliani
autem sunt in ore multorum.
8 Hseret. Fab. Comp. ii. xi. : ov fipaxv rovruv Sie'/ucivc
9 See above, chap. ix. p. 171.
O 2
196 " THE LITTLE LABYRINTH?
taxes the Church of Rome in his own age is described
in very similar terms by his contemporary, Tertullian. 1
Again, a passage has been preserved by Eusebius,
which was written by St. Hippolytus. 2 It is from
the " Little Labyrinth," a work directed against the
Heresy of Artemon and Theodotus, who affirmed our
Blessed Lord to be a mere man.
These heretics had alleged, that their own opinions
had been sanctioned by the Church of Rome, " //// the
age of Victor, but that from the time of Zephyrinus?
1 his successor, the truth had been corrupted."
Here, then, it was affirmed, that, under the Episco-
pate of Zephyrinus, a change had taken place in the
^doctrine of the Roman Church.
Now, if (as the Author of our Treatise states)
Zephyrinus lapsed into Noetianism, which was indeed
the opposite extreme to the heresy of Artemon, as
well as contrary to orthodoxy, then indeed there was
a change in the teaching of Rome, and the truth was
corrupted from the date of his Episcopate.
Thus the assertion of Artemon and his followers
confirms this narrative, and is explained by it.
But this, it may be said, was an assertion of
heretics.
1 The passages may be seen quoted above, p. 94, in the notes to the
translation of that portion of the " Refutation of all Heresies."
2 See Euseb. v. 28, and Theodoret, Haeret. Fab. ii. 4, ii. 5. The
ground of its ascription to St. Hippolytus is that its Author claimed as
his own the Book on the Universe, which is known, from the statue of
Hippolytus, to have been written by him. And the date of the Author
and his subject and style are confirmatory of this evidence.
3 airb Ztfpvpivov TrapaitfxapdxOai T ^ A7}0eiaf.
ZEPHYRINUS. 197
True ; but let us observe, How does Hippolytus
himself meet the charge in the passage quoted by
Eusebius ? 4 Does he deny the accusation, by assert-
ing the orthodoxy of Zephyrinus? If Zephyrinus
had been sound in faith, and had been acknowledged
as such, he could hardly have failed to repel so grave
an impeachment by an indignant appeal to the
conscience of the Roman Church. But he does not
thus speak. No ; he uses the following words :
" This charge would " (he allows) " perhaps have
been probable" * this is a remarkable confession; it
would perhaps have been probable, if something else
had not been the case. And what was that ? Does
he say, If Zephyrinus had not been orthodox, and
known to be such ? No ; he urges no such plea, he
makes no such affirmation ; but, waiving that ques-
tion, he says, //".the doctrines of Artemon were not ,
contradicted by Scripture, and if the Divinity of "
Christ had not been taught by \\\z primitive Church.
He therefore almost seems by implication to admit
the charge against Zephyrinus, as countenancing an
innovation in the doctrine of the Church ; and this
admission, if such it be, is explained by the narrative
before us. And let us add, that, in the extract from
St. Hippolytus, quoted by Eusebius, there is also an
invective against an heretical Bishop, Natalius, who
had lapsed into heresy through avarice, and there is
an animadversion on and against " the vice of covet-
4 Euseb. v. 28.
5 i\v 5' Uv Tvyjbv triQar'bv rb \ey6(j.evov.
198 SILENCE OF CHURCH HISTORIANS.
ousness, as working the ruin of the majority of men"
a remark which was perhaps suggested by the beset-
ting sin of Zephyrinus, 7 as displayed in the Narrative
before us.
We have been reviewing certain passages of ancient
writers which incidentally reflect light on the Roman
narrative of our Author, and receive light from it ;
and, in this manner, afford guarantees of our Author's
veracity. More such illustrations might be added,
and will probably suggest themselves to the reader,
who may find profitable employment in observing
such undesigned coincidences as these.
Let us now pass on to notice an objection, which
has, in all probability, already occurred to his mind.
How can it be explained, that a narrative of so much
interest and importance as the present, contained
in a work composed by so eminent a person as Hip-
polytus, should have escaped the notice of the world ?
How may we account for the fact, that it has been
reserved to a felicitous enterprise in the middle of the
nineteenth century to call it forth from the grave in
which it had lain buried for 1600 years ?
One reply, and one only, as it would seem, is to be
made to this question. It has pleased Divine Provi-
dence that it should be so. The preservation, the
6 ry irXfiffrovs airo\\voi>(Tr)
7 "Where Zephyrinus is represented as having fallen into heresy
through avarice. See the Refutation of all Heresies, above, p. 65,
ZfQvpivov dj/Spbs aiffxpoKepdovs, and KfpSet iTpo(T^po^4v<f irei66fj.evos,
and above, p. 73, Zetyvpivov ovra 8wpo\j)nTf)v Kal (pi\dpyvpov.
DISCOVERY OF THE MANUSCRIPT. 199
discovery, and lastly the publication of this Volume,
demand our grateful acknowledgment. It may not
be presumptuous to say, that the same Divine Power
which sealed up the cities of Herculaneum and
Pompeii in their graves of lava for seventeen cen-
turies, and then raised them from the tomb and
revealed them to our sight, that we might see in them
a faint image of the sudden destruction from fire
which will one day overtake the World while engaged
in its business and its pleasures, has had some purpose
in view, in the burial and resurrection of this interest-
ing Work. He Who allowed the copies of His Holy
Word to be destroyed, and Who hid one authentic
copy in his Sanctuary, may have had some wise
and benevolent design, while He permitted the other
transcripts of this work to perish, in concealing one
copy in safe custody in the monastic cloister of Mount
Athos. Perhaps, also, it may be said, that the form
of the question ought to be modified. The real
ground for surprise is not so much that the other
transcripts should have perished, as that this one
Manuscript should have been preserved.
Of the works written in the third century how
small a residue survives ! Of how many ecclesiastical
authors, who lived at that period, we have little
more than the names ! Let us cast our eyes over the
pages of Dr. Routh's " Reliquiae Sacrae ;" how many
writers do they present to us of the Antenicene age,
how many titles of works, and how few are the frag-
ments there gathered together. In that Sacred
200 ANTEN1CENE REMAINS.
Reliquary, in that spiritual catacomb of the Primitive
Church (if we may be permitted so to call it), a little
dust precious indeed as gold in a few sepulchral
urns, is what now remains. 8
The reason of this is clear ; the Christians of that
age were dispersed by the persecutions of Decius and
Diocletian. Their churches were burnt ; their houses
were spoiled ; they themselves were swept away by
fire and sword. The Church was scattered to the
winds. The rage of Diocletian was specially directed
against Sacred Books. The Volumes which escaped
from the perils of those days were like brands
plucked from the fire.
If the work upon heresy now in our hands had been
published in the fifth or the sixth century, when the
storm of persecution had passed away, then, indeed, we
might have been surprised that it should not have been
known to subsequent ages, but now, we repeat, we
ought perhaps rather to be surprised that any copy
remains.
Let us observe, also, our Author's position as
writer.
He was an Eastern writing in the West. He wrote
at Rome in the language of Greece. And he pub-
lished his work when the use of the Greek language
was becoming less common in Western Christendom.
ov av-
y/J.'l-
evderovs.
./Eschyl. Agam. 430.
LATIN CHURCH LITERATURE. 201
As the Church of Rome grew in importance, so the
language of Rome became more and more the lan-
guage of the Western Church. In the third century,
particularly by the influence of Tertullian and Cyprian,
the Western Church began to possess a Literature of
its own. Under such circumstances as these, the
demand for our Author's work was not likely to be
large. How little should we now possess of his
master Irenaeus, if his Work on Heresy had not been
very early translated into Latin. How very scanty
are the remains of any early Greek ecclesiastical
writings that were first published in the West. Ter-
tullian's Greek works are lost. A few paragraphs are
all that remain of Caius. The genuine Hermas sur-
vives only in Latin. 9 Clement of Rome owes the pre-
servation of his Epistle to its having been sent into
Greece. Our Author's Treatise being published in
the West, but not in the language of the West, would
soon cease to be transcribed. It would be super-
seded by other works on Heresy, such as those of
Philastrius and Augustine, written in Latin, and would
soon sink into oblivion.
Besides, let us now revert to the fact already
mentioned before, as established by the testimony of
Photius, that a smaller work, written also by Hip-
polytus, as a Refutation of Heresy, was once in
existence. (See above, pp. 46 59.)
Now, let us observe, the newly-recovered Treatise
on Heresy appears to have been either anonymous,
9 See Dressel's edition, p. xliv.
202 SMALL WORKS EXTINGUISH LARGE ONES.
or at least not to have retained the name of
Hippolytus, and it is a much larger work than the
biblaridion seen by Photius, and described by him as
a Treatise of Hippolytus on Heresy.
It is very probable that the smaller work did much
to throw the larger work into the shade.
Isaac Casaubon has well shown, in the admirable
dedication prefixed to his edition of Polybius, 1 that
the making of Epitomes has tended to the destruction
of the works epitomized. Justin has extinguished
Trogus. The Excerpta made from Polybius have
destroyed a great part of Polybius. It is not too
much to say, that the learned Emperor Constantinus
Porphyrogenitus innocently and unconsciously perpe-
trated a massacre of ancient Historians, by ordering
their works to be abridged. Henceforth no one would
purchase, no one could transcribe them. The im-
perial Abstracts superseded the voluminous and costly
originals. 2
If a small Work and a large Work, bearing the
name of the same Author and treating on the same
subject, were extant in ancient times, the chances of
vitality were greatly in favour of the smaller. It was
more portable, and less costly. It was first observed
1 Casaubon, Dedicatio ad Polyb. p. 1 8, vol. iii. ed. Amst. 1670.
Accessit pestis alia, Compendiorum et Epitomarum confectio, quod
genus scriptionis publice noxium et magnis scriptoribus semper fuit
exitiosissimum.
2 ''Epitomes " (says Lord Bacon) "are the moths of History, which
have fretted and corroded the sound bodies of many excellent Histories;"
and, we may add, of many excellent works on Theology and Philo-
sophy also.
E USTA TH1US CAS A UBONBENTLE Y. 203
by Casaubon 3 that Eustathius, the Archbishop of
Thessalonica, in his vast Homeric Commentary, rarely
quotes from the entire work of Athenaeus, but gene-
rally uses the Epitome of that Author ; and Bentley
has shown that Eustathius appears never even to have
seen the entire Athenaeus, but always to have used the
Epitome. 4 Similarly it may be remarked, that Epi-
phanius wrote two works on Heresy, his " Panarium,"
a very voluminous one, and an Epitome of it, called
" Anacephalaeosis," or Recapitulation. St. Augustine
has left us a work on Heresies, and he refers to
Epiphanius ; he copied from the " Recapitulation,"
but does not appear to have known the " Pana-
rium." 5
Our Author wrote two treatises on Heresy. The
smaller, it is probable, superseded the larger, the
more so because the smaller bore his name prefixed ;
the larger seems to have been without it. Four
MSS. have been preserved of the First Book, which
has been published long ago, 6 and we have this
newly-discovered MS. of seven other Books. But
not one of these five MSS. bears the name of Hip-
polytus.
Hence, it came to pass, that the narrative con-
tained in the Ninth Book concerning the Roman
3 Casaubon in Athenaeum, i. I.
4 Bentley, Dissertation on Phalaris, p. 95, ed. Lond. 1777.
5 " Anacephalseosis sola sine Panario venit in manus Augustini," say
the Benedictine Editors, viii. p. 47, ed. Paris, 1837, and see Lardner, L
P- 583.
6 In the Benedictine edition of Origen. See above, p. 18.
204 EVILS OF EPITOMES.
Church, did not attract the attention that otherwise
it would have done.
Nor is this all. Not only did a smaller, and separate,
Treatise on Heresy by Hippolytus exist, which inter-
fered with the circulation of the Larger Work ; but the
Larger Work itself was epitomized in the Tenth Book:
and this Tenth Book, being a Recapitulation, had a
tendency to supplant the other Nine.
There appears to be good reason for believing,
that, as St. Augustine used only the Summary of
Epiphanius, so likewise Theodoret, in his work on
Heresy, used only this Recapitulation by Hip-
polytus. 7
And this Recapitulation, describing the Heresy of
Callistus (p. 330), does not style him Bishop of Rome,
but merely refers to the narrative of his doings already
given in the Ninth Book.
Hence this summary also conduced to the same
result as the " Little Book " of Hippolytus. It shel-
tered Callistus, and helped him to escape from the
notice of History.
Further, may we not say, that such a book as this,
published in the West, and containing such a narrative
as that in the Ninth Book, concerning the Roman
Church, was not likely to be regarded with favour in
the region of Rome, where it was composed and pub-
lished ? It displays a picture, which no member, and
especially no presbyter or Bishop, of that Church,
could otherwise regard than with feelings of sorrow
7 See below, Appendix B.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT. 205
and shame. They would not be eager to transcribe
it, or to purchase copies of it.
It is remarkable that this work one of the most
voluminous written by St. Hippolytus is not mentioned
in the inscription on the Statue, which was erected to
his memory at Rome, and gives a list of the titles of
his works.
All who are familiar with the History of ancient
MSS., know well how soon a book perished, which
was not often transcribed. And therefore the wonder
is, not that the other copies of this work were lost, but
that one copy was saved. Probably an early copy
of it may have been transported by some friendly
Greek from the West to the East, and lodged in a cell
of Mount Athos. And now a more recent transcript
has come forth from its place of refuge, and has been
brought by a Greek from the East to the West, and
it speaks to the World.
On the whole, it appears, that this Narrative con-
cerning the Roman Church in the early part of the
Third Century, was written by St. Hippolytus, a
scholar of St. Irenaeus, an eminent Bishop, Doctor,
and Martyr of the Church. He was an eye-witness of
what he relates, his relation, therefore, is entitled to
credit ; it is to be received as true.
No valid objection can be raised against this con-
clusion from the silence of History. History records
facts corroborating this narrative, which is itself a
most credible History, as coming from Hippolytus.
206 HISTORY OF THE MANUSCRIPT.
And many causes contributed to render this Narra-
tive less generally known. The place of its original
publication, the time of its appearance in the world,
the character of the Narrative itself, were unfavour-
able to its circulation. It was antecedent to Church
History, and Church History was of Eastern growth,
and knew little of the West. And Persecution soon
followed the publication of this Narrative, and di-
verted the mind of the Church in another direction,
and destroyed much of her Literature. The Work
in which this Narrative is contained, and in which it
lies almost obscured, had other literary rivals to con-
tend with. Other Histories of Heresy, written in
Latin, superseded it. Its own Author did much to
supplant it. First, his smaller work, described by
Photius ; and, secondly, his own Summary in the
Tenth Book, sufficed for the public demand : the rest
was rarely transcribed, and was soon forgotten. The
Heresy of Callistus had vanished from the world,
and was of little interest to it. Thus the memory of
him and his doings died away. And, in the course
of a few centuries, Callistus, the promoter of heresy,
became a Saint and a Martyr in the Calendar of the
Roman Church.
Therefore, the silence of Church Historians such
as Eusebius and others, writing in the East, in the
fourth century, and in later times suggests to us
another cause of thankfulness for the remarkable
discovery of the Treatise in which this Narrative
ITS USES. 207
concerning the Roman Church is contained. It
reminds us how much we have gained by this dis-
covery. For this Narrative affords to us new and
effective means for the successful resistance and re-
futation of novel and dangerous errors, and for the
firmer establishment and maintenance of Scriptural
and Catholic Truth.
CHAPTER XII.
Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus.
IN the year 1716-18, an edition of the works, or
fragments of works, ascribed to St. Hippolytus, and
then known to be extant, was published at Ham-
burg, by Dr. John Albert FABRICIUS ' of Leipsic,
in two thin folio volumes ; a great part of which was
occupied with dissertations on the Paschal Chronicle,
and other subsidiary matter.
The works collected by Fabricius, and published
under the name of Hippolytus, had been attributed
to him in ancient Manuscripts, and had been, for the
most part, received as genuine by some eminent
critics and divines. But others had expressed a
1 S. HIPPOLYTI Episcopi et Martyris Opera non antea collecta et
partem nunc primum e MSS. in lucem edita Grace et Latine; accedunt
Virorum Doctorum Notse et Animadversiones.
The Second Volume, as far as it relates to St. Hippolytus, derives
its value principally from the Homily against Noetus, in the Greek
original, supplied by Montfaucon from a transcript of a MS. in the
Vatican. In the former Volume the Homily had been given only in a
Latin Translation by Francis Turrianus. This has been reproduced
with some additions by P. A. de Lagarde, Lipsise, 1858. But a com-
plete, critical edition of St. Hippolytus is a desideratum, which, we may
hope, will be supplied by one of our Universities.
WORKS ASCRIBED TO ST. HIPPOL YTUS. 209
doubt whether any of these writings, ascribed to St.
Hippolytus, are really his.
Dr. Mill, the learned Editor of the Greek Testa-
ment, who had purposed to publish an edition of
them, has intimated 2 an opinion that none of them
are genuine, except perhaps the work upon Anti-
christ. H. Dodwell spoke with much hesitation.
Dr. Grabe was scarcely more confident. 3 The
Benedictine Editors of St. Ambrose seem to have
thought that all the writings of St. Hippolytus were
lost 4
Such being the opinions of some distinguished
men concerning the writings ascribed to St. Hippo-
lytus on the authority of some ancient MSS., and
inserted as such in the edition of Fabricius,* no
arguments have been founded upon them in our
inquiry concerning the Authorship of the newly-
discovered " Refutation of all Heresies" I have
abstained from deductions of this kind, as being of a
precarious character, and liable to exception. And
the question of Authorship has been examined on
independent grounds.
But now at this stage of the investigation, when we
have been brought by other considerations to the con-
clusion, that the newly-discovered Treatise is rightly
2 Proleg. in N. T., n. 655. See Lardner, Credibility, i. p. 499. Dr.
Dorner (Person of Christ, i. ii. p. 449) is far more favourable.
3 Note on Bp. Bull, Def. Fid. Nicaen. c. 8. These passages were
collected by Lardner. Bp. Bull, Def. F. N., iii. 8. 4, p. 596, and
Waterland, iii. p. 102, are in favour of them.
* Temporum iniquitate perierunt.
5 See above, chap. iv.
P
"210 WORKS ASCRIBED TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS.
ascribed to St. Hippolytus, it becomes a reasonable
and interesting subject of inquiry ;
Whether the other writings attributed to Hippo-
lytus on a certain amount of presumptive evidence,
and inserted in an edition of his works, bear marks
of being from the same hand as the " Refutation of
all Heresies ? "
If this is found to be the case, then we shall obtain
a twofold result,
1. We shall be confirmed in our previous convic-
tion that the newly-discovered Treatise is from Hip-
polytus. And
2. We shall also be disposed to give credence to
the opinion of those who have accepted the other
works to which we have referred as genuine.
The evidence here applicable is partly external, and
partly internal.
I. The Author of the " Refutation of all Heresies "
affirms, that he wrote a Book on the System of the
Universe* St. Hippolytus wrote a work bearing that
title, as appears from various testimonies, and par-
ticularly from the Catalogue on his Statue, where it is
described as being written " against the Gentiles? and
against Plato, or on the Universe" It was, in all pro-
bability, intended to be a Christian System of Cos-
mogony, contrasted with that propounded by Plato
in his dialogue bearing a similar title " On the
Universe, or Timaeus," 8 which had been rendered
6 Above, p. 105. 7 Trpbs' r E\\T)vas Kal irpbs FIXaTou-a -?) irepl TOV Iia.vr6s.
8 Platonis Opera, vii. pp. 234-372, ed. Bekker, London, 1826. The
" ON THE UNIVERSE" 211
familiar to the Roman literary world through the
translation made by Cicero, of which some portions
remain.
One very interesting fragment, from a Work having
this title, " On the Universe," and bearing the name
of St. Hippolytus, was discovered in a MS. in an
Italian Library, and thence first printed by David
Hceschel, in a note to Photius, 9 and subsequently by
Stephen Le Moyne, in his Varia Sacra, 1 and by
Fabricius, in his edition 2 of Hippolytus. 3
On examining this fragment, we find much resem-
blance, both of thought and language, between it and
the latter part of the recently-discovered " Refutation
of all Heresies." 4 They mutually illustrate each other.
remains of Cicero's translation are in his Works, vii. p. 930, and are
entitled " Timseus, seu de Universo," ed. Oxon. 1810.
9 P. 923. J P. 1119. 2 i. p. 220.
3 And also (in some respects more correctly) in the Sacra Parallela
bearing the name of John Damascene, ii. pp. 755- 7^8, ed. Lequien,
where a portion of the fragment is attributed to Meletius, and a portion
to Josephus ('ICOO-TJTTTTOS).
4 The subject of both is the condition of departed spirits in another
world. Some of the parallels are as follows concerning the place and
punishment of the wicked :
Fragments from the work " On the "Refutation of all Heresies," p.
Universe," p. 220. 339- Above, p. 121.
Xupiov vir6yeioi> eV o> (pus K<J<TjUOu e/c4>eu<r0e raprdpov
OVK eViAa^Trei- (pearls TOVVVV <W a<p(t>riffTov virb Aoyov
rovrcf T$ x<W ^ Kara\d/u.- M /caraAoM^eJ', /cal
vovros . . . e<' $ Kar(na.ef}<rav aevdov \ip.vt)s y^vv^ropos <p\o-
Siav^ovres ras TWV rp6ir(av KoAaffTUf eMM a^ V^vov iv
rovrcf T OTTOS a(pct>ptffrai TS
irvpbs ao-fiearov.
P 2
212 THE INTERMEDIATE STATE.
And thus the proof that the " Refutation " is from
Hippolytus, strengthens the belief that the Fragment
has been rightly ascribed to him : and the ascription
of the Fragment by ancient Manuscripts to St. Hip-
polytus, corroborates the proof that the Treatise is
also from him.
This Fragment is of great value. It describes the
place of departed Spirits, which it terms " Hades ;"
P. 221. oi &$IKOI ets apHTTfpa
f \Kovrai virb ayy4\(av K o \aff-
TUV, juera jSias cbs 5ecTyiuot eA-
K0/u.ei>oi, ols ol (f>orT>TS &yye\ot
$iaire/j.Troi>Tai ovt8ioi/TS Kal <po-
(Sepcp 6/uL/J.aTi eTTcnreiA.oCj'Tes,
TT}S ytvvr}s tyyiov tyres TOV
ftpacr/jiov aSmAe/TTTws UTTO/COU-
ovai.
Other resemblances between the Treatise "on the Universe" and
the "Refutation," indicating their common origin, and, by consequence,
showing that the author of the "Refutation" is Hippolytus, maybe
seen in the notes accompanying the translation inserted above in
chapter vi. An argument might also be adduced in confirmation of the
Hippolytean origin of this fragment from its similarity to the language
of Irenseus on the same subject. See Iren. ii. 63, 64, on " the Bosom
of Abraham :" "dignam habitationem unamquamque gentem percipere,
etiam ante Jiidicium."
This Fragment on the Universe (Hippol. Fabric, p. 221) speaks of
the constituent parts of the dead body, decomposed and dissolved as in
a crucible (xuvtvT-hpiov), and all its elements, though mouldered into
dust or scattered to the winds, to be gathered again together at the
Resurrection. This passage has been printed among the fragments of
St. Irenseus (p. 468, Grabe), whence, in one place, it may be emended.
The Author is speaking of the union of the body with the soul in this
world, and their reunion in the next : and he compares that union to the
marriage tie, in the mutual affection which the body and soul ought to
have for each other : tyvx?] crvyx a P'n a ' eTat Ko.Qa.pa. KaOapy irapa^ivaaa, $
ft> rcf K.6(T/J.(p vvv SIKCUCOS (Tvutfitvuvoa. For vvv SiKalus the MS. of
Irenseus supplies the beautiful words
FUTURE REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS. 213
and it portrays the condition of the Souls, both of
the wicked and the righteous, on their separation
from the body by death. The former, it is there
said, pass immediately into a state of misery, in which
they suffer great pain, and have gloomy forebodings
of the still greater and interminable woe and
shame to which they will be consigned in Hell, at the
general Resurrection and last Judgment, when their
bodies will be reunited to them, and when they will
receive their full and final sentence from the lips of
their Everlasting Judge.
The Author of this work teaches also the following
doctrine concerning the spirits of the righteous on
their deliverance from the burden of the flesh. They
then pass, he says, into a place of rest and refresh-
ment, which is called " Abraham's Bosom," 5 they
there join the society of other holy and blessed
spirits, and enjoy a foretaste of the still greater
bliss of which they will have a full fruition after the
General Resurrection and Universal Judgment, in
the glories of heaven, and which will be for ever
theirs.
This Fragment is of a great doctrinal importance.
It contains
I. A protest against the doctrine of those who
imagine a sleep of the soul, in the interval between
Death and Judgment.
5 The doctrine and language of the Eighth Book of the Constitutions,
cap. 41 (p. 423, ed. Coteler.), bears much resemblance to that of our
Author ; thus another proof arises, that portions of the Eighth Book
are derived from Hippolytus. See above, p. 144, note.
214 THE MILLENNIUM.
2. A no less clear warning against the Romish
Doctrine of Purgatory.
3. A refutation of a popular error, which supposes
that the souls of the righteous, immediately on the
departure from the body, are admitted to the en-
joyment of full felicity in heaven^ and which thus
sets at nought the transactions of the general Resur-
rection, and the Universal Judgment of quick and dead.
4. A proof that the notion of a Millennial reign of
Christ on earth before the Resurrection, had no place
in our Author's system. This is the more observable,
because St. Hippolytus belonged to a theological
school that of Irenaeus in which Millenarian
opinions had previously shown themselves ; 6 and it
may therefore be concluded, that careful examination
of Scripture, and subsequent discussion and closer
scrutiny of the subject, under the influence of St.
Dionysius of Alexandria (see above, p. 178), had
deterred him from adopting those opinions. Perhaps
his master, Irenaeus, had seen reason to revise his
own sentiments in this respect after the publication
of his work on Heresy, in which they are broached.
However this may be, it appears that those opinions
gradually died away.
6 See on Irenseus, v. 34. Baron Bunsen well observes, p. 256, that
St. Hippolytus did not fall into another error of his master Irenseus,
*.<. concerning the duration of our Lord's ministry, which Irenseus
imagined to have extended beyond His fortieth year (Iren. ii. 39,
ed. Grabe, p. 161). Lumper, who has noticed this, well adds that
St. Hippolytus did more than this. St. Hippolytus (in Daniel, num. iv. )
says that our Lord suffered in His thirty-third year. See Lumper, viii.
177. As to Millenarianism, cp. below, p. 220.
" ON THE UNIVERSE." 215
5. A testimony to the Doctrine of the Church,
concerning the state of departed souls, as declared
in our own liturgical formularies, particularly in
our Burial Office, and in the writings of our ablest
Divines. 7
The Writer also speaks clearly 8 concerning the
Divinity and Proper Personality of Christ, as the
Word of God, and Judge of Quick and Dead. "All
men, both just and unjust, will be brought before the
Divine Word : for to Him hath the Father given all
judgment, and He Himself, executing the counsel of
the Father, is coming as Judge, Whom we call Christ,
God Incarnate."
In referring to this Fragment, " On the Universe,"
we feel no small satisfaction in the assurance, that we
there read the words of one of the greatest Doctors of
Antiquity, St. Hippolytus.
Another important Fragment from the same work,
" On the Universe," is contained in a Manuscript in
the Bodleian Library, but was not printed by Fabri-
cius. It will be found at the close of the present
Volume ; 9 and the reader will see that it resembles
the latter portion of the " Refutation of all Heresies."
7 See, for instance, Bishop Bull's two learned Sermons on the State
of the Soul after Death. Sermons II. and III., vol. ii. pp. 2382, ed.
Burton, Oxf. 1827. Compare also Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryp. 5.
Tertullian. de Resurr. 43.
8 Ap. Joh. Damascen. ii. p. 775. iravrts SIKUIOI Kal aSiKoi evwtriov
rov &eov A6you a.-^Q^oovrai.' rovry yap 6 Harfyp r^v iracrav Kpicriv 5e'5o>K6,
Kal avros ffovXfyv Harpbs eirireXwv Kpirfys Trapayiverai, by Xpurrbv irpoff-
ayopevo/j.ev fbv eWi/0pw7
9 Below, Appendix A.
216 " THE LITTLE LABYRINTH."
It also contains a valuable statement of the Doc-
trine of Repentance ; and shows that St. Hippolytus
did not agree with Novatian in that respect.
II. Let us now advert to another Fragment, not
included in the edition of Hippolytus by Fabricius.
The Author of a Work, which was written in the
age of Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome, against those
heretics who denied the Divinity of Christ, and which
was called the " Little Labyrinth!' referred in that
work, as we have seen (chap, iii.), to the Treatise
" On the Universe" as written by himself.
An Extract from the " Labyrinth " has been pre-
served by Eusebius, 1 and, as we have also seen, it
reflects light on the Narrative concerning the Church
of Rome, contained in the newly-discovered Treatise.
We find, also, some similarity of manner between
that fragment and the relation just mentioned.
The fragment is itself a narrative ; it concerns the
state of Ecclesiastical affairs, during the Episcopate
of Zephyrinus ; and it may be regarded as introduc-
tory to the history contained in the Ninth Book of
the " Refutation of all Heresies." It bears a strong
resemblance to the " Refutation " in the general view
that it takes of Heresies. It represents them as de-
rived from ancient schools of Heathen Philosophy;
1 Euseb. v. 28, and in Routh's Reliq. Sacr. ii. 129 134. See
there p. 143, where Dr. Routh says, " probabiliter contendere quis
possit opus, de quo agimus, Parvum Labyrinthum, ascribendum
Hippolyto esse." Dr. Routh was, I believe, the first to ascribe the
Labyrinth to Hippolytus ; and time has shown the soundness of his
conjecture.
THE LOGY OF HIPPO L YTUS. 217
and affirms, that they owe much more to the teaching
of the Portico, the Lyceum, and the Academy, than
to that of the Scriptures and the Church.
There is also a resemblance between the diction of
this fragment and the works of Irenaeus. 2
In a doctrinal point of view it is valuable, as af-
firming (in opposition to the assertions of the Theo-
dotian heretics), that the Divinity of Christ, the Word
of God, is taught in Holy Scripture, and had been
2 E.g. ypa(pa$ Ottas fifpafiiovpyrjKacri, sc. hseretici. Compare St. Irenseus,
Preface, paStovpyovvres ra \6yia rov @ov.
Let me take this opportunity of noticing a passage in the Procemium
or Preface of St. Irenaeus which appears to have caused perplexity. He
is speaking of the strange tenets of the Valentinian Gnostics, which he
promises to disclose to his reader. avayitaTov ^yijad/a-riv wvixTai aoi Tefc
Kal (SaOta fj.vaT-fjpia & ov Trdvres -%<apovaiv, eVel M^/ irdvres rl>r
EEEnTTKASIN. The latter phrase has not been explained.
It has been thought to mean men who have not spit out their brains (by
sneezing). The word QeirrvKaffiv is corrupt, and ought, probably, to
be corrected into EEEOTIKA2IN (from CK-XT'IVO-CI)), and the sense would
be, ' ' I have thought it necessary to expound to you these portentous
and profound mysteries, which all men do not comprehend, because
(forsooth, to adopt their expression) men have not sifted their brains."
St. Irenseus alludes to the Gnostic notion derived from the ancient
medical theories that the brain is separated from the nasal organs by a
thin membrane like a sieve, which is called by physiologists ' ' lamina
cribrosa" (see Plin. N. H. xi. 49. Aristot. Hist. Animal, i. 16, de part,
animal, ii. 7, quoted by Stieren), and that in order that the intellectual
faculties may be rightly exercised, the brain must be cleansed (what
Shakspeare called finely bolted] by the discharge of phlegmatic humours
through this nasal membrane as through a sieve, and thus the mind be
clarified, and be competent to understand subtle speculations. This
they called icirricr<Tetv or 8mirT(r<reij> r'bv fyK<t>a\ov, to sift the brain.
The same correction is to be made in ./Elian. Hist. Animal, xvii. 31,
fKirrvffffdfj.evov &epa (i. e. the air sifted out), Perizon. p. 949, where the
Medicean MS. has very nearly preserved the true reading ^K^TIOG^VOV.
It has tKtr'THT&ii.tvov. The false reading ^lairr^ffavrfs Xcina. for 5to-
TTTtVoi/Tes still remains in some editions of Theophrastus, Hist. Plant,
ix. 17.
218 HIS CHRONICLE.
continually and constantly maintained by the Church
from the first. 3
This Fragment not inserted in the edition pub-
lished by Fabricius ought to find a place in future
collections of the works of St. Hippolytus.
III. Let us now pass on to another work ascribed
to St. Hippolytus.
This is a CHRONICLE ; or, rather, a Chronological
Epitome, which exists (as far as is known) only in
Latin, and was first printed at Ingolstadt, in i6o2, 4
from two Paris Manuscripts ; whence it was trans-
ferred into the edition of Fabricius. 5 It does not
bear the name of Hippolytus. But since it is appa-
rent from internal evidence, that it was composed
in the age of Alexander Severus (when Hippolytus
flourished), and is continued to A.D. 235, and since
the Catalogue on the Statue of Hippolytus attests
that he had composed such a work ; therefore it
has been attributed to him by some learned persons.*
1 E.g. ct5eA<|>i/ ecrri ypdfj.fj.ar a Trpfcrfivrepa rcav "B'tKTOpos \phv<av 4v
ols airaffi deohoyetrai b ^punts' tya\fj,ol 5e ftffoi Kal c8al ct8eA<|)cBv
arr' apx^svirb TrHTTwv ypaQewat rbv AOFON rov eov rbi* XPI2TON
t>fJ.VOV(TL 6fO\oyOVVTS.
4 In Canisii Antiquarum Lectionum, torn. ii. p. 179. It was also
printed by Labbe, Bibl. Nov. MS. p. 298, Paris, 1657, from a third MS.
5 i. pp. 4959-
6 It is entitled by Fabricius " Chronicon Anonymi quod ad S. Hippo-
lytum viri docti referunt ; certe scriptum ilia setate," p. 49. Bp. Pearson,
Dissert. Posthuma, i. cap. x. i, calls the author "quidam anonymus."
So also Dodwell, Diss. c. xiv. xix., doubts whether it is by|S. Hippo-
lytus. Bianchini argues that it cannot be a work of Hippolytus from
certain discrepancies between it and the Paschal Canon on the Statue.
Dissert, cap. iii. vii.
HIS WORKS ON PROPHECY. 219
The discovery of the present Treatise appears to
remove all doubt on this subject.
Our Author informs us 7 that he had written a chrono-
logical work, and refers his readers to it. He then
introduces an abstract of his chronological system, in
regard to Jewish History. Suffice it to say, that the
details in the Treatise harmonize in language and
substance with those contained in the Chronicle. 8
They seem to be from the same hand.
Thus, then, the recently-discovered " Refutation "
strengthens the evidence already existing, that the
work in question is by Hippolytus. 9
IV. Another writing, attributed in Manuscript
copies to Hippolytus, and inserted in the edition of
Fabricius, comes next under consideration. It is
entitled, " Concerning Antichrist' 3 1 Such a work was
written by St. Hippolytus, as we know from the
testimony of St. Jerome 2 and Photius; 3 Andreas, of
Caesarea, and Arethas, refer to it in their comments
on the Apocalypse. 4
7 P. 331,81-
8 Compare Refutation, pp. 331 333, with the Chronicon in
Fabricius' edition of Hippolyti Opera, i. pp. 5053.
9 Henry Dodwell supposes, with good reason, that the Chronology
of St. Hippolytus with regard to the succession of Roman Bishops is
embodied in the work of Syncellus, Dissertat. de Rom. Pont. Success.
c. xiv.
1 I. p. 4. It was first published by Marquard Gudius, from two
French MSS., at Paris, 1661, and after him by Combefisius, in a Catena
on Jeremia ii. p. 449.
2 De Viris Illustr. 61. s Phot Bibl. Cod. 202.
* On the Revelation, xii. 18 ; xiii. I ; xviii. 10.
220 IRENES US AND HIPPOLYTUS.
On comparing this work with the Treatise on
Heresy, we see good reason to believe that they are
from the same hand ; 5 and, therefore, it being granted
that our Treatise is by Hippolytus, we are confirmed
in the persuasion, that the Work on Antichrist is
from him; and the ascription of a Work on Anti-
christ to Hippolytus by Ancient Authors, Jerome and
Photius, and of this particular Work on Antichrist to
him by ancient MSS., is a further proof that the
" Refutation of all Heresies " is by Hippolytus.
There is also considerable similarity in some
passages of this Work to certain sections of the
Work on Heresy by St. Irenaeus, the master of St.
Hippolytus, especially in those portions where our
Author treats on the Apocalyptic prophecies. 6 Upon
these, however, the reader may remark, that the
Author appears studiously to have avoided any
approximation to Millenarian tenets, favoured in
some degree by his predecessor and teacher, St.
Irenaeus. Indeed, he inculcates doctrines wholly at
variance with Millenarian notions. 7 What has been
5 E. g. Work on Antichrist. Refutation of all Heresies.
p. 5, c. 2. n.)) ir\a.vS>, used pa- p. 336. 18. ^ ir\a.vS>, used pa-
renthetically, renthetically.
p. 5, c. 2. Description of An- p. 337. 46. Description of An-
cient Prophecy ; also p. 16, cient Prophecy,
cap. 31.
P* 5> C- 3- Ayj 6 TOV eou p. 336. 44. AJyos 6 eov, &
Hal's. Trpear6yovos Tlarpbs Ileus.
p. 6, c. 3. els 6 TOV eo v Hals.
6 Compare p. 25, c. 50, on the name of the Beast in the Apocalypse,
with Irenaeus v. 30.
7 See particularly cap. 4446, on the Two Advents of Christ, and
&7S WORKS ON PROPHECY. 221
already said 8 with regard to the Author of the
Treatise on the Universe, in this respect is applicable
here.
This Treatise was not a public address, but was
transmitted privately to a certain Theophilus, and
was accompanied with expressions of reverential fear, 9
and with a strict charge of secrecy, reserving and
limiting it to the use of holy and faithful men, and
prohibiting any communication of it to Unbelievers.
One reason for such caution appears to have been
as follows. The Author identifies the Fourth Mo-
narchy of Daniel with the Roman Empire ; x and he
also identifies the Babylon of the Apocalypse with
the City of Rome. 2 And, since the Prophecies of
Daniel and the Apocalypse, as he interprets them,
describe the utter destruction of the Fourth Mo-
narchy, and portend the total extinction of the mys-
tical Babylon, his expositions would have been very
obnoxious to such Roman readers as did not look
with pious hope beyond the subversion of the Roman
Empire, and the fall of the Roman City, to the full
and final victory of Christ. 3
cap. 64, on the Second Advent, represented as contemporaneous with
the General Resurrection, and Judgment, and Conflagration of the
Earth.
8 Above, p. 212.
9 c. 29, Tavrd ffoi ^ra tp6ftov /ieraSi'SojUer.
1 P. 14, c. 25 ; p. 16, c. 32. 6r)piov Tfraprov rives OVTOI oAA.' f)
'Pa/jLcuoi, '6-jrep tarlv 6 aiSrjpbs, TJ vvv karSxTa SoatAeia;
P. 16, c. 34. ^5rj Kparet (Tidr)p6s.
2 P. 1 8, c. 36.
3 Thus incidentally the author explains St. Paul's reserve in 2 Thess.
ii. 6. May I refer to my note on that passage ?
222 HIS WORKS ON PROPHECY.
Photius, in his Comment 4 on this Treatise of St.
Hippolytus on Antichrist, remarks that it resembled
the Exposition by the same Author of the Book of
Daniel, 5 and that both writings evinced somewhat of
4 Photius, Cod. 203, prefers the exposition of Theodoret to that of
Hippolytus ; from whom, however, Theodoret appears to have derived
benefit. Such persons as may be disposed to renounce the exposition
from events for that of the Fathers, with regard to prophecies
unfulfilled in their age, and would thus elevate the Fathers into
Prophets, may be invited to reflect on the judicious observations of
Photius, contained in his article on this Treatise of Hippolytus. And
such persons as may be tempted to imagine that they can form
a harmonious system of interpretation from the works of the Fathers
with respect to such Prophecies as had not been fulfilled in their age,
may read with benefit the article in Photius (Cod. 203), on the Exposi
tion of Daniel by Theodoret, as contrasted with that of St. Hippolytus.
" Many are the discrepancies between them," says Photius. No " school
of prophetic interpretation " can be formed from such elements as these.
And they who appeal to the Fathers for guidance in such matters, do
much to invalidate the authority of the Fathers in regard to prophecies
which had been fulfilled in their age ; and also in matters of Christian
doctrine, where their authority is of great weight. They thus also
forfeit the privilege which Providence has given to themselves of living
in a later age, and of reading prophecy by the light of history. Time
is the best Interpreter of Prophecy.
6 Cod. 202. Fabricius appears to have been led in one instance to
mistake the one for the other. He quotes St. Germanus, Archbishop
of Constantinople, asserting that Hippolytus supposed that Antichrist
would appear in the five hundredth year after Christ :* and he imagines
that St. Germanus is quoting from the Treatise on Antichrist. No such
assertion, however, occurs in that Treatise. But this assertion was con-
tained in the Exposition on Daniel by Hippolytus, as appears from
Photius, Cod. 202, who adds that Hippolytus reckoned 550x3 from the
Creation to Christ. M. Bunsen infers that Hippolytus wrote the
Treatise in a time of peace, because he placed the appearance of Anti-
christ at about 300 years after his own time.
But, with all deference be it said, this reasoning seems to be
* The MS. of St. Germanus has ea/ci0-xtAto(rT< irevraKOfficf erei :
but the true reading, I conceive, is e/c ^ pi a TO 5 irwraKoa'Kp eret. The
reason of this will appear from what is said in the note above.
THE LOGY OF HIPPOL YTUS. 223
a fervid and confident spirit, in the speculative
attempts there made to determine how and when the
Unfulfilled prophecies of Scripture would be fulfilled.
But as far as this Treatise records the judgment of
the Church concerning the true interpretation of pro-
phecies which had been fulfilled in that age, it is of
great value, particularly if it be supposed, which
appears to be most probable, to have come from the
pen of Hippolytus, the scholar of Irenaeus, and a
Bishop of the Roman Church. If this is a work of
Hippolytus, then this Treatise is also of importance
to Sacred Philology. For it cites a large portion of
the Apocalypse. In these citations we have perhaps 6
the readings of the manuscript used by Hippolytus,
the third in order from St. John. 7
It is also an important witness of primitive doctrine. >/
It teaches, in the most explicit manner, the Di-
vinity and Humanity of Christ, the Word of God, 8
by Whom we, says the Author, have received the
Regeneration effected through the Holy Ghost. 9 It
^ I?
fallacious. Hippolytus placed the appearance of Antichrist at A.D. 500,
because he supposed with many of the Fathers, that the world would
last for six millenary periods (cf. ad S. Iren. v. 28), which, according
to his chronological calculations, would have expired then.
6 " Perhaps," because the reading in Hippolytus may have been
altered to suit a text of the Apocalypse.
7 In Rev. xvii. 8 this MS. had al Tropeo-rcii, and Rev. xviii. 5
fKo\\-f)Or)ffei.v. Both these readings have disappeared from most recent
MSS., and from many editions ; but they are preserved in the
Alexandrine MS., and appear to be the true readings, and have been
restored by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and others as such.
8 C. 6
c. 3
224 ON HOL Y BAPTISM.
represents the Church as a ship tossed on the waves
of this world, agitated by storms, but never wrecked,
having CHRIST as her Pilot, and the Cross of Christ
as her mast, and the Word of God as her rudder, and
the precepts of Christ as her anchor, and the laver of
regeneration with her, and above her the Divine
Author of these blessed privileges, the Holy Spirit,
breathing as the wind upon her sails, and wafting
the Vessel in its course to the harbour of eternal
peace. 1
V. Another Work ascribed to St. Hippolytus is a
Homily on " the 2 THEOPHANIA," or Baptism of our
Blessed Lord. This is a Sermon addressed to Cate-
chumens, inviting them to Baptism. It represents to
them, in glowing language, the privileges to which
they would be introduced through that Holy Sacra-
ment, and the blessings to which they would be led
by the Divine Love, if they lived a life corresponding
to their baptismal obligations. This interesting and
beautiful Homily has some points of resemblance to
the exhortation at the close of the newly-discovered
Treatise. But there is, in one respect, a wide differ-
ence between them. The Homily was addressed to
those who had been previously trained under Christian
Instruction. But the peroration of the " Refutation
1 See the notes on this passage above, pp. 126128.
8 Hippolytus, ed. Fabric, i. 261. A recent critic translates this title
"a (baptismal) Sermon on Epiphany" which conveys an incorrect idea.
On the word^0eo<c/eia, see Casaubon, Exc. Baron, ii. sect. xi.
HIS ADDRESS TO THE HEATHEN. 22S
of all Heresies " was addressed to those who had had
no such previous training.
The former is to Catechumens : the latter to
Heathens. This difference of occasion has neces-
sarily produced a difference of treatment of the
subject in these two compositions respectively ; as is
sufficiently evident from the fact that in the last two
pages of the Homily there are twenty-five direct
quotations from Holy Scripture, but in the peroration
to the " Refutation of all Heresies " there is not one.
The reader, therefore, will not expect to find in that
peroration an exposition of Christian Doctrine.
It has, however, been called by some 3 "the Con-
fession of Faith " of St. Hippolytus.
But this is an unhappy appellation. It might
rather be termed his "Apology." We should fall
into a great error, and do much injustice to St. Hip-
polytus and his cause, if we were to judge him and
his Creed from a speech made to Idolaters.
The Homily on the Theophania was supplied to
Fabricius, for his edition, by Roger Gale, from a
3 By M. Bunsen, who, it is to be regretted, has not attended to these
considerations. M. Bunsen's Fourth Letter, from p. 139 to p. 195,
treats of this peroration to the Heathen, and bears the following title :
11 Hippolytus 1 own Confession"
It is also to be deplored that M. Bunsen, in framing a " Confession
of Faith " for St. Hippolytus, has paid little or no regard to the various
heresies which Hippolytus refutes in his Treatise on Heresies. From
the many-sided opposition of Hippolytus to the different forms in which
heterodoxy showed itself in the Heresies before and in his own times
(e. g. in the Heresies of Cerinthus, Ebion, Theodotus, Apelles, Noetus,
and Callistus), his own orthodoxy comes forth in a very precise and
definite form.
226 ON HOL Y BAPTISM.
MS. in the valuable library of his father, Thomas
Gale. 4
It is ascribed in that MS. to St. Hippolytus, and
this ascription appears to be confirmed by the in-
ternal evidence, particularly by its similarity in
thought and diction to the recently-discovered
Treatise. 5 Thus it may be regarded as supplemen-
tary to that other address, and may aid us in ascer-
taining from St. Hippolytus what he himself would
have recognized as his own " Confession of Faith."
In corroboration of this assertion, let me adduce
some paragraphs from the conclusion of this Homily.
Here we have a document, among the Patristic
remains of the Antenicene age, which states in a
short compass and clear terms the doctrine of the
primitive Church concerning the Sacrament of Holy
Baptism.
The Author is speaking to the candidates for Bap-
tism, and thus expresses himself : " Give me your
attention, I beseech you with earnestness, for I desire
to recur to the fount of life, and to see the well-spring
of healing flowing forth. The Father of Immortality
sent forth His immortal SON and WORD into the
World. He came to wash man with Water and the
Holy Ghost, and having regenerated him to incorrup-
tion of soul and body, breathed into us the breath of
4 It is now among the Gale MSS. in the Library of Trin. Coll.,
Cambridge, where it is marked O. 5. 36. Cf. Fabric. Hippol. i.
p. 261.
5 Some evidences of this may be seen in the Notes to the Translation
above, chap. vi. p. 122, 123.
RESURRECTION AND LIFE. 227
Life, having clothed us with the armour of Immor-
tality. If then man has become immortal, he will
also be divinized ; 6 and if he is divinized through
Water and the Holy Spirit after the Regeneration
of the baptismal font, he will also be fellow-heir with
Christ after the Resurrection from the dead .....
Come, therefore, and be born again to the adoption
of God."
He then warns his hearers not to delude them-
selves by imagining that these baptismal privileges
can be enjoyed otherwise than by a renunciation of
sin, and by holiness of life. " Come to the adoption
of sonship to God. .... And how ? you may ask.
.... As follows If you do not commit adultery, or
murder, or idolatry. 7 If you are not the slave of
pleasure, if pride is not master over you, if you wipe
off the stain of impurity, and cast off the burden of
iniquity. If you put off the armour of Satan and
put on the breastplate of Faith ; as saith Isaiah, 8
Wash ye and seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge
6 eo-rat /ecu ebs, et 8e ebs 5t' See Refutatio, p. 239 (above,
vSaros Kal nv^v^aros ayiov /JLCTO, chap. vi. p. 128), yeyovas yap
r}]v rrjs Ko\vfj./3-f]6pas avayevvrjcrii' &bs . . . <rov Trr<axevi 0e&s, Kal
yiyverat, Kal ffvyK\T]pov6/jLOs XP l(r ~ ff * e&j' iroi-ficras fls S6av avrov.
A negative argument against Infant Baptism has been derived by r
some from the silence of St. Hippolytus in respect to it. But, it must
be remembered, St. Hippolytus had to deal mainly with adult idolaters.
Nothing can be clearer than that he dates the origin of spiritual life from
Baptism ; and therefore, according to his teaching, they who have the
charge of infants and children are bound to bring them to Baptism, if
they would not have the blood of their souls required of themselves by
Him Who instituted Baptism as the laver of the new Birth.
8 Is. i. 1 6.
Q 2
228 A GAINST NOE TUS.
the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, let
us reason together, saith the Lord : though your sins be
as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow ; though they
be red as crimson, they shall be as wool ; if ye be willing
and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land.
" You see, beloved, how the Prophet foretold the
purifying efficacy of Baptism. For he who descends
with faith into the laver of Regeneration renounces
the Devil, and dedicates himself to Christ ; he rejects
the Enemy, and confesses that CHRIST is GOD. He
puts off slavery, and puts on sonship. He comes
forth from Baptism bright as the sun, and shedding
forth the rays of righteousness ; and, what is most of
all, he comes forth a son of God, and fellow-heir with
CHRIST. To HIM be Glory and Power, with His all-
holy and good and life-giving SPIRIT, now and
ever. Amen."
VI. Another important document for ascertaining
the Doctrine of its Author is found in the Homily
against Noetianism, contained in the works of St.
Hippolytus. This Homily is ascribed to him in the
ancient Vatican MS., from which it was transcribed
by Montfaucon, and first printed by Fabricius. 9 It
has generally been received as his, and the points of
resemblance in thought and language, between that
Homily and the Ninth Book of the recently-discovered
" Refutation of all Heresies," are so numerous and
striking, that they greatly strengthen the proof, that
9 S. Hippol. Opera, ii. 5 20.
A GAINS 7 NOETUS. 229
they are from the same person, and that this person
is Hippolytus. 1 This homily has most appropriately
been included by the late learned Dr. Routh in his
valuable collection of the shorter writings of Eccle-
siastical Authors.
The whole of this homily is so valuable and in-
structive, as a witness of Christian teaching in the
earlier part of the third century, that it would be
difficult to make extracts from it. But as it has
unhappily been alleged by some 2 that Hippolytus
has not spoken clearly on the doctrine of the Blessed
Trinity, and as it has been thence inferred that this
doctrine was not taught in the Christian Church in
his age, it may not be amiss to indicate one or two
passages relevant to that subject.
Having stated that Christ is the Word by Whom
all things were made, 3 and having quoted the begin-
ning of St. John's Gospel in proof of this assertion,
he proceeds to say, that we " behold the Word Incar-
nate in Him ; we understand the Father by Him ;
we believe the Son ; we worship the Holy Ghost."
Hippolytus then encounters the argument of the Noe-
tians, who charged the orthodox with belief in two
Gods because they maintained that the Father is
God, and the Son God. Hippolytus replies, " I will
not speak of two Gods, 4 but one God, and two Persons.
1 Portions of this Homily have been adopted by Epiphanius in his
article on Noetus. Haeres. Ivii. pp. 479 489.
2 By M. Bunsen, i. pp. 297. 302304.
3 S. Hippol. in Noet. c. 12, ed. Fabric, ii. p. 14.
c. 14.
230 ON THE BLESSED TRINITY.
For the Father is one ; but there are two Persons,
because there is also the Son, and the third Person is
the Holy Ghost. 5 The Father is over all things ;
the Son through all things ; the Holy Ghost in all
things. We cannot otherwise acknowledge one God,
except we believe really in the Father, and in the
Son, and in the Holy Ghost." And he adds that
" the Word of God, Christ, having risen from the dead,
gave therefore this charge to His disciples, 6 Go and
teach all Nations, baptizing them in the Name of tJie
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, show-
ing that whosoever omits one of these, does not fully
glorify God. For through this TRINITY the Father
is glorified. The Father willed, the Son wrought, the
Holy Ghost manifested. All the Scriptures proclaim
this/' And having in an eloquent peroration, one of
the most eloquent that are extant in ancient homilies,
described the human acts and sufferings, as well as
the divine miracles, of Christ, he concludes with
saying, 7 This is He "Who ascended on a cloud into
heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father, and
will come again to judge the quick and dead. This
is He Who is God, and Who was made Man for our
sakes, to whom the Father subjected all things. To
HIM be Glory and Power with the FATHER and the
5 Compare also ibid. cap. 9: "Whatsoever the Holy Scriptures
declare, let us learn; and as the Father wills to be believed, let us
believe ; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, so let us glorify Him ;
and as He wills to give the Holy Spirit, so let us receive."
6 Matt, xxviii. 19.
' c. 1 8.
HIS COMMENTARIES. 231
HOLY SPIRIT, in the Holy Church, now and for ever.
Amen."
VII. Fragments of other works of St. Hippolytus,
especially from his Commentaries on portions of Holy
Scripture, are inserted in the edition of Fabricius;
and additions to them have been made by the learned
labours of Cardinal Mai, and have been reprinted in the
edition of some of the writings of Hippolytus by
Paul Antony de Lagarde.
Sufficient has now been said to show the value of
the newly-discovered Treatise, with regard to those
other Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 8 The
learned World has been hitherto divided and in doubt
concerning the genuineness of those Works. Hence-
forth these doubts may be considered as at an end.
If the newly-discovered Treatise is generally received
as the work of Hippolytus (as there is little doubt it
will be), then it will also be allowed that those other
works were rightly ascribed to him. And the inde-
pendent ascription of those other works to him
strengthens the conviction that this Treatise is his.
The recent discovery, therefore, of this MS. in the
8 It has not been the design of this Chapter to notice all the works
assigned to Hippolytus; particularly the work " De Consummatione
Mundi," printed by Fabricius in an Appendix to the First Volume
among " Dubia et Supposititia/' is not mentioned here. It appears to
have been attributed to Hippolytus, because it is formed in a great
measure from his work on Antichrist ; but it contains many evidences
of a different hand and a later age. See the authorities in Ceillier, ii.
p. 368. Lumper, viii. 109.
232 DOCTRINAL VALUE OF HIS WORKS.
Monastery of Mount Athos, is not only valuable in
itself, but it adds to our former possessions. It is an
accession of a new treasure, and a recovery of what
was old. It does, in a considerable degree, for Hip-
polytus,, what was done for his mythical namesake,
who, after he had been torn in pieces, was again
brought to light and life. 9 It restores Hippolytus to
himself. 1
Thus, also, a gain has accrued to the cause of
Christianity. Henceforth we may appeal to these
works with confidence, as authentic witnesses of the
Doctrine and Discipline of the Christian Church, in
the earlier part of the Third Century after Christ.
9 Virg. vii. 761.
1 It is to be hoped that a new and complete Edition of the remains
of St. Hippolytus will be undertaken, and be accompanied by an
edition of the works of his forerunner and master, St. Irenaeus,
with supplements and amendments, by the aid of the newly-discovered
" Refutation of all Heresies."
CHAPTER XIII.
On ancient Lists of the Works of St. Hippolytus.
THE Statue of St. Hippolytus discovered in Rome in
the year 1551 near the Church of St. Lawrence, on
the road to Tivoli, exhibits in a fragmentary condition,
the earliest extant catalogue of his works. 1 It is
engraved in the frontispiece of the present volume.
The following is a representation of it in cursive
characters, with some words [in brackets] supplied
by conjecture.
I [TT/DO? rou? '
[et9 rrjv
5 [a7roXo7ia,] uvrep TOV Kara '
6vajye\LOv KOL
7Tpl
IO
1 The Inscription is given in the Berlin Corpus Inscriptionum
Grsecarum (ed. A. Kirchhofif, 1857), iv. 8613. Gruter, 140. Fabricius,
Opeia S. Hippolyti, i. p. 36. Cave, Hist. Lit. i. p. 104, ed. Basil, 1741.
De Rossi, Inscr. Christ, p. Ixxix. Salmon, Hermathena, No. I, 1873.
234 ON ANCIENT LISTS OF
Kal TTpO? Yl(\)aTO)Va
f) Kal Trepl rov
7T/DO?
povwv rov
2O Kara [ra] ev r
' (e)i? Tracra?
v KOI (jap/co?
25 ?rept rayaBov, Kal irbOev TO KCLKQV ;
Or in English translation, adopting the proposed
conjectures,
Against the Jews.
On Virginity (?).
On the Psalms.
On the Ventriloquist \the Witch at Endor\
Defence of the Gospel according to St. John and the
Apocalypse.
On Spiritual Gifts : Apostolic Tradition.
Annals.
Against the Heathen t and against Plato, or on the
Universe.
A hortatory Address to Severina.
Demonstration of the Times of Easter according to
the Order in the Table.
Hymns : On all the Scriptures.
Concerning God and the Resurrection of the Flesh.
Concerning Good, and the Origin of Evil.
A few notes on the above may be added.
In v. I of the Greek the conjecture eiV 'lou Saiovs, " in
Judaeos," has been adopted, such a topic being com-
THE WORKS OF ST. HIPPOL YTUS. 235
monly handled by the sub-apostolic writers, Justin
Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian ; and not unlikely to be
treated of by St. Hippolytus. See the editions of the
works of Hippolytus, Fabricius (ii. 2) and Lagarde
(p. 63, where are extracts from a treatise with this
title, "Against the Jews," by Hippolytus). Cardinal
Mai's Script. Vet. i. 223 ; ii. 439 448.
In v. 2 I would suggest Trepl TrapOevias, or " de Vir-
ginitate," for a similar reason.
But the letters NI in NIAS, v. 2, are not certain,
and may perhaps be M (Mai, Script. Vet. nova Coll.,
vol. v. pp. 70 73). Smetius reads VI. We might
conjecture eis ra? 7rapoLfj,las, "on the Proverbs" We
know from St. Jerome that St. Hippolytus wrote a
commentary on that Book, and fragments of that
Commentary have been published by Lagarde (p. 196).
Or it may be Trepl olfcovofiias, " on the Dispensation,
or Incarnation ;" see below, p. 240.
v. 3. et? rev? 'tyaXfjLovs is certain ; see extracts from
this work of St. Hippolytus in Lagarde, pp. 187 195.
v. 4. On the Witch of Endor. See Fabricius, pp. 81
and 267.
^.5. In the list of the works of Hippolytus by
Ebed-Jesu, Bibl. Oriental. Assemanni, iii. Ft. I, 15, is
" Apology for the Apocalypse of John the Apostle
and Evangelist, and Chapters against Caius."
As to the relation of Hippolytus to the Apocalypse
and to Caius, who seems to have impugned it, see
above, chapter iv. p. 39.
v. 9. Trepl '%apicr[jid'Ttov, " on Spiritual Gifts," especially
236 ON ANCIENT LISTS OF
such as are bestowed on Bishops, Priests, and Deacons
at ordination, and their consequent duties. See above,
pp. 143, 144, and Fabricius, pp. 83 and 245, and
Lagarde, p. 73.
v. ii. %povLKu>v. See the edition of St. Hippolytus
by Fabricius, p. 49.
v. 12. 777365 f/ EX\77^a? tf.rA. A fragment from this
work is printed by Fabricius, p. 220, and by Lagarde,
p. 68.
v, 1 6. TrpoTpeTTTtKo? TTpo? ae^rfpeivav. The Severina
here mentioned was probably Severa, wife of the
Emperor Philip (A.D. 243 249), who was a loyal
Christian (Euseb. vi. 34). Origen wrote a letter to
her (Euseb. vi. 36). He had instructed Mammaea,
mother of Alexander Severus, in the doctrines of
the Gospel (Euseb. vi. 21). Cp. Tillemont, iii. 242,
243 ; and so Le Moyne in Fabricius, p. 88. Dr.
Dollinger with less probability, as it seems to me,
identifies her with Julia Aquileia Severa, second
wife of Elagabalus. Fabricius (p. 92) and Lagarde
(p. 90) have printed an extract of an Epistle of Hip-
polytus to a certain Queen. If she was the same as
Severa, Hippolytus must have been alive in A.D. 244.
The name Severa (a rather ill-omened one) would
not unnaturally be softened into Severina : Fabius,
Bishop of Antioch, is also called Fabianus by Euse-
bius ; and Novatian is called Novatus.
v. 1 8. Demonstration of the Times of Easter accord-
ing to the Order in the Table (on the Statue). See
Fabricius, p. 38.
THE WORKS OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 237
v. 21. fcxW. It is probable that a>oal is correct, and
that it is a title of an integral work, and that Hip-
polytus, who was an eloquent orator, and writes some-
times as a poet even in his prose, composed sacred
songs, 'fUAAX, such as he himself describes as having
been written in honour of Christ (ap. Euseb. v. 28),
-^rakpoi Be oaoi real 'HtAAI d$e\<j)MV air dp^i)? viro TTLO--
T&V ypafaiaai TOV A.byov TOV ov TOV ^ptcnbv v^vovcri
6eo\oyovvT<z. Cp. Pliny, Epist. x. 97.
For a specimen of a primitive anapaestic a>Srj to
Christ, and also one in iambic verse, to which
perhaps Hippolytus was referring, see Clemens
Alexandr., Psedagog. iii. at the end, and Potter's
note there, p. 312.
Then " et? Trdaas ra? <ypa(j)a$ " is another distinct
title, i. *. " In omnes Scripturas," " On all the Scrip-
tures," according to the common mode of expression
for designating expositions of Scripture by means of
the preposition ew. See instances in Nicephor. Callist.
iv. 31, in his account of Hippolytus, e.g. et? ro'Aicr/^a
TWV acr/JidTcovek pepr) TOV 'lefe/a^X.
v. 23. nrepl @eov KOI aapfcbs dvaardaecix;. A fragment
of a work of Hippolytus irepl dvacfrdaew^ is printed
by Fabricius, p. 244, and Lagarde, p. 90.
v.2$. On Good, and the Origin of Evil. See Fabricius,
p. 89. Probably against the heresy of Florinus, who
imagined God to be the Author of Evil. Euseb. v. 20.
See also Euseb. v. 27, where he says that Maximus
wrote a treatise Trepl TOV 7ro\v0pv\rJTOv Trapa
?, " irbOev fj icafcia;"
238 ON ANCIENT LISTS OF
On the titles of the works on the Statue generally,
see the edition of Hippolytus by Fabricius, pp. 79 89,
and Cave's Hist. Lit. i. pp. 104 6.
The second ancient list of the works of St. Hip-
polytus is that of Eusebius, who says, " Hippolytus,
together with many other writings, composed a work
concerning Easter ; in which, having set forth a chro-
nological series, and also having propounded a certain
canon of sixteen years for determining Easter, he
brings his Chronicle down to the first year of Alexander
Severus (A.D. 222). Of his other writings, those
which have come into my hands are these : On the Six
Days' Work of Creation ; on the Things after Creation ;
against Marcion ; on the Song of Solomon ; on Por-
tions of Ezekiel ; against Heresies ; and you may find
many more of his works among many other persons."
St. Jerome (de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, Art. Ixi.)
makes large additions to the list of Eusebius. " Hip-
polytus composed a Calendar for Easter and a
Chronicle to the first year of Alexander Severus, and
invented a cycle, which the Greeks call e/e/auSe/<:a-
eTfjpls, of sixteen years.
" He wrote some Commentaries on Scripture, of which
I have seen, On the Six Days Creation ; on Exodus ;
on the Song of Songs ; on Genesis, and Zechariah ; on
the Psalms ; on Isaiah ; on Daniel; on the Apocalypse ;
on the Proverbs ; on Ecclesiastes ; on Said and the
Witch of Endor ; also on Antichrist; on the Resur-
rection ; against Marcion ; on Easter ; against all
Heresies ; and Trpo? 6/ju\i(i)v, on the Praise of our
THE WORKS OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 239
Blessed Lord and Saviour^ which he intimates thathe
is speaking in the Church in the presence of Origen."
What is to be said of these last words ? For TT/JO?
6/jLL\LO)v I am disposed to think with Dr. Routh that
we should read Trpoo-o/uTuo.*/, " a Conference " or
"homiletical address." Cp. Nicephor. Callisti, iv. 31,
where he translates these words. Origen was at Rome
for a short time in the Episcopate of Zephyrinus
(Euseb. H. E. vi. 14).
Another list of the works of St. Hippolytus is given
by Nicephorus Callisti, who copies Eusebius and St.
Jerome, and adds something from other sources
(Eccl. Hist. iv. 31) as follows :
"In the times of Severus flourished Hippolytus,
Bishop of Portus Romanus (the harbour of Rome),
and composed many wise works, among which he
wrote a treatise on Easter, in which having set forth a
chronological series, and having also propounded a
certain canon of sixteen years for determining Easter,
he brings his Chronicle down to the first year of
Alexander.
" The following are his writings :
" On the Six Days Work of Creation ; a Refutation of
Mar don ; on the Song of Songs ; on Parts of Ezekiel ;
concerning Easter ; a most profitable Treatise against
all Heresies ; on the Coming of Antichrist ; on the
Resurrection, and very many more ; on Zechariah ; on
the Psalms ; on Isaiah ; on Daniel ; on the Apocalypse ;
on the Proverbs ; on Saul and the Witch of Endor ; con-
cerning the Praises of our Lord Jesus Christ ; which
240 THE WORKS OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS.
he preached (wytuX^cre) in the presence of Origen. And
whereas some of his writings may be taken hold of
for censure, he being afterwards consummated by Mar-
tyrdom for Christ, wiped off thereby the stain of
ignorance."
In the Catalogue by Ebed-Jesu of works ascribed
to Hippolytus by the Syro-Chaldaeans/ are the fol-
lowing words : " St. Hippolytus, Martyr and Bishop,
wrote a book on the Dispensation (olKovo^ia or In-
carnation), an Exposition of the lesser Daniel and
Susanna ; Chapters against Caius, and an Apology
for the Apocalypse and Gospel of John the Apostle and
Evangelist."
2 Assemanni Bibl. Oriental, iii. pt. i. p. 15.
CHAPTER XIV.
On the Orthodoxy of St. Hippolytus.
DR. VON DOLLINGER'S learned work, entitled " Hip-
polytus und Kallistus" has been characterized by Dean
Milman (in his Latin Christianity, book i. chap, i.) as an
" Apologia pro Callisto" and in this respect it carried
no other conviction to the Dean's mind " but of the
author's learning and ingenuity ;" and caused him to
regret that " so able and in some respects so instructive
a book should be written with such a resolute (no doubt
conscientious) determination to make out a case."
For my own part, I should have felt less concern in
recognizing it as an " Apologia pro Callisto," if the
defence of Callistus had not involved a condemnation
of St. Hippolytus.
The learned Author imputes to Hippolytus a
leaning, derived from Platonism, toward the heresy
of Valentinus l against which his master Irenaeus had
contended strongly and successfully.
He alleges that the theology of St. Hippolytus,
concerning the generation of the Logos from the
1 Hippolytus und Kallistus, pp. 218220.
R
242 ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS.
Mind of the Father, is akin to the heresy of Valentinus
as to the production of the Nous (Mind) or Monogenes
(Only-begotten), and according to which, Sige or
Ennoia produced Nous or Mind from Bythos or
Monas the primitive original of all.
Other charges against the orthodoxy of Hippolytus
occupy several pages of Dr. Dollinger's work. 2
The reader will have some means of judging for
himself as to the justice of these allegations, by
examining the words of Hippolytus in foregoing parts
of the present work, together with the notes appended
to them. 3
And if he will consult the entire work, entitled " The
Refutation of all Heresies" by Hippolytus, he will there
see that the Author protests in the strongest terms
against that very Platonic tendency, and Valen-
tinianism, 4 which are laid to his charge by Dr. Dol-
linger. I do not pretend to say that the language of
St. Hippolytus concerning the doctrine of the Blessed
Trinity, and the Eternal Generation of the Son of
God, consubstantial, co-eternal, and co-equal with the
Father, is precisely that which would have been em-
ployed by a Teacher of the Church who had enjoyed
all the benefits which accrued to her from her conflict
with, and victory over, Arianism in the fourth cen-
tury, and had been familiar from his childhood with
2 Hippolytus und Kallistus, pp. 206 218. 226 229.
a Pp. 65-97.
4 See Philos. pp. 177, 178. 198. 319, 320. Cp. Dorner on the Person
of Christ, p. 449, who shows that Beron, against whom Hippolytus
wrote, broached Valentinian tenets.
ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 243
the terminology of the Nicene Creed. Hippolytus
was not an Athanasius. Who would have supposed
that he could be ?
As St. Augustine well says, " The Catholic Faith
grew in clearness and in strength from its controversies
with heresies." The Lion of heresy was slain by the
strong Samsons of the Church (and we need not
hesitate to reckon Hippolytus as one), and the Church
has fed on the sweetness of the honey which came
forth from the carcase of the Lion. 5
The reverence shown for the name and doctrine of
Hippolytus by the most celebrated Nicene and Post-
nicene Fathers, who possessed all his writings, which
we do not, is a sufficient guarantee of his orthodoxy.
And in later times some who carefully examined his
extant works, and were well qualified to pronounce
judgment upon them, have shown reason for concur-
rence in that earlier testimony. I refer specially to
Dr. Waterland and to Bishop Bull.
When Dr. (now Cardinal) Newman in his "Essay on
Development of Christian Doctrine" 6 following in the
steps of Petavius alleged against some of the Ante-
nicene Fathers, of whom St. Hippolytus was one, that
they ascribed to the Son of God only a generation in
time and not from eternity, he cited some words of
Dr. Waterland, "The Authors who make the generation
[of the Son] temporary, and speak not expressly of
any other, are these following, Justin, Athenagoras,
Theophilus, Tatian, Tertullian, and Hippolytus:' 1
5 Judges xiv. 8, 9. c P. 13. 7 Waterland, vol.i. pt. ii.p. 104.
R 2
244 ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS.
Who would not have inferred from this allegation
of Dr. Newman, that these Fathers were Arianizers
before Arms, and that Dr. Waterland acknowledged
them so to be ?
But what is the fact ?
The Antenicene Fathers speak of a threefold genera-
tion of the Son.
1. His eternal generation, as Everlasting Son from
Everlasting Father.
2. His generation in time (for so it is sometimes
called), or condescension (avy /cara/Sacrt?) to create the
world.
3. His filiation, also in time, as Man, from the
Virgin Mary His Mother.
These two latter generations concern mankind most
intimately, and therefore it would be surprising if the
early Fathers had not dwelt on them most frequently
and earnestly ; and it would not be wonderful if they
should have said little on the more transcendental
question of the eternal generation of the Son, before it
was denied by Arius, when the case was altered, and
then the Christian Writers became more frequent
and copious in their assertion and explication of that
truth. 8
But I would here observe that this fact I mean
the habitual inculcation of this doctrine by the Post-
nicene Fathers ought to be accepted as a proof of
8 Hooker, v. xlii. 6. " Some good the Church hath reaped by the
contentions of Arianism, in that they occasioned the learned and sound
in faith to explain such things as heresy went about to deprave."
ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 245
the belief of the Antenicene to the same effect. The
Creed of Nicaea is. the best exponent of the tenets of
the Antenicene age.
And let me cite the words of Dr. Waterland : 9
" After Arius arose, the Catholics found it neces-
sary to insist much on the eternal generation. For
the Arians taking advantage of it, that the temporary
condescension of the Son to create the world had
often been called W\s generation, were for looking no
higher, but artfully insinuated that this was the first
production of Him. However, the Arians might have
known that the eternal existence of the A6yo<; (or
WORD) was imiversally taught, and even by those
who asserted a temporal generation."
Let me now speak of Bishop Bull.
" In his Defence of the Nicene Creed, Bishop Bull
hath proved," * says his biographer Robert Nelson,
" that some Catholic writers more ancient than the
Nicene Council, seem to attribute a certain nativity
to the Son of God, as God ; but if their sayings are
accurately weighed, saith he, it will appear that they
speak of a nativity not real, but figurative ; that is,
their meaning was that the Logos, or Divine Word,
which from all eternity did exist in and with God the
Father, as the co-eternal offspring of His Eternal Mind,
then, when He was about to create the World, came
9 Waterland, i. 2, p. 114. See also ibid. pp. 103. 134 40. 288.
On this subject let me invite the student's special attention to Dr.
Water-land's Defence of some Queries, Query viii. pp. 86 117, and
Query xi. pp. 134140 ; xxv. pp. 268278. Vol. i. pt. ii., ed. Van
Mildert, Oxford, 1823.
1 Robert Nelson's Life of Bishop Bull, p. 264.
246 ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS.
forth into operation (tear evepyeiav), and so proceeded
to the constitution and formation of all things therein,
for the manifesting Himself and His Father to the
Creatures, and that by reason of this progression
(TTpoeXeucrt?), He is in Scripture called the Son of God,
and His First-begotten.
" This Bishop Bull clears up 2 by a most accurate
explication of the opinions of Athenagoras, concern-
ing the Son's eternity and progression, as also of
Tatian and Theophilus Antiochenus, whom he proveth
as to the main to have been sound and Catholic in
this point. The same he hath made out also concern-
ing St. Hippolytus, and hath fully represented the
sentiment hereupon of Tertullian. . . . He shows by
several plain and express testimonies of Justin
Martyr, &c. &c., that the better and greater part of
the Christian doctors, who lived before the Council of
Nice, did openly, clearly, and perspicuously teach
the Son's co-eternal existence with God the Father." 3
In our own age one of our most learned divines,
the late Dr. Martin Routh, when making a selection
of theological works for the use of Students of
Divinity, made choice of the work of St. Hippolytus
against Noetus as containing a valuable treatise "on
the divine Unity, and on the Person of the Son of
God." 4 Let me refer the reader to that work.
At the present time there are some who seem to
regard the names of our greatest English Divines,
2 P. 266. 3 pp. 264. 266.
4 Routh, Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Opuscula, p. vii. pp. 4980,
Oxon. 1858.
ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 247
such as Bishop Bull and Dr. Waterland, with cold-
ness and suspicion, 5 as if they were disposed to warp
and strain the language of the Antenicene Fathers,
so as to fit the Creed of Nicaea. Happily, therefore,
in the present case we may refer to a learned writer
of large and liberal views, and not of our own country,
against whom no such exception will be made. The
reader will anticipate the name of Dr. J. A. Dorner,
Professor of Theology in the University of Berlin. 6
Dr. Dorner has given a full analysis of the doctrine of
St. Hippolytus, as far as it came under his cognizance. 7
St. Hippolytus (he observes) had to contend on the
one side against the Noetians and Patripassians, who
held that the Father was one with the Son, and
suffered in the Son ; and on the other he had to resist
the heresy of Artemon, Theodotus, and others like
them, who looked on Christ as mere Man. He main-
tained the Unity of the Godhead, and yet affirmed the
existence of three divine Persons in the One God ;
and he claimed divine worship for each of the three.
Hippolytus has done this in his work against Noetus. 8
His system (as Dr. Dorner remarks) is irreconcila-
ble with Arianism. According to him, the Son is
of the same substance with the Father, and is not a
5 Not so Dr. Patrick Fairbairn, Appendix to Dr. Dorner on the
Person of Christ, English Translation, Edinburgh, 1878, pp. 342391;
he there does ample justice to Bishop Bull and Dr. Waterland.
6 Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Berlin, 1851-54, 5 vols.
7 Division i. vol. ii. pp. 85 100, and pp. 449456, English Trans-
lation, Edinburgh, 1862.
8 Chap. 3. 8. 6. ii. 13. Cp. his Theophan., 10.
248 ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS,
creature, but begotten by God before all creation ;
and " Hippolytus never would have affirmed with
Arius that there was a time when the Son was not ; he
believed that time began with creation, and that the
world was created by the Logos, who was not a
creature, but a Son."
That there is some inadequacy in the teaching of
Hippolytus as to the eternal generation of the Son,
as a Son, and as distinct from the Logos, maybe con-
ceded, and that the generation of the Logos by the Will
of the Father 9 might be misconstrued into a supposi-
tion that the generation was not eternal. And the
doctrine of the subordination of the Son as stated by
him might lead to assertions of personal inferiority.
But inasmuch as God was never aXoyos, i. e.
without the Word (c. Noet. cap. 11), and inas-
much also as the Word is God (cap. 6), and there-
fore Eternal, the Will of God by which He was gene-
rated was as it were an attribute of God, and was
exercised from Eternity. And as to the doctrine of
subordination l of the Son of God, it was due to the
orthodox doctrine that there is but one dp^r}, or ^777*7,
or pi&, i. e. one principle, fountain, or origin and root
of Deity, and that this was in the Father, and conse-
quently, in a certain sense, the Son was subordinate to
9 c. Noet. c. 1 6.
1 Dr. Dorner says, p. 450, that " he adhered to a harmless form of
subordination, the inner inconsistency of which impelled it to the ex-
clusion of all inadequate elements ; and there can be no doubt whatever
that when the time arrived for deciding between Athanasius and Arius,
he could not possibly feel drawn toward the latter."
ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 249
the Father, but not in time (for He was the Eternal
Logos of the Father) ; nor in dignity, for He was God
(and what is less than God cannot be God); but so far
as that which is generated is subordinated to that
which generates it (c. Noet. cap. 13 and 14).
But it is no impeachment of the wisdom and piety
of Hippolytus that he did not foresee heresies, espe-
cially Arianism, which grew up after his age.
Dr. Dorner does indeed say that in his opinion St.
Hippolytus did not teach that, although the essence of
the Logos was eternal, He was eternal \n personality ;
and that the Only-begotten was indeed perfect Logos
prior to His Incarnation, but not as yet perfect Son of
God ; and that His Sonship which was manifested at
the Creation of the World was not completed till His
Incarnation ; and that His Sonship in time was a
showing forth of the Logos 2 which was Eternal.
But to this it may be said with Bishop Bull 3 that the
Logos had not completed all the course of filiation,
which was prescribed for Him by the Father, till He
had become Son of Man ; and that then that course
was completed ; for, as has been already remarked, 4
there are three stages (to speak it with reverence)
of generation of the Son from the Father : first, from
eternity; secondly, at the Creation of the World; thirdly,
at the Incarnation ; and in this sense the filiation was
not perfected till that time.
Before parting with Dr. Dorner, we may observe
2 Dorner, pp. 88, 89.
3 Defens. Fid. Nic., p. 164. See above, p. 245.
4 Above, p. 244.
250 ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. fllPPOLYTUS.
that we have even more means for maintaining the
orthodoxy of St. Hippolytus than he had. Dr. Dorner
was not aware that the " Little Labyrinth " was the
same work as that quoted by Eusebius, 5 and that
it was written by Hippolytus. 6
In that work he refers to the Holy Scriptures as
testifying the Divinity of Christ, appeals with approval
to the writings of Justin Martyr and others, in which
" Christ is declared to be God " (6 eo\oj el-rat, o XptoTo?),
and he also puts this question, " Who knows not the
writings of Irenseus and Melito and the rest, which
proclaim Christ to be God and Man ; and how many
psalms and hymns of brethren, from the beginning,
written by faithful men, celebrate the Logos of God,
the Christ, and praise Him as God ? " Hippolytus
speaks there of Christ as " our Merciful God and Lord
Jesus Christ," and he says that they who affirm Him
to be mere man (as Artemon and Theodotus did) are
guilty of a godless heresy.
Besides, when Dr. Dorner composed his volumes,
the " Refutation of all Heresies " by St. Hippolytus
was still lying hid in a monastery, or at least had
not been proved to be his. And therefore Dr. Dor-
ner's estimate of Hippolytus must be supplemented
from the present work. In it St. Hippolytus draws a
sharp line between true doctrine and every phase of
heresy then known. Not only does he refute, in his
sixth and seventh books, the various forms of Gnos-
5 Euseb. H. E. v. 28.
6 See above, chap. xii. p. 196, 210, 216.
ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 251
ticism, in Simon Magus, Valentinus, Marcus, Basilides,
Carpocrates, and others ; not only does he reject, in
the seventh book, all the low humanitarian notions
of Christ's nature propagated by Cerinthus, the
Ebionites, Theodotus, and others, and the dualistic
notions of Marcion ; not only does he explode the
fantastic theories of the Docetae in the eighth ; but in
the ninth book he grapples also with those who pro-
fessed to maintain the divine unity, but denied the
personality of the Son and Holy Ghost, as was done
by Noetus, the Sabellians, and Callistus. 7
We can hardly say with Dr. Dorner that in the
theology of Hippolytus, there was indeed the Logos
from Eternity, but not the Son ; for Hippolytus speaks
of God as a Father from Eternity, and also as gene-
rating from Eternity. 8 And where there is generation,
there is offspring ; and where the Father was, there was
a Son. The Logos is spoken of by our Author as
having in Himself the will of Him Who begat Him,
and as being His first-born from the beginning, before
the World was ; and is therefore called by him the
first-begotten Son of the Father?
On the whole, then, there is good reason to concur
in the judgment of the ancient Catholic Church,
which has declared St. Hippolytus to be one of her
greatest Champions of the true faith ; and any at-
tempt to build a vindication of Callistus, Bishop of
7 See also Lib. x. pp. 329, 330.
* Pp. 334. 335-
9 P. 336 Cp. Contra Noetum, cap. n.
252 ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS.
Rome, from a charge of heresy, by damaging the
character of his opponent St. Hippolytus, who
resisted and denounced him as an heresiarch, will, I
am persuaded, find little favour in the eyes of wise,
learned, candid, and generous men.
That St. Hippolytus held and taught the orthodox
faith concerning the Blessed Trinity and the divine
Person of Christ may be inferred also from the follow-
ing considerations.
His writings were numerous, and were composed in
the Greek language, and were well known in the
Eastern Church. The " Refutation of all Heresies "
has been brought to light from a Greek monastery in
our own day, and was probably familiar to many
Eastern writers.
If he had been chargeable with unsoundness in the
faith, especially in such grave matters as the doctrine
of the Trinity, and the Person of Christ, there is no
doubt that the Church (which did take notice of his
inclination to Novatianism) would not have allowed
his teaching on those more serious subjects to pass
unchallenged and uncensured.
Dr. (now Cardinal) Newman who in his zeal for
the Papacy has endeavoured to damage the reputa-
tion, and to detract from the authority, of the Ante-
nicene Fathers, as Cardinal Perron and Petavius did
before him has reminded us 1 that Dionysius of
Alexandria who was a contemporary of St. Hippoly-
tus was afterwards said by St. Basil to have sown the
1 Doctrine of Development, p. 13.
ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 253
first seeds of Arianism. 2 We know that St. Dionysius
in his zeal against Sabellius let fall some unguarded ex-
pressions, which were misconstrued by some Censors,
into expressions derogatory to our Lord's Divine
Personality. We know also (which Dr. Newman
does not mention) that St. Dionysius of Alexandria
addressed a letter to St. Dionysius of Rome, in which
he declared his real sentiments, and justified himself in
the eyes of the Church ; and this vindication is de-
clared by St. Athanasius to have been universally
regarded as satisfactory. 3
It may be fairly concluded from this, that if St.
Hippolytus, the contemporary of Dionysius, had
swerved from the line of orthodoxy in cardinal articles .
of the faith, the Church, which showed itself so sen-
sitive and jealous in the case of Dionysius, would
not have been less susceptible in that of Hippolytus.
But so far from breathing a single syllable in dis-
paragement of his orthodoxy, the Church has ever
regarded him as one of the most strenuous and faith-
ful Champions of true doctrine.
It may perhaps be alleged that the same plea
might be urged in behalf of Callistus. If he had been
a heretic (it may be asked), would not the Church
have protested against his heresy ? To which it may
be replied that it did so by the voice of Hippolytus. J
And there was a wide difference between the two cases.
2 S. Basil, Ep. ix. 2.
3 See Athanasius de Sententia Dionysii, 14, 17, and 19 ; and see
also Bp. Bull, vol. v. pp. 394. 409. 414, ed. Burton ; and Waterland, iii.
p. 10 ; and Routh, Reliquiae, iii. 379402.
254 ON THE ORTHODOXY OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS.
Hippolytus was a voluminous writer in Greek, but as
far as we know, Callistus wrote nothing. His Epis-
copate was a short one about five years, in the
Roman Church early in the third century.
Church History, as we have seen, 4 was of Eastern
origin, and knew little of Western affairs in early times.
No one imagined a Bishop of Rome to be infallible,
or was greatly astonished by his fall. His strange
dogmas, which made some stir in his brief Episcopate,
were regarded as of little importance after his death,
and were soon forgotten. They were absorbed and
lost in the more formidable and better formulated
heresy of Sabellius, which then occupied the attention,
and exercised all the energies of the Church.
We may, therefore, sum up as follows,
Callistus is asserted by Hippolytus to have been a
heretic. No Church Historian affirms Callistus to have
been orthodox. All Church History that has spoken
of Hippolytus, and his name is one of the most cele-
brated in its annals, has concurred in bearing witness
to the soundness of his faith.
When, therefore, Hippolytus and Callistus are
placed before us as antagonists, the one inculpating
the other, in a trial of sound doctrine, we may fairly
say with the Roman orator of old, " Utri creditis,
Quirites ? " and we may leave it to an impartial jury
to pronounce the verdict.
4 Above, pp. 188193.
CHAPTER XV.
On the Episcopal See of St. Hippolytus.
RATHER more than a century ago, Cardinal Ottoboni
was Bishop of Porto, the ancient Portus Romanus,
or harbour of Rome. Portus was situated at the
northern mouth of the Tiber, about fifteen miles from
Rome, and had enjoyed considerable commercial
celebrity in former times. 1 The harbour (Portus),
whence the city derived its name and importance,
had been constructed by the Emperor Claudius,
enlarged by Nero, and improved by Trajan, whence
it was called " Portus Trajani ;" and possesses an
interest in Christian history, as the harbour at which
St. Ignatius landed in his way from Antioch to his
martyrdom at Rome. 2 Cardinal Ottoboni had a
1 See Dio Cass. in Claudio, lib. Ix. num. xi. torn. ii. p. 949, ed.
Hamburg, 1752, and Sueton. in Claud. 20. Plin. N. H. ix. 6, xvi.
40, and Sir W. Cell's Vicinity of Rome, ii. pp. 174 9, and Contorni di
Roma, by Nibby, ii. p. 323, who has published a separate work on Porto.
See also WestphaFs work on the Campagna, p. 172.
2 Martyr. Ignat. 6, p. 591, ed. 2nd, Jacobson. Pammachius and
Fabiola, friends of St. Jerome, erected a Xenodochium there about
A.D. 394 (S. Jerome, Epist. 54 and 94). Its importance and extent
in the time of Alaric, when it was the greatest emporium of Rome,
are evident from the words of Philostorgius (Lib, xii. 3).
256 ON THE EPISCOPAL SEE
noble library, and endeavoured to restore the archi-
tectural beauty of his Episcopal City, which in the
lapse of ages had fallen into decay.
In his zeal for the restoration of the ecclesiastical
edifices of Portus, he did not forget the names of
those whom he reckoned among his predecessors.
Of these, one stood pre-eminent ; one, who had shed
lustre not only upon the See of Portus, but on the
Western Church, and on Christendom. 3 He had been
celebrated for holiness and orthodoxy, for learning and
eloquence ; 4 he was reckoned among the Saints and
Martyrs of the Western Church. He was also vene-
rable for his antiquity ; he had flourished in the
second and third centuries of the Christian era. He
had 5 been a scholar of St. Irenaeus, who, in his youth,
had listened to St. Polycarp, 6 the disciple of St. John.
This was St. HiPPOLYTUS.
It was the desire of Cardinal Ottoboni, Bishop of
Portus, to do honour to his memory.
The Bishop of Porto, being a Suffragan of Rome,
having the oversight of one of the churches anciently 7
3 Card. Baron, ad Ann. 229. "De Hippolyto hactenus, in quo
utraque conveniunt ut Orientalis et Occidentalis Ecclesiae ingens decus
merito dici possit."
4 Hippolytus is called " Vir disertissimus " by St. Jerome ad Lucin.
iv. p. 579, ed. Bened. " Sacratissimus et magnus Doctor Veritatisque
testis fidelis," by Anastasius in Collectan. apud Galland. Bibl. ii.
p. 469, and a "stream of living waters to the Church," Trora^s ry
fKKX-no-iq <avr<av ^a/mr^f, by Syncellus, ad A.D. 215, by Zonaras, Annal.
p. 468, av}]p iepcaraTos Kal (rotycbraTos.
5 Phot. Cod. 121.
6 Euseb v. 20.
7 See Ruffinus in Canon. Concil. Nicaen. 6, and Notitia Cu-riae
OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 257
called Suburbicarian, from their vicinity to the Urbs t
or City of Rome, and one of those who are now
designated " Cardinal Bishops," and being among
those Prelates, whose office it has been from time
immemorial to consecrate 8 the Bishop of Rome,
exercises considerable influence in the Roman
Conclave. Cardinal Ottoboni endeavoured to obtain
a Pontifical brief for the sanction of a special Office
in honour of St. Hippolytus. Some circumstances,
however, had then recently occurred, which obstructed
the execution of his design. Many local traditions,
it is true, were known to exist at Portus, connecting
the name of St. Hippolytus with that city and See.
A building, called Torre di S. Ippolito, still stands at
Porto. (See Nibby, Contorni, ii. p. 320.) The Church
at Portus had been called 5. Hippolyti Ecclesia from
time immemorial, e.g. in a Bull of Pope Gregory IX ,
A.D. 1236. He was, and is at this day, regarded
as the Patron of the Diocese. And the testimony of
those who had applied themselves to the study of
Ecclesiastical History, since the revival of letters in
Europe, to the end of the seventeenth century, had
been almost unanimous in favour of the claim of
Romanee, ed. 1683, p. 17: " Consecrabant Pontificem Romanum
Episcopi vii. ejus Suffraganei nimirum Ostiensis, Fortuensis, Sylvae
Candidse sive Ruffinse, Tusculanus, Prgenestinus, Sabinensis, Albanensis,
et dicebantur ante Leonis IX. tempora Cardinales Episcopi." These
Episcopi Suffraganei were formerly viii. ; Eugenius III. reduced them
to vi. by uniting the "Ecclesia Veliterna" to Ostia, and " Sancta
Ruffina " to Portus. See Onuphr. de VII. Urbis Eccl., c. I.
8 Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontincum, cap. 2, art. 8 : " Episcopus
Portuensis dat orationem secundam," 5i5<rt Trpoo-euxV Seurepav.
S
258 ON THE EPISCOPAL SEE
Portus to the possession of that inheritance. That
St. Hippolytus, the scholar of St. Irenaeus, had been
Bishop of Portus Romanus, or the harbour of Rome,
two miles to the north of Ostia, had been affirmed
by the most celebrated Church Historians and
Divines of Rome, such as Cardinals Baronius 9 and
Bellarmine, 1 and by Roman Popes, such as Pius
the Fourth, who designated him as Bishop of Portus
on the pedestal of his statue found in 1551, and had
been acknowledged as indubitable by the most learned
Theologians of other Churches, as, for example,
by Archbishop Ussher, 3 Henry Dodwell, 3 Bishop
Beveridge, 4 and Bishop Bull. 5
But in the year 1685, a learned Theologian of
Holland, Stephen Le Moyne, 6 published at Leyden
his "Varia Sacra," in which he controverted the
ancient and generally received tradition concerning
St. Hippolytus. He did not deny that Hippolytus
was a Bishop : he acknowledged him as a Martyr :
he admitted that he had flourished early in the third
century. But he would not allow that he had ever
sat in the Episcopal See of Portus, near Rome.
Card. Baron. Ann. ad A.D. 229.
Card. Bellarmin. de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, vii. p. 41.
In notis ad Martyrium S. Ignatii, 6, p. 570, ed. Jacobson.
H. Dodwell, Dissertatio de Rom. Pontif. Success., p. 95, cap. 7,
5O2.
Cod. Canon. Eccl., lib. ii. cap. 2, v.
Def. Fid. Nic., ii. 8. i, p. 270, ed. Burton.
Le Moyne, Proleg. in Varia Sacra. Vol. ii. p. 29, 30, ed. 2cla, Lug.
Bat. 1694. Le Moyne was a native of France, but composed this work
in his capacity of Theological Professor at Leyden.
OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 259
Relying on certain notices occurring in some ancient
writers, Le Moyne would have transferred St. Hip-
polytus from the genial clime of Italy and the banks
of the Tiber, to the stern wilds of Arabia, and to the
shores of the Red Sea. He would have made him a
Bishop of the Roman Emporium at Aden, near what
are called the Straits of Bab-el Mandeb, on the
southern coast of Arabia. 7
Le Moyne's theory, which was defended with
ingenuity and learning, found favour in various
quarters. Dr. Cave 8 adopted it in England, Dupin 9
and Tillemont l in France, Spanheim 2 and Basnage 3
in Holland. Assemann, in Italy, 4 appeared disposed
to do the same. Portus was in danger of being
deprived of its most illustrious ornament, the Bishop
and Martyr, St. Hippolytus.
Errors are not without use, as ministering occasions
for the firmer establishment of truth. So it fared
in the present case. It happened fortunately for the
honour of Portus, and for the fame of Hippolytus,
that the See of that city was rilled at the time to
which we refer, by a Prelate eminent for his love of
7 Le Moyne, p. 30. Non Episcopus Portus Ostiensis (he appears to
confound Ostia and Portus), sed Portus Romani in Arabia.
8 Cave, Historia EccL, i. p. 102.
y Dupin, Biblioth., i. p. 179.
1 Tillemont, Memoires, &c. Vol. iii. p. 104. 310, ed. 1732. See
also Lardner, Credibility, i. p. 496, ed. 4to. 1815.
2 Spanheim, Epitome Isagogica ad Hist. EccL, p. 131, ed. Lug, Bat.
1689.
3 Basnage, Annales Polit. Eccles. ad A.D. 222, Roterodami, 1706.
4 Assemann, Biblioth. Orient. Clem. Vatican. , iii. p. i, c. 7, p. 15.
S 2
260 ON THE EPISCOPAL SEE
literature, and distinguished by zeal and enthusiasm
for the past, and by affectionate regard for the memory
of his own predecessors, such as Cardinal Pietro
Ottoboni. It was also a happy circumstance that his
rich Library was under the judicious care of one of
the most accomplished Scholars and laborious Anti-
quarians that Italy could then boast, Constantino
Ruggieri.
Ruggieri had been invited from Bologna to settle
at Rome, where he was entrusted with the superin-
tendence of the Press of the Propaganda.
Cardinal Ottoboni requested him to explore the
archives in his own princely collection, and in other
depositories within his reach, for the examination or
discovery of documents relating to the See of Portus,
and to the history of St. Hippolytus ; and he com-
missioned him to communicate the result of his
inquiries in a Dissertation on that subject. A better
choice could not have been made. Ruggieri under-
took the work, and prosecuted it with vigour and
assiduity. In the year 1740 his Dissertation was
ready for the press, and it was thought worthy
of being printed with the types of the Vatican. It
was seen and eulogized by Cardinal Lambertini,
afterwards Benedict XIV. 5 But unhappily before
the entire volume could be printed Cardinal Ottoboni
died. Ruggieri fell into distress, and then died. 6
Eighty pages of the work had been printed, but,
6 Lambertini, De servorum Dei Beatificatione, lib. i. c. iv. n. 10.
6 A.D. 1766.
OF ST. HIPPOL YTUS. 261
unfortunately, there the impression stopped. The
edition was dispersed ; a great part of it was con-
sumed in fireworks for the Castel S. Angelo on St.
Peter's Day, and, in fine, only five copies were saved.
By a fortunate coincidence, one of these five, enriched
with Manuscript notes, fell into the hands of a learned
Abate of the Diocese of Porto, Achille Ruschi. In
the year 1771 he had prepared the Dissertation in a
complete form for publication, and it appeared at
Rome in that year, sanctioned with the approbation
of the Maestro di Sagro Palazzo, and inscribed to the
reigning Pontiff, Clement XIV. 7
This Dissertation of Ruggieri is distinguished by
elaborate research, and critical accuracy ; and is
composed in a clear and flowing style of terse and
elegant Latinity. It throws much light incidentally
on the history of St. Hippolytus. It also commends
itself to the respect and gratitude of Englishmen by
the candid spirit and courteous temper with which
it appreciates the learned labours of Anglican
Divines, especially Bp. Pearson, Dr. Hammond, and
Bp. Bull.
It appeared convenient and requisite to refer in
this place to this important work, on account of its
intrinsic merits ; and because, though much has been
1 Its title is Constantini Ruggieri De Portuensi S. Hippolyti, Episcopi
et Martyris, Sede, Dissertatio postuma, ab Achille Ruschio Portuensis
Dicecesis absoluta et annotationibus aucta. Romae 1771, Pr<zsidum
facultate.
It is inserted in P. G. Lumperi Historia Sanctorum Patrum August.
Vindel. 1791, Pars viii., where it occupies 255 8vo. pages.
262 ON THE EPISCOPAL SEE
recently written concerning the See of St. Hippoly-
tus, little mention, if any, has been made of this
Dissertation ; and it seems almost to have been
regarded as a modern discovery, that St. Hippolytus
was Bishop of Portus near Rome. But the fact is,
this matter was long since set at rest ; and to write
more upon it now would only be actum agere. The
work of Ruggieri, published in 1771, exhausted that
subject. It refuted in the most triumphant manner
the theory of Le Moyne, and established, as it seems
to me, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that St.
Hippolytus, the scholar of St. Irenaeus, the Bishop
and Martyr of the third century, whose character and
works were held in high esteem and veneration by
the Christian Church in his own and succeeding
generations, and whose memory is revered in a
particular manner by the Church of Rome, was
Bishop of Portus, the Roman harbour at the northern
mouth of the Tiber, whence he is often called by
Ancient Authors, not only " Bishop of Portus, or of
the Harbour near Rome," but is designated frequently
as " a Roman Bishop," and sometimes as " Bishop of
the City," and even " Bishop of Rome :" 8 for the
8 See Nicephor. Callist., iv. 31, and the Authorities in Fabricius,
Hippolyti Opera, i. p. viii. x., and ibid. i. 4247, and Ruggieri,
pp. 478493, (cf. pp. 518. 520. 522. 525,) where numerous examples of
these designations are given ; Ruggieri sums up the testimony of
Christian Antiquity concerning St. Hippolytus as follows, p. 493 : " All
doubt concerning his Episcopate will vanish, si disertissima Prudentii,
Leontii, Anastatii aliorumque qui IV Ecclesise Sseculo usque ad
Nicephorum XIII. sseculi Scriptorem floruerunt testimonia sedulo
perpendere volumus, qui uno ore testantur magnum Hippolytum
OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 263
ancient Roman Province was sometimes called
Rome. 9
This Dissertation also possesses a peculiar interest,
and is entitled to particular regard, on account of
its intimate connexion with the Diocese of Hippoly-
tus, and with the See of Rome. It owed its origin
to one of the Episcopal successors of Hippolytus ; it
was completed by one of the Clergy of the Diocese
which he had governed ; it was commended by one
Bishop of Rome, Benedict XIV., and was dedicated
to another, Clement XIV. It was produced, there-
fore, under the sanction of the Bishop of Portus, and
under the auspices of the Bishop of Rome. It may
be regarded as embodying the judgment of the
Roman Church concerning St. Hippolytus. It may
be considered as a mark of her respectful homage to
his memory, and as a pledge to receive with favour
what comes before her with the impress of his
name.
In my former edition I wrote what has been
printed above. But since the publication of that
edition, a very learned person, Dr. Ignatius von D61-
linger, has impugned these conclusions, and I must
therefore ask permission to say something more on
this subject.
Episcopum et Martyrem, vel Portuensis Ecclesiae Pastorem, vel
Romanum, id est Romanae Provincial Episcopum fuisse."
9 Ruggieri, p. 522. Veteres " S. Hippolytum Episcopum Romanum
vocant ; quia Portuensis Episcopus fuit, quse urbs in Suburbicaria
Provincia sita est, quam Graeci Romam vocant."
264 ON THE EPISCOPAL SEE
Let me state Dr. Bellinger's objections in his own
words ; l he thus writes :
1. " I would first point out that Portus Romanus
in the third century was no City, while the neighbour-
ing Ostia continued to flourish as such.
2. " That there was no Bishop of Portus before the
year 313 or 314.
3. " That a Bishop Hippolytus of Portus was
altogether unknown in the West, and likewise in the
East till the seventh century.
4. " That the unanimous tradition of the Eastern
Church represented Hippolytus as a Roman Bishop.
5. " That the later Byzantine Writers, the Author of
the Paschal Chronicle, George Syncellus, Anastasius,
and Zonaras, were misled by the spurious Acts of
Aurea to make him Bishop of Portus.
6. "That Hippolytus, according to his own asser-
tions, regarded himself as the rightful Bishop of Rome
of his time.
7. " That Hippolytus could not have been at the
same time a member of the Roman Presbytery and
Bishop of Rome."
To take these objections in order.
I. Dr. Db'llinger's assertion that Portus was no City
in the third century has been contravened by the
learned Roman Archaeologist Cavaliere de Rossi, in
the " Bullettino di Archeologia " published at Rome in
1866. He there says (p. 37), " The site and name of
Portus are very celebrated in the records of the
1 Hippolytus und Kallistus, p. 73.
OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 265
primitive Church. I find the name more frequently
commemorated there than that of Ostia." He then
proceeds to cite thirteen ancient inscriptions in
evidence of its early Christian celebrity.
2. Cavaliere de Rossi also combats Dr. Bellinger's
second assertion, that Portus could not have had a
Bishop before the beginning of the fourth century.
A Bishop of Portus subscribed his name to the decrees
of the Council of Aries, A.D. 317 (Concil. Mansi, ii.
p. 477. Labbe, i. 1429). But in all probability (says
De Rossi) he was not the first Bishop of Portus. The
Christian documents which have been lately discovered
at Portus prove it to have been a rich and populous
city long before the age of Constantine ; and there is
good reason to believe (adds De Rossi) that it was
opulent and thickly peopled in the second and third
centuries. The Episcopal Sees (he says) of the
primitive Church were numerous, and inasmuch as
Christianity flourished in very early times at Portus,
there is good reason to believe that it had an Epis-
copal See, distinct from that of Ostia, before the
Council of Aries.
3, 4, 5. On the assertion of Dr. Dollinger that
no one in the West knew Hippolytus to be Bishop
of Portus, Cavaliere de Rossi pertinently refers
(p. 42) to the Hymn of Prudentius early in the fifth
century, which speaks of Hippolytus as Head of
the Christian Church at Portus. (See above, chapter
ix. p. 1 6 1.)
The local tradition from time immemorial of Portus
266 ON THE EPISCOPAL SEE
itself (where is a tower and church of St. Hippolytus)
is not to be despised. The mention of Portus in the
personal narrative of St. Hippolytus (above, chapter
vi. p. 76), seems to confirm the belief of his connexion
with it.
Dr. Dollinger acknowledges 2 that Hippolytus was
sometimes called by contemporary writers eV LOTTOS
eQvwv, " Bishop of the Nations ;" and it has been well
observed by Baron Bunsen, 3 and by the present Bishop
of Durham/ that his residence at Portus, where he was
martyred according to Prudentius, qualified him for
that office. As was before remarked, Portus, being
the harbour of the Imperial City, 5 was thronged with
strangers, Greeks, Asiatics, Africans, Merchants, Ship-
men and Soldiers, Philosophers, Physicians, Ambas-
sadors, Astrologers, Christians, Jews, and Heathens
flocking to Rome ; and his learning and ready elo-
quence in the Greek language, and perhaps also in
Latin, admirably fitted the " Bishop of Portus " to be
also " Bishop of the Nations."
Dr. Dollinger also affirms that Hippolytus was
never called " Bishop of Portus by any Eastern
writer " before the seventh century.
But this, again, is a doubtful assertion.
2 Pp. 338-342.
3 Hippolytus and his Age, vol. i. p. 52, where are some excellent
remarks ; more valuable as coming from one who has done so much
for Roman topography.
4 Bishop Lightfoot in the Journal of Philology, i. p. 108.
5 It is an interesting circumstance that St. Ignatius, when carried by
sea to Rome, in the time of Trajan, was landed at Portus.
OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. 267
In the Paschal Chronicle (p. 4, ed. Dindorf, 1832)
there is a quotation from " Peter, Bishop of Alexan-
dria and Martyr," who died A.D. 311, and that quota-
tion embodies an extract (p. 12) from " Hippolytus,
Martyr and Bishop of Portus near Rome."
The concurrent testimonies of persons writing in
such different places as Anastasius, 6 secretary of the
Roman Church in the Episcopate of several succes-
sive Popes, who had intimate official relations with
Rome itself, of George Syncellus, 7 and Zonaras, and
Nicephorus Callisti, 8 who all agree in designating
him as " Bishop of Portus Romanus," 9 clearly show
that there was a considerable amount of early tradi-
tion in favour of that opinion.
May I be pardoned for expressing surprise that
Dr. Dollinger should allege that all these writers were
led blindfold by such a wretched production as the
spurious Acts of Aurea, which carry their own con-
viction in their face ? That any Greek Ecclesiastical
Authors should have paid any heed to so despicable
a Latin fabrication and absurd tissue of fables, is in-
credible. Tillemont thus describes them, 1 " Les actes
8 Anastasius Ecclesise Romanae Presbyter et Apocrisiarius ad
Theodotium Gangrensem ; in the seventh century, Bibl. Patr. xii. 858.
7 Georgius Syncellus in the eighth century, ed. Goar, p. 358.
Fabric. Hippol. i. 42.
8 Nicephorus Callisti, in the fourteenth century, Eccl. Hist. iv. 31.
9 Zonaras, in the twelfth century, says that Hippolytus flourished under
Urbanus (Annal. torn. ii. ap. Fabric. Hippol. p. x.). His words are
remarkable : Oupfiavov TTJS ^itiffKOirrts TTJS 'Pw/maiuv ir6\eci)s irpoeffruTos
Kdl 'iTTTT^At/TOJ fytitl, O.V^p IfpCtfTOTOS KO.I <Toq><i)TO.TOS 'EiriffKOTTOS TOU KOTO
Memoires, iii. 680. Cp. 677. 801.
268 ON THE EPISCOPAL SEE
de Ste. Auree, ou Aure, qui fournissent grand nombre
de Martyrs a Baronius sont pleins de fautes, selon lui-
mesme. L'auteur met Ste. Aure, St. Hippolyte, et
les autres de leur compagnie sous 1'Empereur Claude ;
ils semblent 1'entendre du premier, selon ces paroles
de St. Censorin, ' Christus temporibus nostris dignatus
est venire a Patre.' " The Acts of St. Aurea are pro-
bably more recent than the seventh century, and could
not have been followed by Anastasius.
4 6. It is alleged by Dr. Dollinger that Hippolytus
is designated by the unanimous voice of the Eastern
Church as " Bishop of Rome/' and that according ^o
his own assertion (in the newly-discovered Treatise),
he regarded himself as the rightful Bishop of Rome,
in fact, that Hippolytus was i}\Q first Anti-pope.
On this allegation it may be observed that Eusebius
(vi. 20) did not know of what See St. Hippolytus was
Bishop ; and that St. Jerome, who lived in the East,
but who had been Secretary of Pope Damasus, says
that he could not discover the name of the City of
which he was Bishop (de Script. Eccl. 61). If St.
Hippolytus had been " Bishop of Rome/' if he had
been an Anti-pope, for fourteen years, as Dr. Dollin-
ger supposes, all this would be unaccountable.
The name of the first Anti-pope was Novatian, and
his acts were known everywhere. If Hippolytus
had been another Novatian, what a commotion
would such an assumption have made in all
Christendom ! Ignorance of such a fact on the
part of Eusebius and St. Jerome would have been
OF ST. HIPPOL YTUS. 269
inexplicable. But it is not extraordinary that Euse-
bius and Jerome should not have known the name of
his See. Eusebius had not much knowledge of Western
affairs, as we have seen above (chapter x. p. 189).
Hippolytus had another title, " Bishop of the Nations"
(as Dr. Dollinger allows), and this general title pro-
bably did much to throw his special title into the
shade.
Dr. Dollinger says truly that Hippolytus is called
by some ancient authors a " Roman Bishop," or
" Bishop of Rome." Yes ; and this is not wonderful.
Portus, being the harbour of Rome, would have been
associated in the minds of persons at a distance with
Rome itself ; it is not surprising that a Bishop of
Rome's harbour should have been called a Roman
Bishop, or, for shortness' sake, a Bishop of Rome.
Indeed, it was not uncommon for Bishops of Sees
near Rome to be called Roman Bishops, or Bishops of
Rome : thus the Council of Sardica, A.D. 347, is
described as " gathered by the grace of God from
Rome, Spain, Gaul, Italy, Africa. 2 But it is incredible
that a Bishop of the City of Rome should ever have
been called Bishop of Portus, " Bishop of Rome's har-
bour!' as Hippolytus (we have seen) often is.
If Hippolytus had been an Anti-pope, certainly no
Ecclesiastical writer after his death would have ever
deigned to give him the title of Bishop of Rome.
Such an ascription would have been an insult to the
2 Concil. Labbe, ii. 694. Cp. Ruggieri, p. 518. 525, who says, " Roma
pro provincia Romana, Italia pro provincia, Mediolanensi usurpatur."
270 ON THE EPISCOPAL SEE OF ST. HIPPO L YTUS.
greatest Church of the West, and to the whole
Catholic Church. What Ecclesiastical writer ever
gave the title of " Bishop of Rome " to the Anti-pope
Novatian ?
That Hippolytus opposed two Bishops of Rome in
succession, Zephyrinus and Callistus, on the ground
of heretical doctrines propagated by them, is abun-
dantly clear from his own narrative ; but there is no
evidence whatever in that record to show that he ever
assumed to himself the place or title of Bishop of
Rome.
Dr. Dollinger's seventh and last allegation, that
" Hippolytus could not have been at the same time a
member of the Roman Presbytery and Bishop of
Rome," is, I believe, directed against Baron Bunsen.
As it does not concern anything stated by me, I do
not feel called upon to notice it ; and I should have
been very thankful to have been spared the necessity
of making any other comments than those of assent
on what has been said on this subject by a person
who is justly regarded by members of the English
Church with such deep feelings of veneration and
affection, both on public and private grounds, as Dr.
von Dollinger.
CHAPTER XVI.
On the Theory of Development of Christian Doctrine,
as applied to the Writings of St. Hippolytus.
IN the preceding Chapter, we were led to notice in-
cidentally certain allegations that have been made
concerning the doctrine of St. Hippolytus.
It has been affirmed by an eminent person, 1 that
St. Hippolytus "makes the generation of Christ
temporary ; " and it is implied, that he did not believe
in the existence of the Son, as the Son, from eternity;
and he is even charged by him with not teaching the
doctrine of His Divinity. 2
1 Cardinal Newman, in his " Essay on the Development of Christian
Doctrine," p. 13, says that "St. Hippolytus speaks as if he were
ignorant of our Lord's Eternal Sonship."
2 Cardinal Newman says, ibid. p. 14, "If we limit our views of the
teaching of the Fathers by what they expressly state, St. Hippolytus is
a Photinian. " The doctrine of Photinus is thus described by St. Au-
gustine (Hgeres. 44, 45) : " Christum non semper fuisse dicunt sed Ejus
initium ex quo de Maria natus est asseverant, nee Eum aliquid amplius
quam hominem putant ; ista hseresis aliquando cujusdam Artemonis
fuit." And therefore, in fact, Hippolytus, whom Cardinal Newman
calls a Photinian, and who, in his "Little Labyrinth," had contended
against the Artemonites, had, by anticipation, taken up arms against the
heresy of Photinus.
272 ON THE THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT
The inference which is derived from these allega-
tions, is, that the system of Christian Doctrine, now
taught in the Church, has been of gradual growth,
and that it did not exist in its present form in the
primitive ages of Christendom.
The learned writer 3 to whom I have referred
maintains that the office of guiding and regulating
" the Development of Christian Doctrine," is a pre-
rogative appertaining to one Person in the Church,
who is regarded by some as her supreme and infallible
Head on earth the Bishop of Rome.
Whether St. Hippolytus held the doctrine of the
Personality of the Holy Spirit, and acknowledged the
three Divine Persons of the Blessed Trinity, is a
question which has been already examined. 4 Proofs
have already been brought to show his doctrine in
these respects. 5
3 Dr. Newman's Essay, chap. ii. sect, ii., "On a developing
Authority in Christianity."
4 Above, chap. xiv. pp. 242 252.
6 A German Roman Catholic Theologian who had examined his
works with care thus speaks : " Castigatissimt loquitur sanctus Hip-
polytus de mysterio Sanctissimae Trinitatis aperteque declarat fidem
circa unitatem Naturae et distinctionem Personarum. . . . San6 nemo
posset hisce temporibus magis accurate loqui de Mysterio Trinitatis.
. . . Pari praecisione loquitur sanctus ille Episcopus de Divinitate ac
consubstantialitate Verbi." P. Gottf. Lumper, Histor. Theol. Critica,
viii. 123 131. Bishop Bull's judgment on the orthodoxy of St. Hip-
polytus may be seen in his Defensio Fidei Nicaenae, ii. 8. 2, vol. v.
p. 270, ed. Burton, and Dr. Grabe's, ibid. pp. 279 285, and Dr. Water-
land's, iii. 40. 62. 69. 79. 91, &c., ed. Van Mildert, Oxford, 1820. It
has been already observed, that the learned President of St. Mary
Magdalene College, Oxford, Dr. Routh, made choice of the Homily
of St. Hippolytus against Noetus for a sound Exposition of the Catholic
OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 273
With regard to Dr. Newman's allegation, that the
Eternal Generation of the Son is not taught by Hip-
polytus, this has been fully discussed in another place,
and it would be superfluous to say more on that sub-
ject here. 6 To prove that Hippolytus was not a
Photinian is happily as needless. (See note, p. 271.)
First then, let it even be supposed, for argument's
sake, that St. Hippolytus and other ancient Fathers
of the Church had spoken ambiguously or inade-
quately, or even erroneously, concerning certain
Articles of the Faith, now received by the Church,
and embodied in her Creeds.
It would not therefore follow that the Christian
Faith did not exist, or did not exist in perfect sym-
metry and fulness, in their age ; or that they imagined
this to be the case ; or that they did not acknowledge
that Faith, and acknowledge it as complete ; or that
a single iota has been added to it since their age.
For let it be remembered that the SCRIPTURES of
the OLD and NEW TESTAMENT existed in their time ;
and St. Hippolytus, and the other Catholic Fathers
acknowledged the HOLY SCRIPTURES to be Divinely
inspired, and to be the sole and all-sufficient Rule of
the Christian Faith. They acknowledged and affirmed,
that the true Faith, whole and complete, is contained
in those Scriptures. Nothing can be more explicit
doctrine concerning the Nature of Christ. Routh, Script. Eccl. Opuscula,
Pref p. vii. and p. 47. Oxon. 1858.
6 See above, chap. xiv. pp. 242 252 ; and my Letters to M. Gondon,
Letter viii. pp. 210214, ed. 3.
T
274 ON THE THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT
than the testimony of St. Hippolytus, and of his
master St. Irenseus, and of other ancient Fathers to
this effect 7
Next let it not be forgotten that Articles of Faith
are confessedly mysterious ; and that a careful con-
sideration, collation, and comparison of various texts
of Holy Scripture is requisite for the avoidance of
7 See, for example, S. Hippol. c. Noet. 9. els tbs, t>v OVK
a\\o6ev tTriyiyvui(rKou.sv, fy e K T<av ayltav ypa(pwv . . . '6aoi Oeoffe-
fieiav aaKtlv /Sov\6/j.e6a OVK a\\o6ev &.ffirf)(TO[jiev 2) e/c T<av Xoyiuv TOV
Geov. "Offa TO'IVVV Kr)pvo~ (rover iv al 6f?ai ypa<pal, tSw/jitv, Kai oo~a
8iodo~Kovo~iv eTri-yj/CD/xer, . . . /u.^ Kar' ISiav irpoaipeo- iv /ur/5e /car' t'Siov
vo vv, )UTj5e ^ia^6/j.voi TO virb TOV Qeov 5i5^ue^a, aAA* t>v rp6irov avrbs
/8ouAV)07j Sict ruv aylcov ypacp&v 5l|at, OVTOJS fScD/uej/. See also S.
Hippol. ap. Euseb. v. 28, concerning heretics, ypatyas Betas pepaftiovp-
yflKacrt . . . KaTa\nr6vTs ras 0710$ TOV @eov ypa(pas, yttafj-fTpiav 67ri-
T-nSevovffiv ^ ou irio~Tevov<riv 'Ayicp TIvev/j-aTi \f\ex0ai ras Oeias ypatyas,
Kai elcriv &TTKTTOI ^ eavroits rjyovVTai ffo(p<aTfpovs TOV 'Ayiov Tlvev/j-aTOs
tirdpxeiv. The statements of St. Irenseus on this subject are also very
forcible and clear. See S. Iren. ii. 46, where he describes the doctrines
received by the true Christian as ef<ra Qavfpws teal di/a/x^i/SdAws ev rats
6 fiats ypatyals AeAe/cTai. See the whole of that eloquent chapter, and
particularly iii. 1 1, where he calls the written Gospel <TTV\OV Kai (TTfipiyna
TT/S 'EK/cATjo-tas. Other testimonies to the same effect are the following :
Scriptor Anon. ap. Euseb. v. 16, against the Montanist heresy, 5e8io>s
/wfj TTTJ 8^w Tio-lv fTTHTvyypdtyeiv ^ e'7n5taTOTTe<70at T$ Trjs TOV evayye\iou
S. Athanas. C. Gentes, i. I, auTop/ceTs al ayiai Kai Qeoirvevo-TOt ypacpal
trpbs TTJS aATjfletas a7ra776Ata'. Festal. Epist. 39, ev TOVTOIS &i& \iois
f*.6vov T~b TTJS fvffffieias SiSaorKaAetoi' euo77eAi^6Tar /xrjScis TOVTOIS firi-
/SaAAeVw /UTjSe TOVTWV aQaipeo-Qca. S. Basil, de Fide, c. 2,
l/CTTTcoo'ts iriffTfus f) aOfTelf TI TU>V yeypafjififvcav,
rSav JUT? yeypafj.^4v(av. Richard Hooker had good cause to say, Eccl.
Pol. ii. v. 4, "To urge anything upon the Church, requiring thereunto
that religious assent of Christian belief wherewith the words of the Holy
Prophets are received, to urge anything as part of that supernatural
and celestially revealed truth which God hath taught, and not to show
it in SCRIPTURE, this did the ancient Fathers evermore think unlawful,
impious, execrable."
OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 275
error, and for the declaration of truth in perfect pleni-
tude and harmonious proportion ; and that such consi-
deration, collation, and comparison, is a work of time.
Let it be observed, that men are prone to dwell on
specific truths, to the neglect of others equally impor-
tant. In dealing with Holy Scripture, they are wont
to forget the Apostolic precept, to compare Spiritual
things with Spiritual ; and are apt to fix their eyes
on particular texts of Scripture detached from the
context ; and are often blind to other passages of
Scripture, which ought to be viewed in juxtaposition
with them ; and thus they disturb the balance and
mar the proportion of faith.
The Catholic Fathers protest against this partiality
and no one more forcibly than St. Hippolytus. 8
The tendency of the human mind is to be driven
by an excess of reaction from one error to its opposite
extreme. Thus in the primitive ages of the Church,
when Idolatry was yet dominant at Rome, the fear of
Polytheism tended to produce Monarchianism, and it
acted as an obstacle, in certain quarters, to the recep-
tion of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, misconceived
to be Tritheism. This fear of abandoning the doc-
trine of the Divine Unity engendered Sabellianism on
8 See, for example, c. Noetum, 3, where he rebukes the Noetians
for quoting the Scriptures ^(W/coiAa, i.e. piecemeal, single texts,
broken off from the context, and refutes their false reasoning deduced
from isolated texts, by reference to Scripture as a whole, 6\oK\-ftpws, 4.
&ir6rav 0eA.7J<r(Tt iravovpyeveaOai irepi^TTTovari TO.S ypcHpds 1 6\oK\-f)pws
Sk eiTraTw. So Tertullian c. Praxean. c. 20 : Tribus capitulis toturn
volunt Instrumentum cedere. Proprium hoc est omnium hsereticorum.
T 2
276 ON THE THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT
one side, and Photinianism on the other. So in later
times, the dread of Sabellianism drove some into
Arianism, and Nestorianism begat Eutychianism.
Thus Heresies arose, and generated one an-
other.
But, under the all-wise and overruling Providence
of Almighty God, Heresies were made subservient
to the advancement of Truth. They excited the
vigilance of orthodox Christian Teachers, and stimu-
lated them to examine with greater diligence what
was the teaching of HOLY SCRIPTURE in those
particular matters, which " Heresy went about to
deprave." Thus the True Faith was seen more
clearly, and was expressed more definitely ; it was
embodied in Confessions, and stereotyped in the
Creeds of the Church. 9
But it must not be imagined, that the Truth was
9 This has been admirably stated by the Fathers themselves ; e.g.
Origen, Horn. ix. in Num. "Si doctrina ecclesiastica nullis intrinsecus
ha.-reticorum dogmalum assertionibus cingeretur, non poterat tarn clara
et tarn examinata videri fides nostra. Sed idcirco doctrinam catholicam
contradicentium obsidet oppugnatio, ut Fides nostra non otio torpescat
sed exercitiis elimetur." " Illorum error nobis profuit," says St.
Ambrose, in De Incarn. i. 6. So St. August, iii. 2056. " Haeretici
abundant, et coeperunt fluctuare corda fidelium ; jam tam necessitas
,facta est spiritualibus viris, qui aliquid secundum Divinitatem Domini
Nostri Jesu Christi non solum legerant in Evangelic, sed intellexerant,
ut contra arma Diaboli Christi arma proferrent." Hence he says,
i y - P- 73j " Ex hsereticis asserta est Catholica." See also, iii. 102.
2055 ; iv. 730. 978 ; vii. 661 ; viii. 33. Hence, in the words of the
venerable Hooker, v. xlii., "though those contentions (with heretics)
were cause of much evil, yet some good the Church hath reaped by
them, in that they occasioned the learned and sound in faith to explain
such things as Heresy went about to deprave."
OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 277
made by being elucidated. No ; not a single article
of it was so formed. It had existed, and had ex- /
isted in its perfect plenitude, even from the beginning,
in the pages of HOLY WRIT.
The process here described is similar to what takes
place in the World of Nature. The rays of the Sun
are often veiled from our sight by clouds. But the
Sun is shining behind them. And, when the clouds
break and are dissolved, not a single new ray of the
sun is created ; but it is seen more clearly, and then
" Nube solet pulsa clarior ire dies."
So, when the clouds of Heresy were dispersed, no
new article of Faith was made ; no new beam of
Divine Revelation radiated forth ; but the winds of
Controversy had blown away the mists of Heresy,
the Storm had cleared the sky and purified the air,
and the Orb of Truth was seen more clearly by the
eye of the Church, as that Orb had shone from the
first, in the firmament of Holy Writ.
The question now is
How was this process of elucidation performed ?
Doubtless St. Hippolytus and the other Catholic
Fathers admitted and affirmed, that every one is
bound to exercise all the faculties which God has
given him. But they did not imagine that any one
might interpret Scripture as he pleased, or that what-
ever seems to be truth to any man, is truth to him.
The " Refutation of all Heresies " by St. Hippolytus
is a protest against such a notion as that.
278 ON 1 HE THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT
Again, St. Hippolytus did not acknowledge the
existence of any " developing authority " inherent in
the Bishop of Rome, and belonging to that See. If
there had been such a power and privilege in that
Church in the third century, the Church of Christ
would have become Noetian. She would have denied
the proper personality of her Divine Head. The
struggle of St. Hippolytus against Zephyrinus and
Callistus, proves that in his view Bishops of Rome
V might become heretics, and must not be followed
when they fall into heresy. And the Church Uni-
versal, by professing his doctrine as true, and pro-
scribing theirs as heretical, has pronounced him to
have been right, and them to have been wrong.
How, then, was it to be determined, what the true^
doctrine of Scripture is ?
By the aid of sound Reason, disciplined and in-
formed by Learning, and exercised with caution, in-
dustry, and humility, and enlightened by Divine
Grace given to earnest prayer, and controlled and
regulated by the judgment and guidance of the
Church Universal, to whom Christ has promised His
Presence, and the Light of the Holy Spirit to guide
her into all truth.
This was the doctrine of St. Hippolytus, 1 and the
other Catholic Fathers.
Whatever, therefore, has been received by the
Church Universal as the true Exposition of Scripture,
that is the true sense of Scripture. And the true
1 See above, chap. vii.
OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 279
sense of Scripture, that, and that alone, is Scripture.
And, since the Creeds have been so received, we
believe them to contain the True Faith as propounded
in Scripture. And since the Personality of the Holy
Spirit and the Divine Trinity in Unity are taught in
the Creeds, we believe that those doctrines are con-
tained in Holy Scripture, and that they have been
In Scripture from the beginning.
Therefore, even if it could be shown that St.
Hippolytus, or any other among the ancient Fathers
of the Church, had exaggerated a truth through fear
of its opposite error ; or if, not being gifted with pre-
science, they did not guard their language against
possible misconstruction, in regard to some heresies
which did not arise in the Church till some years after
they were laid in their graves ; or did not fully put
forth such transcendental truths as the eternal gene-
ration of the Son of God, before those truths had
been impugned, What is all this to us ? What is it
to the question before us ? They received the Holy
Scriptures. They received them as the Rule of Faith.
They received therefore all that is in the Scriptures.
They received all that the Church Universal, the
Body and Spouse of Christ to whom He has com-
mitted the Scriptures, and whom He has commis-
sioned to guard and interpret them could show to
be in those Scriptures. They received, therefore, by
implication, and by anticipation, the Three Creeds,
promulgated lawfully, and generally received by the
Church.
280 THE OR Y OF DE VEL OPMENT, E TC.
We have the Holy Scriptures ; we have the bless-
ing of Catholic teaching, and enjoy the benefits which
Almighty God in His mercy has elicited from Here-
sies, for the victorious vindication and clearer mani-
festation of His Truth. We have the Creeds. We
do not see any new sun, or any single new ray of the
sun, in them. But by their means we see the Orb of
divine light shining more brightly. By means of the
Creeds, the Church Universal, acting under the
governance of her Divine Head, Who has promised
to be with her always, and under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit, Whom He has sent to abide with
her for ever, has rendered a greater service to
the whole World than that which, in that cele-
brated speech, the noblest orator of Antiquity 3
said had been effected by one of his decrees for his
own State. The Church, by means of the Creeds,
has made the dangers of Heresy, which from time to
time have hung over her, to pass away, like a cloud.
2 Demosth. de Corona, c. 56, 4, TOVTO T& J/r74>i0>a rb*/ r6re rf, iroAfi
jrcpiffTavra Kivftwov TrapeXde'iv e IT o it] (rev, &<nrep vtfyos. Longinus, de
Sublim. c. 39.
CHAPTER XVII.
Appeal to St. Hippolytus on the Present Claims of the
Roman Church to Supremacy and Infallibility.
THE main question on which the controversy between
the Church of Rome and the other Churches of
Christendom hinges, is that of Papal Supremacy.
"What is the point at issue," says Cardinal Bellar-
mine, " when we argue concerning the Primacy of
the Roman Pontiff?" "It is," he replies,"//^ sum
of Christianity" 1
Among the arguments adduced by our Romanist
brethren, in behalf of the Papal claim to Supremacy,
one is urged by them with frequency and confidence,
from a well-known passage of St. Irenaeus. 2
That great Bishop and Doctor of the Church, who
was the disciple of St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna,
employs, they say, the following words in his Treatise
on Heresy.
He is describing " the Church of Rome, as founded
1 Bellarmin. de Pontifice, vol. i. p. 189, ed. 1615. De qua re agitur
cum de primatu Pontificis agitur? Brevissime dicam, De summd rei
Christianitatis,
' S. Iren. iii. 3.
282 APPEAL TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS
by the two most glorious Apostles, St. Peter and St.
Paul," and he then says, " Ad hanc Ecclesiam, propter
potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem con-
venire Ecclesiam hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles,
in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata
est ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio." 3
Here, it is affirmed by Romanist Theologians, is a
declaration from St. Irenaeus, one of the most eminent
Bishops of the Church in the second century after
Christ, that " it is necessary for every Church, that is,
for all believers everywhere, to conform to the Church
of Rome, on account of its more powerful princi-
pality."
Here is a declaration, they say, of her Supremacy ;
and an assertion that it is the duty of all Christians
to submit to the Church of Rome. And, since the
Bishop of Rome is the head of that Church, therefore
all men, they affirm, are bound to pay dutiful homage
and filial obedience to him.
This passage may form an introduction to an Appeal
on this important question to St. Hippolytus. Let us
now examine the context and scope of the words of
St. Irenseus.
He is arguing against Heretics. Having first re-
futed them by reference to Holy Scripture, 4 he
next 5 proceeds to encounter them by the testimony
of the Catholic Church.
3 S. Iren. iii. 3.
4 iii. 2.
5 As was usual with the primitive Catholic writers in his age. Bp.
Pearson, Dissert, i. cap. 3, says, "ab Episcoporum successione argu-
ON ROMAN CLAIMS TO SUPREMACY. 283
How was this testimony to be obtained ? " It
would be very tedious," 6 he tells them, to cite all the
Churches of Christendom as witnesses. He will there-
fore be content with one Church. And since he is
writing in the West, the Church, which he will select,
shall be a Western Church ; it shall be a Church
founded by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and
Paul a Church whose succession of Bishops was well
authenticated and generally known the Church of
Rome. 7
St. Irenasus then introduces the passage to which
we have just adverted. Unhappily that passage is
known to us only through the medium of an old
Latin Translation. The original Greek words of
mentari solebant secundi tertiique seculi Patres adversus sui temporis
Haereticos."
6 Valde longum esset omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones.
7 The reader may compare the very similar argument of a contem-
porary of St. Irenaeus, Tertullian. De Praescr. Hsereticor. c. 21. Constat
omnem doctrinam, quae cum illis Ecclesiis Apostolicis matricibus et
originalibus ndei conspirat, veritati deputandam. C. 36 : Percurre
Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc cathedrae Apostolorum suis
locis praesident, apud quas authenticas literae eorum recitantur, sonantes
vocem et repreesentantes faciem uniuscuj usque.
It is observable that Tertullian dwells on nearness of time to the
Apostles, as well as identity of place, as a ground for this appeal, so that
the appeal would lose its force in course of time, and would ultimately
be inapplicable, as now.
" Proxima est tibi Achaia ? Habes Corinthum ; Si potes in Asiam
tendere. habes Ephesum."
What, we may ask, would the Roman Church say of such an appeal
to the Churches of Ephesus and Corinth, whom she now charges with
heresy and schism ? But if the appeal to Rome is valid, so is that to
Ephesus and Corinth.
" Si autem Italiae adjaces, habes Romam, unde nobis quoque aucto-
ritas praesto est."
284 APPEAL TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS
Irenaeus are lost. The Latin version of them is as
follows :
"Ad hanc Ecclesiam (sc. Romanam), propter
potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem con-
venire Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles,
in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est
ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio."
The divines of the Church of Rome interpret these
words to mean, that it " is necessary for every Church
to conform to this Church, i. e. to the Church of Rome ;"
and thus they deduce a moral obligation on all men
to submit to her.
Are these inferences justified by the words of
Irenaeus ?
Certainly not.
They are at variance with the drift of his argument.
St. Irenaeus is refuting Heretics by an appeal to the
witness of the Church Universal. He has selected
one Church as an exponent of that testimony. The
Church so selected is the Church of Rome. His
argument leads him to add that the selection is a fair
one ; and that, in appealing to one Church, the
Church of Rome, he has virtually collected the witness
of all.
And how does he show this ? By reminding them,
that the Church of Rome had been founded by the two
most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, whom they
knew to have suffered at Rome only about a century
ON ROMAN CLAIMS TO SUPREMACY. 285
before, and from whom they could trace the succession
of Bishops, whose names were well known to them, and
which he himself enumerates from the first Bishop of
Rome, Linus, to whose charge (he says) those two
blessed Apostles committed the Roman Church, down
to the then presiding Bishop of Rome, the twelfth in
order, Eleutherus.
What does he say, in the words " ad hanc Ecclesiam,
propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem
convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, omnes qui sunt undique
fideles ? "
As to \h.e potentior principalitas, the original words
were probably Sta Trjv LKavwrepav dp^aiorrjTa ; for in the
same chapter of Irenaeus in the Latin translation
the word potentissima is the rendering of i/cavcoTdrr),
and is applied to an Epistle, and means " very con-
siderable or sufficient" And " principalitas " 8 signi-
fies priority of time as opposed to posteriorttas.
As to what follows, he does not say that every one,
then and for ever after, must submit to the Church of
Rome. No. If that had been true, then he would
not have said, that, " because it would be tedious to
appeal to all Churches," he would therefore appeal to
one Church the Church of Rome. Such a statement
8 Principalitas, in the old Latin version of Irenseus (as Stieren has
shown), is used in the same sense as in Tertullian, for priority of time
(see S. Iren. v. 14. v. 21), and is opposed to posteriori fas. The argu-
ment may be illustrated by Tertullian's reference (see above, p. 283,
note) to Ecclesise originates et matrices. The Church of Rome was
the only Church in the West that was known to have been founded
by Apostles. It had therefore a potentior principalitas, "a more
august primitiveness."
286 APPEAL TO ST. H1PPOLYTUS
would have been absurd, if Rome had been supreme
over all Churches, and if all Churches were bound to
conform to her.
No one would say, It would be a tedious process to
ascertain the opinions of all the Peers of the Realm
we will therefore appeal to the Crown. What, then,
do his words mean ? They signify this : That, on
account of the more august priority of Rome " poten-
tior principalitas " it may be taken for granted that
every Church coincides with Rome, and is represented
by her ; that is, that all believers, from all quarters,
agree with her ; or, in other words, every Church (he
says) in which the tradition from the Apostles has been
preserved by those who exist everywhere, i. e. by true
Catholics, as opposed to heretics, who existed only in
particular places. Hence, then, he means to say, his
reference to Rome is a just one ; and by appealing to
that Church he has virtually appealed to all Churches,
whose testimony may be supposed to be embodied
and involved in hers.
Let it be observed, further, that St. Irenaeus, so far
from countenancing in this passage the doctrine of
Papal Supremacy, as taught by Romish Divines, does
in fact, by implication, overthrow the foundation on
which they make it rest.
They base that doctrine on the words of our
Blessed Lord to St. Peter ; 9 whom they affirm to be
the Rock on which the Church is built. And they
9 Matth. xvi. 18, " On this Rock I will build My Church."
ON- ROMAN CLAIMS TO SUPREMACY. 287
then proceed to say, that the Bishop of Rome is the
Rock of the Church, by virtue of his succession to
St. Peter.
This is their assertion.
But what is the language of St. Irenaeus ?
He refers to the Church of Rome, as founded by
the two most glorious Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul.
He appeals to the Bishop of Rome as succeeding
Linus, who, he says, was placed in that see by the
same two Apostles. And thus he shows, in a striking
manner, that he knew nothing of the Romish theory
which claims infallibility and supremacy for St. Peter
alone, as Head of the Church, and also claims the
same prerogatives for the Bishops of Rome, as suc-
cessors of St. Peter.
In confirmation of the above interpretation, let us
revert to the fact, that the words quoted from St.
Irenaeus are not his original words, but are only a
Latin Version of them.
This is to be borne in mind.
Since this Old Latin Version is a literal one (as is
evident by comparison of it with the Greek in those
passages where the Greek has been preserved), it is
probable, and almost certain, that where we now read
in the Latin '* necesse est" St. Irenseus wrote dvdy/c7).
The Greek word avdy/crj, it is well known, often im-
plies a reasonable inference, not a moral obligation.
Such an use is common to all Greek Writers in prose
and verse ; TTO\\IJ 7 avd<y/cr) 110.0* ecV dvdyfci] in the
28S APPEAL TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS
Greek dramatic writers, and in the Dialogues of Plato,
signify simply, " By all means" or, " it folloivs of
course that it is so, or will be so." Similarly our
Blessed Lord says (Matth. xviii. 7 ; cp. Luke xvii. i),
" it is necessary (dix'vyKrj) that offences should come."
The same is the case in Ecclesiastical Writers. Thus
when Theodoret says, 1 dvOpw-Trows dvdyicrj vp6airrdUt
OVTCLS, he certainly does not intend to assert that it
is a moral duty for a man to err no ; but that
" humanum est errare," and that no mortal is free from
error. When St. Chrysostom says, 1 dvay/ctj rov O/JLL-
\ovvra 06oj /cpeiTTova yevea-Oai, 6avdrov KOI Trda-rj^ m-
<j)0opds, he does not mean to affirm that it is a moral
duty for a man, who converses with God, to conquer
death and destruction. This would be a presump-
tuous speech. But he means, that a man who holds
habitual intercourse with God by prayer and medi-
tation, does by natural consequence become superior to
dissolution. So again, when St. Hippolytus says, 3
in his description of the lower world, <wro5 TOLVVV ev
rovrw T(t> x&ptGt fj^rj KaraXdfjLTrovTos, dvdyKT] CTKOTOS
SII<]VKW Tvyxdveiv, he certainly cannot mean to assert
any moral necessity for the existence of darkness, but
what he means is, that, light not being admitted,
darkness is the necessary result. 4
1 Eccl. Hist. iv. 5.
2 These words are quoted from St. Chrysostom in "Hele's Select
Offices of Private Devotion," published by the " Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge," and form the appropriate motto of that excellent
Manual, republished by Mr. Joshua Watson.
3 De Universo, p. 220, ed. Fabr.
4 Several examples of a similar use of avdyicn may be seen in the
ON ROMAN CLAIMS TO SUPREMACY. 289
Such then is the signification of the word dvd<yK7j,
which Irenaeus appears to have used, and which is
represented by necesse est in the passage before us.
And we may observe, in confirmation of what has now
been said on that point, that the word dvdy/crj is used
in this sense by Plato in his Timaeus, and is translated
" necesse est" by Cicero. 5 In like manner Virgil (yn.
vi. 737) says,
Penitusque necesse est
Multa diu concreta modis inolescere mirfs ;
and Milton (Par. Lost, xii. 9),
Objects divine
Must needs impair and weary human sense.
On the whole, it is clear that Irenaeus did not mean
to affirm any moral obligation constraining all men
to submit to the Church of Rome.
He knew the Church of Rome well. He knew her
to have been founded in the preceding century by
St. Peter and St. Paul ; he knew that her first Bishop
was placed there by them. He knew her to be an
orthodox Church. But he does not state it to be the
duty of any other Church to submit to her, even as
fragment of Maximus, who appears to have been contemporary with
St. Irenaeus, in Routh's Reliquiae, ii. 88. 90. 102. 107.
5 The words of Plato are,* rbu vov Kal eTntrTrj^Tjs fpacrr^v avdyitri
ras rf}v /u.<f)povos (pixrews alrias irpwras /jLfTaSi(t)Keit>, which Cicero renders,
" Ilium qui intelligently sapientiaeque se amatorem profitetur necesse est
intelligent sapientisque naturae primas causas conquirere." At the
beginning of his 'De Officiis,' Cicero uses * oportet' in the same sense.
* Plato, Timaeus,46. D. vol. vii. p. 32. Stallbaum, Leips. 1824. Cp.
Cicero, vii. p. 942, ed. Ernesti, Oxon. 1810.
U
290 APPEAL TO ST. HIPPOL YTUS ON ROMAN
she then was. Much less, not knowing, as he could
not know, what she would become in future ages, does
he lay upon all Churches in coming generations the
responsibility of accommodating themselves to her
opinions, whatever they may be.
Let us now advance a step further.
We (as was before observed) do not possess the
original Greek of St. Irenaeus, in this passage. It is
lost. We have only the old Latin Version of it.
But the original Greek was extant in the third
century; it was in the hands of St. Hippolytus. Ke
was a Scholar of St. Irenaeus, and has made frequent
use of that Original in the Treatise on Heresy before
us.
St. Hippolytus had this passage before him in the
original Greek. He had the advantage of personal
intercourse with St. Irenaeus ; he was his pupil, had
heard his lectures, and gave an abstract of them to
the world. He was formed in his school.
How then did St. Hippolytus understand this
passage of St. Irenaeus ? How did he show that he
understood it, by his own practice ?
This becomes an interesting topic, not merely as
bearing on the passage itself, but as of far more
extensive import. For it aids us in deciding aright a
question on which the controversy hinges between the
Church of Rome and the other Churches of Christen-
dom ; viz.
i. Whether the claim now put forth by the Bishop
CLAIMS TO SUPREMACY AND INFALLIBILITY. 291
of Rome to Spiritual Supremacy is an equitable
claim ? Was it acknowledged as such by the primitive
Church ?
2. Whether the Papal claim to Infallibility is a just
claim or not ? Was it admitted was it known in
primitive times ?
An answer to these inquiries is contained in the
newly-discovered Volume before us.
It exhibits the condition of the Church of Rome,
and displays the conduct and teaching of two Bishops
of Rome in succession, Zephyrinus and Callistus, in
the writer's own age, the earlier part of the third
century, soon after the decease of St. Irenaeus, not
more than a hundred years after the death of the
last surviving Apostle.
The person who wrote this history, was a scholar of
St. Irenaeus ; he was a Bishop who passed a part of
his life near Rome ; one who was honoured in his
day, and has ever since been honoured, as among the
most eminent Teachers of the Church ; one, whom
the Church of Rome herself now venerates as a Martyr,
and commemorates as a Saint, in her Breviary ; one,
whose Statue she received with honour within the
doors of the Vatican, from which it has now been
removed to the Lateran Museum St. Hippolytus.
What then is his testimony with respect to the
Bishop of Rome ? Did he regard him as Supreme
Head of the Church Universal ? Did he think it the
duty of all men, did he think it his own duty, to
submit to him as such ? Did he venerate him as
U 2
292 APPEAL TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS ON ROMAN CLAIMS
/ Infallible ? Does he give any intimation that the
Bishops of Rome were looked upon as Supreme or
Infallible by others, or even by themselves ? Had
the Bishops of Rome put forth any claims to
Supremacy or Infallibility in that age ?
In replying to these questions, let us make all due
allowances. Let us take into consideration the cir-
cumstances in which the two successive Bishops of
Rome, Zephyrinus and Callistus, were placed. They
lived in a semi-heathen city. The clergy and laity
of the Roman Church were not gifted with Learning. 6
The Latin Church had few eminent Teachers then.
In controverted questions of Theology, they had not
the benefit of dogmatic decisions, such as we possess
in the Creeds. They were liable to be swayed by the
eager partisanship of heretical teachers, resorting to
Rome from Asia, 7 and bringing with them the rest-
less spirit and dialectic shrewdness of the East, 8 and
bearing down upon them with an array of Scriptural
texts torn from their context, and not interpreted by
6 Bp. Pearson, Diss. i. c. 13, contrasts the Roman Christians of that
age with the Easterns in that respect, " ipsi alumni in ea urbe nati et
educati Christiani (/'. e. Romani) qui eo tempore propter fidem celebres,
propter doctrinam aut literarum scLntiam. non adeo praeclarum
testimonium nacti sunt."
^ Simon Magus, Valentinus, Marcion, Praxeas, and Sabellius, all
came in person to Rome.
s What Juvenal says of Greek and Asiatic Vices, Philosophical
Systems and Superstitions, finding their way to Rome and flowing
into it,
"Jam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes" iii. 62, &c.
is true of Heresies discharging their streams from the same countries
into the same reservoir.
TO SUPREMACY AND INFALLIBILITY. 293
reference to the general scope of Scripture, but by
subtle syllogistic processes, derived from the schools
of human Philosophy, and inapplicable to the
mysteries of Faith. The Bishops of Rome, in that
age, were not a match for such disputants. They
had also a dread a reasonable one of Polytheism.
The City in which they dwelt was crowded with false
deities. Wherever they turned their eyes, they wit-
nessed the vicious and debasing effects of Idolatry.
They heard the terrible denunciations sounding in
Scripture against it. The Unity of the True God
must be maintained at any rate against the manifold
pretensions of the pagan Pantheon. Hence there
naturally existed at Rome a predisposition to what
is commonly called the Monarchian System of
Theology.
And here we may remark, that, if the Trinitarian
doctrine is not true, its maintenance in the primitive
Church is unaccountable. All antecedent probability
was against it. The doctrine of Three Persons, each
of them Divine, could never have risen spontaneously
in a Church whose prevailing spirit was a dread of
Polytheism. 9 There was much in the Church at that
time to prevent the spread of the doctrine of the
Trinity nothing to produce it. The predisposition
to Monarchianism showed itself in two opposite forms.
9 The common question with which the Sabellians accosted the
orthodox, especially of the simpler sort, when they met them was,
& OVTOI, fva. 6cbv exouec 2) rpeTs Qeovs ; Well, my friends, have we one
God or three ? Epiphan. Hseres. 62.
294 APPEAL TO ST. H1PPOLYTUS
One was the heresy of Theodotus and Artemon, 1
which denied the Divinity of Christ ; the other, the
heresy of Noetus, which did not acknowledge the
Son of God to be the Word, 2 and denied the distinct
and proper Personality of the Son, and affirmed that
the Son is the same as the Father, under a different
name. 3
Between this Scylla and Charybdis of two Heresies
the Catholic Church had to steer her course. To
adopt another illustration, of a Scriptural character,
supplied by an ancient writer/ who combated both
these heresies, the Blessed Son of God was crucified
afresh between two malefactors. The one acknow-
ledged Him to be Man, but would not worship Him
as God ; the other confessed Him to be God and
1 On the doctrine of Theodotus, see Philosophumena, p. 257. Epiphan.
c. Hseres. xxxiv., sive liv. p. 462, ed. Petavii, Colon. 1682.
2 The Noetian argument was, that it was a new thing to call the Son
the Word, ^evov /uoi (peptis, \6yov \eyoov vlbv, S. Hippol. c. Noet. xv.
According to the Noetian and Sabellian theology, the man Jesus became
the Son of God by communication of the Word, which it did not regard
as a Person, but as a property of the Divine Nature. To which St.
Hippolytus replies from the Apocalypse, xix. II, "that the Word of
God is He Who was from the beginning, and has now been sent into the
World." c. Noet. xv. rbv Aoyov TOV 0eoD rovrov OVTQ. air' dpxf/s /ecu vvv
3 On the Heresy of Noetus, see Epiphanius, xxxvii. sive Ivii. p. 479.
The Article of Epiphanius on Noetus is derived in a great measure from
the Homily of St. Hippolytus (ed. Fabr. ii. 520), but without any
mention of his name. Epiphanius, p. 481, contrasts the heresy of
Noetus with that of Theodotus, and shows that they owed their origin
to similar causes.
4 Novatian de Trin. 30, "quasi inter duos latrones crucifigitur
Dominus, et excipit haereticorum istorum, ex utroque latere, sacrilega
convitia."
ON ROMAN CLAIMS TO INFALLIBILITY. 295
Man, but would not acknowledge His Divine Per-
sonality.
Each of these Heresies was coupled with a Truth ;
each struggled against the other, by means of the
Truth it possessed. The Artemonite rightly main-
tained against the Noetian, that the Son is not the
Father ; the Noetian rightly affirmed against the
Artemonite, that the Son is God. Between the
Artemonite and the Noetian, the Church held her
place. She retained the truth, and rejected the error,
of each. She affirmed that the Son is God, as well as
Man ; and that the Son, Who is God, is a distinct
Person from God the Father.
This was the position of the Church ; this was the
doctrine of St. Hippolytus.
It does not appear that any Roman Bishop was
betrayed into the opinion, which taught heretically
that Christ is a mere man in whom the Godhead
dwelt in an eminent degree. But it is clear from the
recital contained in the Ninth Book of the recently-
discovered Treatise on Heresy, that two Bishops of
Rome in succession, Zephyrinus and Callistus, fell
into the opposite heresy that of Noetus. 5
It is not necessary to dwell on the motives of this
apostasy, or on the practices with which it was
accompanied, or on the results by which it was
followed. But it is requisite to state the fact. These
two Bishops of Rome lapsed into heresy, in a primary
article of the Christian Faith, and in opposition to the
5 See above, chap. vi. pp. 7375. 8789.
296 APPEAL TO ST. PIIPPOLYTUS
exhortations of Orthodox Teachers. They main-
tained tha*t heresy, and propagated it by their official
authority, as Bishops of Rome. They promulgated
publicly a doctrine, which the Church of Rome her-
self, with all other Churches of Christendom, now
declares to be heretical.
Hence it is apparent, that Bishops of Rome may err,
and have erred, that they may err and have erred, as
Bishops of Rome in matters of Faith.
Therefore the Bishop of Rome is not Infallible ; and
the Church of Rome, in the Vatican Council on
July 1 8th, 1870, in asserting him to be infallible in
matters of faith and of morals, has greatly erred ; and
has given another proof that the Church of Rome is
not infallible, and has riveted herself in error, by
making it almost impossible for herself to recant.
Next with regard to Supremacy.
When Zephyrinus and Callistus fell into heresy, in
the earlier part of the third century, and when they
endeavoured to disseminate their false doctrine, they
were resisted by St. Hippolytus.
He did not imagine that he was bound to conform
to them in their doctrine. On the contrary, he stood
forth boldly and rebuked them. He has thus given
a practical reply to the question, which has been
raised concerning the sense of St. Irenaeus, his master,
in the passage recited above. Hippolytus certainly
had never learnt from him that every Church,
ON ROMAN CLAIMS TO SUPREMACY. 297
and every Christian, must submit to the Bishop of
Rome.
Let it not be said, that he merely resisted Zephy-
rinus and Callistus from a transient impulse of passion,
and swayed by the feelings of the moment. His resist-
ance was deliberate ; it was a resistance of many
years. Not only when Zephyrinus and Callistus were
alive, did he think it his duty to contend against them
and their heresy ; but when they were in their graves,
he sate down and committed to writing the history of
their Heresy, and of his own opposition to it. And
he published that history to the World, in order that
none might be deluded by the false doctrine which
those Roman Bishops had propagated, and which was
disseminated after their death by some who had been
deceived by them.
He published that History after the death of
Callistus, and probably in the time of his successor
Urbanus. He affirms that he wrote his Treatise in
the discharge of his duty as a Bishop of the Church. 6
Nothing- occurs in the whole course of the Ten Books
o
to suggest any surmise that he had encountered any
Ecclesiastical censure, on the ground of his having
opposed the heretical teaching of Zephyrinus and
Callistus ; or that, by this publication, he contravened
the just authority of the Bishop of Rome at the time
when he published his work. Nothing exists in it to
excite any suspicion, that, however the Church of
Rome might regret the facts which his treatise related,
e See Lib. i. p. 3.
298 APPEAL TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS
she made any remonstrance against the publication,
or regarded it as a breach of order and discipline.
On the contrary, he promises himself the gratitude of
the world for it. 7 And he seems to have not been
disappointed. The veneration in which his memory
was held at Rome as a Teacher of Catholic Truth
indicates this.
Such was the conduct of St. Hippolytus. Such is
his commentary the commentary of his life on the
teaching of his master, St. Irenaeus, concerning the
Church of Rome.
It does not appear from the narrative before us,
that the Bishops of Rome themselves, in the third
century, entertained any idea that they were Supreme
Heads of the Church, or that Christians and Churches
were bound to submit to them as such.
St. Hippolytus was indeed charged by Zephyrinus
and Callistus with being a Ditheist, because he would
not say with them that the Father and the Son are
one Divine Being under two different names. But we
can discover no intimation that they put forth any
claim to Supremacy, and much less to Infallibility, 8 or
that he was accused of heresy as one who resisted the
Divine Head of the Church, and rebelled against the
Vicegerent of Christ on earth, because he opposed the
Bishop of Rome.
7 See Lib. i. p. 3, and Lib. ix. p. 309.
8 Indeed, as we have seen above, p. 182, from the " Liber Diurnus "
of the Popes themselves, they had no notion that they were infallible, in
the eighth century, and they condemned one of their number as a heretic.
ON ROMAN CLAIMS TO INFALLIBILITY. 299
Let not therefore the Divines of Rome censure us
as innovators, because we do not acknowledge the
Bishop of Rome as Supreme Head of the Church ;
and as Infallible in matters of faith and morals.
We tread in the ancient paths, which we should be
deserting for new and devious ways, if we admitted
claims claims urged as of Divine Right and in
the name of Christ but not authorized by Holy
Scripture, and unknown to the primitive Church.
But, on the other hand, the Bishops of Rome, by
putting forth such claims in Christ's name, and by
endeavouring to enforce those claims on all men and
on all Churches, as terms of Church-communion,
and by presuming to put forth new dogmas, such as
that of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed
Virgin (which contravenes the doctrine of Christ's
unique sinlessness), and which one Pope, Pius IX.,
made to be an article of faith on December 8th, 1854,
and which his successor, Leo XIII., reiterated by cele-
brating on December 8th, 1879^ the first Jubilee of
The present Pope, Leo XIII., attended by sixteen Cardinals and
a large number of Bishops, delivered from his pontifical throne in the
hall of the Consistory of the Vatican, an oration on that occasion (Dec.
8, 1879) to the representatives of all the Dioceses of Italy. He then
uttered the following remarkable words : "La Concezione Immacolata
ci rivela il segreto della potenza grandissima di Maria sopra il comune
nemico (Satan). Giacche ne insegnala fede,che Maria fin dai primordii
del mondo fu destinata ad exercitare contro il Demonio e contro il suo
seme implacabile ed eterna inimicizia, ' inimicitias ponam inter te et
mulieremj e che fin dal primo istante dell' essere suo pote schiacciargli
vittoriosamente la superba cervice, 'Ipsa conteret caput tmim ' (Genesis
Hi. 15)." And thus, on that memorable occasion, the Roman Pontiff,
who claims infallibility in matters of Faith, proved himself fallible, and
greatly erred, by misinterpreting that divine prophecy, the first
300 APPEAL TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS
that promulgation, are chargeable with innovations,
and with such innovations as are contrary to Christian
Chanty, as well as Christian Truth, and have rent the
Church asunder, and are therefore such, that no gifts
or graces can compensate for them. 1
If the claims which are put forth by the Bishops of
Rome to Infallibility and Universal Supremacy are
not just, we are compelled very reluctantly to say it,
then there is no alternative, they are nothing short
of blasphemy. For they are claims to participation
in the attributes of God Himself. And if He does
not authorize these claims, they are usurpations of
His Divine prerogatives. They therefore who abet
those claims are righting against Him. They are
defying Him, Who " is a jealous God, and will not
give His honour to another," and Who is " a con-
suming fire." 2 May they therefore take heed in time,
lest they incur His malediction ! And since they
prophecy in Scripture (Gen. iii. 15), and by ascribing to a Woman (the
Blessed Virgin) the power which A Imighty God there assigns to the Seed
of the Woman, namely CHRIST. Pope Leo XIII. is reported to be a
scholar. How he could venture to adopt Ipsa for IPSE, if he were not
blinded by some mysterious influence, is inexplicable. For further
remarks on this perversion of those divine words, may I be allowed to
refer to my note on Gen. iii. 15 ? The same Pope, Leo XIII., in his
Encyclic " ^Eterni Patris" published on August 4th, 1879, ordered all
men to take their Theology from Thomas Aquinas. But Thomas
Aquinas rejected the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. In his Com-
pendium Theologise, cap. 224, torn. xix. p. 129 ed. Venet. 1787, he says,
"Est ergo tenendum quod cum peccato originali concepta fuit." See
also his Suinma Theol. Pars iii. c. 27, torn. xxiv. p. 133. Popes
contradict one another, and themselves, and yet claim Infallibility !
1 i Cor. xiii. i 3.
2 Exod. xx. 5. Heb. xii. 29.
ON ROMAN CLAIMS TO INFALLIBILITY. 301
affirm that their system of Christianity rests on the
basis of Papal Supremacy, may they be led to consider
whether, instead of being founded on a Rock, they
are not building on the Sand ! Are they not
tempting others to do so ? Are they not beguiling
them to place their hopes on a false foundation, and
so leading them on to everlasting destruction ? If
this is so, then their house will fall, and " great will
be the fall thereof." 3
St. Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus, resisted the
doctrinal errors of the Bishops of Rome. His resist-
ance to error, and maintenance of the truth, appear to
have been signally blessed by the Divine Head of the
Church.
In due time, the Heresy, patronized by Zephyrinus
and Callistus, was suppressed. In due time, the
Truth, maintained by St. Hippolytus, prevailed at
Rome. His memory was blessed, and so much the
more, we may believe, because he had rescued the
Roman Church from a Heresy, patronized by two
Roman Bishops ; and because, in defiance of their
threats, he held firmly the true faith, though reviled
by them as a heretic.
St. Hippolytus has ever been regarded as one of
the most learned teachers of Christian doctrine. It
is true that in a matter of discipline, he inclined to ^
the rigorous notions of Novatian, as many pious and
learned men did. But we have not a tittle of evidence
3 Matth. vii. 27.
302 APPEAL TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS
that his orthodoxy as to articles of Faith was ever
called in question. Indeed, there is an unanimous
and continuous testimony of more than sixteen
centuries that he was one of the brightest luminaries
of Christendom, and one of the most eminent doctors
of the Church. 4
A marble Statue was erected in his honour soon
after his martyrdom. Having been buried for many
centuries, it was brought to light three hundred years
ago, and was restored by the reverent care of a
Cardinal and a Pope. And the opponent of two
Bishops of Rome, the Historian of their Heresy, the
deliverer of the Church of Rome from the error of her
own two Chief Pastors, Zephyrinus and Callistus, was
enshrined in the Vatican, and is revered by Prelates,
Cardinals, and Pontiffs of Rome. 4
In this newly-discovered Volume, a solemn caution
has been given to the Church, and to the world, at
this critical juncture. We need not hesitate to say,
4 Cardinal Baronius bears the following testimony to St. Hippolytus
(Annales ad A.D 229): " To the very great misfortune and detriment of
the whole Catholic Church, many writings of this orthodox writer have
perished ; but, as is agreed by the Eastern and Western Church, he is
deservedly called a great ornament of them both." Cardinal Mai
thus speaks of St. Hippolytus and his Statue (Scriptorum Veterum
Nova Collectio Vatican. Rom. 1825. Proleg. p. xxxv.), " Hippolyti
commentariorum in Danielis Vaticinium, in Vaticanis codicibus pars
adhuc mediocris erat inedita quam libenter propter tanti Doctoris et
Martyris reverentiam luce impertivi. Statuam ejus cum paschali cyclo
operumque Catalogo inscripto prope Urbem in agro Verano Marcelli
Card. Cervini auspiciis effossam, deinde a Pio IV. in Bibliotheca Vaticana,
ubi adhuc asservatur, positam, in fronte libri mei incidendam curavi."
ON PRESENT ROMAN CLAIMS. 303
that the warning- is providential. Three centuries
ago the Statue, to which we have referred, was dug
up near Rome ; it bore no name ; but it had a Greek
inscription engraven upon it, containing the titles of
an Author's Works. By a comparison of these titles
with notices in ancient Writers, this Statue was
recognized to be a Statue of St. Hippolytus, and as
such, it was received into the Papal Library at Rome.
It was restored to its pristine form under the auspices
of that Pope, Pius the Fourth, who promulgated the
Trent Creed, in which the Doctrine of Papal
Supremacy is set forth as an Article of Faith. Three
hundred years passed away. And now in our own
age, another discovery has been made in a different
quarter. An ancient Manuscript has been brought
to light, from a monastic cloister of Mount Athos.
On examination, it is found to state that its Author
wrote a Work bearing one of the titles mentioned on
the Statue a Work " On the Universe." Thus the
disinterred Statue furnished the first clue for the
discovery of the Author of the MS. found three
centuries afterwards in the cloistral Library of
Mount Athos. Other evidences have accrued ; and
it is now firmly established, that the Author of the
Treatise is St. Hippolytus.
Great reason there is for gratitude to Almighty God,
that He has thus watched over the work of His
faithful soldier and servant, the blessed Martyr,
Hippolytus.
We of the Church of England may recognize in
304 APPEAL TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS.
this Treatise, a Catholic and Apostolic, yes, and a
Roman, Vindication, of our own Reformation. Here
a Roman Bishop, Saint and Martyr, supplies us with
a defence of our own religious position with respect
v to Rome. In his " Refutation of all Heresies," we
see a practical Refutation of that great Heresy, which
either directly or indirectly, is at the root of many
prevalent Heresies a Refutation of the Heresy of
Papal Supremacy, and of Papal Infallibility.
Whenever then we are charged by Romish Divines
with Heresy, and Schism, for not acknowledging the
Bishop of Rome as Supreme Head of the Church, and
Infallible Arbiter of the Faith, we may henceforth
refer them to the marble Statue in the Lateran, and
bid them listen to St. Hippolytus.
Thankful, however, as we ought to be for this recent
discovery, perhaps they who have cause to be most
grateful, are the Clergy and Laity of Rome. Truth
is to be prized above all things, especially in matters
of Faith. Arguments from adversaries, real or
supposed, and especially from contemporaneous ad-
versaries, are often regarded with suspicion, and
are rejected with scorn. But here the members of the
Church of Rome may read a Treatise, written by one
whose name they love and venerate, one who has
no interests to serve, no passions to gratify ; a
Bishop, Doctor, Saint, and Martyr, of their own
ancient Church.
" He being dead yet speaketh." 5
5 Heb. xi. 4.
CONCLUSION. 305
He speaks to them from the grave, he speaks to
them from primitive times from the third century.
He sits on his marble chair in the Lateran Museum
at Rome, and teaches them there.
One of the wisest Bishops of the Church of
England, Bishop Sanderson, declared his deliberate
judgment, that the Church of Rome, by enforcing
unscriptural and uncatholic terms of Communion, is
the main cause of the unhappy Schism by which
Christendom is rent asunder.
Nor is this all. The Infidelity now prevalent on
the Continent of Europe, and its disastrous conse-
quences, spiritual and social, are due in great measure
to the recoil of human intelligence revolting from the
false doctrines, superstitious worship, and exorbitant
claims, of that form of religion and polity which is
presented to it by the Church of Rome.
May it please the merciful Providence which has
awakened the voice of Hippolytus from its silence of
sixteen centuries, so to bless its accents, that it may
promote the Glory of God, the cause of Truth, the
peace of Nations, and the Unity of His Church.
APPENDIX A.
THE following is from the Work of St. HIPPOLYTUS "ON THE
UNIVERSE," and is an addition to the Fragment already printed by
Fabricius from that Work. See above, pp. 21 1 216. It has been
supplied from a MS. in the Bodleian Library, Baroccian MSS.
No. XXVI. See "Hearne's Curious Discourses," Vol. ii. p. 394,Lond.
1773, where it was published with some conjectural emendations by
Provost Langbaine. See also Routh, Rel. Sacr. ii. pp. 157, 158.
I am indebted for a revised collation of it to the kindness of Mr.
Barrow and Mr. Southey, Fellows of Queen's College, Oxford. The
MS. contains also the Fragment in Fabricius beginning with 'O
adrjs TOTTOS earlv, p. 22O.
Fragmentum S. Hippolyti " De
Universe" ex MS. Barocc.
26.
6 /ifra StKcuW dpiOpbs
j/ei dveK\ei7rTos apa
dyye\ois Kal 7rvfvp.ao~i Geou
TOV TOVTOV Aoyov (bs TWV
%opbs dv8pS)v re KOI yvvaiK&v dyr\-
po>s KOI d(p6dpTO>s Siapevci vpwv
rbv eTTt ravra Trponyopfvov 6ebv dia
EN Bin
TTJS TOV (vraKTov vofj-odeo-ias (rvvois
Kal ndaa T) /criVif aStaX^Trroj/ vpvov
Idem Fragmentum conjecturali
emendatione a nobis restitu-
turn. Voces aster is co * dis-
tinctas jam suffecerat Lang-
bcenius.
6 /z e y a s SiKaiuv dpi0/j.bs SiajMti/et
dvK\nrTos, a/za dtKdiois dyyeXois
Kai. Trvfvfj.ao'i Qfov Kal ro> TOVTOV
Aoyo)'* a>s 6 ra>i> SiKaioov xP bs*
dv8pS)v T Kal yvvaiK&v dyrjpcos Kal
a<p6apTOS 6ta/iei/ei, vp.v>v TOV eVi
rara Trpoayojjievov Qebv did TTJS TOV
[EN BIQt] CVTOKTOV vop.o6(o~ias.
2vj/ ois Kal Tracra 17 KriVts aSiaXetTT-
dvoio-fi, a7ro TTJS (pdopds
APPENDIX.
307
dvoio-fi 1 dTroTr)S<p0opdsflsd<pdap-
(riav 8iavyrj Kal Ka6apu>
d(j)6apo~iav diavyrj Kal Kadapov
dXXa f\fv6fpia a>o~a
fKovo~iov TOV vp,vov oEjLta TOVS e'Xeu-
6fpa)6fio-iv Trao-7/s SovXtas- dyy\ois
Tf Kal Trvfvuaonv KOI dv6p<aTrots
alvearj TOV TTfTroirjKOTa TOVTOVS ears
TTJV fjLaraioTTjTa TTJS firiyfvovs Ka
XpT}p,dra)V (nropov aofpias KOI /JLTJ
TTfpl \%fis prjfjidTwv daxoXovp-evot,
TOV vovv els 7T\avr}0~oiV(i)r]Te aXXa
Tols 6fO7TVVO~TOlS 7rpO<pf)TO.lS KOI
Qeov Kal \6yois e^rfyr/Tals V\tpi-
o-avTfs TO.S duoas Geov Trio-Tfvo-rjTai
fo-fo-6ai Kai TOVT&V Koivcavoi Kal TWV
0eos a vvv
Tpov T ovpavov dvdj3ao~iv Kal TTJV
2
a OVTC
ovs fJKOvo~ev
OVTC eVt KapSiav dv6pa>irov dvc@rj
6o~a r
os vevpo) V/JLO.S em rov-
TOIS Kpivco Trape/eaora /Soaro re'Xos
airavrwv o>? re Kal ro> Ta ev Treirotrj-
KOTI TOV ftiov \rjavTOS 8e TOV T\os
coKrj\av 3 rr\ Trpbs Kaxiav dvorjToi
ol 7rpoo-0e TTOVOI eVi TTJ KaTao~Tpo<pf)
TOV 6pa/iaros e'a$X< yev6fj.eva> Tore
TrpoTcpov fVTiv vo^-epov
aravTi TroXXov %povov
sed core, in
* Pro et yap, ut videtur. <f>avepu>-
trei Southeio debetur.
3 corr. in
dXXa eXevdepid^ovo-a CKOIHTIOV
TOV vfjivov ap,a Tois l\(v6tpa)Bfi<riv
7rdo~Tjs SovXcias dyyeXots Tf Kal
7rvcvfjLao-iv Kal dvdpatnots alvecrei*
TOV HfTTOirjKOTa. TOVTOI.S fav
TT]V jMaraiorr/Ta TTJS eTTtyetou Ka
pr]p,aToo-7r6pov o~o(pias, Kal prj,
irepl Xe'fis prjfidTcov do-^oXou/zei/oi,
TOV VOVV (IS 7T\dvrjO~lV dvT)T,
dXXa Tols QeoTTVfva'Tois HpotprjTais
Kal Qeov Kal Aoyov f^rjyrjTa'is cy-
Xftpio-avres Tas aKoas, 6e< TTHT-
TevarjTe, eo~fo~6 Kal TovTUtv KOI-
vcavol, Kal TWV /zeXXdi/TG>i> Tevea6f
dyaOtov, dp,Tpov T ovpavov dvd-
' (pavepwo-fi yap 6(bs a
i, " a OVTC 6(p0a\p.bs
OVT ovs fJKOVO~V, ovre eirl
Kap8iav dv0pd)7rov dveftr], ocra rjToi-
p.ao~ev 6 Qebs TOIS dyaTr)O~iv avTov' l
11 'E0' ols dv evpa) vp.ds, enl TOVTOIS
Kpiva),"* 7rapKao~Ta /3oa TO
T e X o s aTrdvTGiv' O>O~TC Kal TO> TO e v
7r7TOir]KQTl,TOV /3tOU 8e \T)aVTOS
TO Tf\OS ^OKf l'Xai>Tl TTpOS KttKiaV,
dvovrjTOi * ot TTp6o~6e TTOVOI, enl Trj
KaTao~rpo<pfi TOV dpdp.aTOS ed
yevop.fva>' T<B Tf ^tipov Kal
o~vpp.fvo)s j3t<ao~avTt TrpoTfpov, ftmv
1 I Cor. ii. 9.
2 Vide Grabe, Spicileg. i. p. 14 et
p. 327. Ezek. xviii. 24; xxxiii. 20.
X 2
APPENDIX.
TTOvrjpav cKViKrjo~at ro> UCTO TTJV
pfTavoiav XP OV <? dKpifteias, de delrai
TroXX?}? vnep TTJS paKpav a<ro> * Tre-
MEN
yap
/zera
aXXa zera ^eoO Sui/a/iea)y xai dv-
Kaunas Ka\ dde\(pS)v
L\LKpivovs /zerai/ota?
jcai (rvvexrjs /xeXer^y Karopdovrai
KO\OV pev TO p,T) dpapTavfiv dyadov
de Kal TO dp.apTavovTa$ p.Tavoelv,
axnrepapio'TOV TO vyiaivewdel KaXbv
fie KCU TO dvao-(pd\ai /uera TTJV
VO(TOV.
ra> 0e<u Sd|a.
4 "Offta, sed O in loc. raso rescript.
* ffTpoty (ut videtur).
6 Post o/0pw desunt literse sex vel
septem.
Xpovov 7ro\iTiav irovrjpav
viKija-ai TO) /xera TJ)J/
^poi/ep' dfcpififias de fietrai
Q)o~7rep Tols /xa/cpa I/OCTG) * TTC-
diairrjs
dvvaTov yap
Trades a-Tpo(f>f)v, d\\d pera Qeov
duvdfjLftos, Kal dv6pa>7T<ov iKecrias, *
Kald8e\(f)(0v (BorjOeias /cateiXiKptvovc
fiCTavoias Kal (rvvexovs ue\fTT)s
' KaXbv /uei> TO fj.rj ap.ap-
v, dyaflbv 8e Kal TO apapTavovra
&o-7T(p apio~Tov Tf vyi-
aiveivdel, KO\bv 8e Kal TO dvao~<prj\ai
TT]V VOO~OV.
3 Hinc liquet Hippolytum nos-
trum Novatiani de poenitentia pla-
citis non fuisse mancipatum.
APPENDIX B.
Showing that the recently-discovered Treatise was known
to, and used by, Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, who died
A.D. 457.
Philosophumena, p. 315.
Ot Se neparcu, l * Adepts z 6
KaptWio? /cat EvfppaTrjs 3 6 Ilfpa-
TIKOS, \eyovo~iv eva elvai
Tiva, OVTWS KoXovvres TOVTOV
*Eo~Ti re rpi^s 4 diai-
Trap 1 avrols TO p.ev ev p,pos,
olov fj /u'a 5 apx 1 ? K-o.6cnrep frrjyf)
), fls aTreipovs ro/zas TW Xoya>
ap.evr). *H de Trpwrr)
U Trpoo-e^f crrepa <ar* avrovs,
(TT\V r) rpias, KOI KaXeirat ayaQbv
re\iov, ptyeBog irurpiKov. To 8e
devTfpov fitpos TTJS rpiddos olovel
8vvdp.(i)V aTTeipatv rt 7r\rjdos' rpi-
TOV, l8lKOV' Kal O~Tl TO pV TTpciiTOV
ayevvrjTOV, odev biappf]$r)v \eyovo~i
6eavs, Tpeis \6yovs, Tpels
.. Fab. i. 17.
'ASe'pjs $e 6 Kqpvo-Tios, KOI 6
TLfpaTiKos Ev(ppa.Trjs, a^)' ov Ile-
parai 7rpoo~rjyopfv6Tjo~av ol TOVTCOV
6p.6(f)povS, eva Kovpov elvat (pacrl
rpt^J) dipprj/jifvov' Kal TO p.V fv
pepos, otdv Tiva irtjyTjv flvat p.eyd-
X^i/, els aTTfipa 8iaip0r)vai rai Xoyo)
dvvdpevov' TTJV de TTpnTijv ropr^v
Tpidda 7rpoo~ayopevovo~i, Kal KO\OV-
dyaBbv reXetoi/, fj.ty(0os
ov. To 8e ftevTfpov 8vvdfifa>v
To 8e rpirov
KoXovo-iv IdiKov. Kai TO p.ev 7rpa>TOV
dyevvrjTOV \eyovo~i, <al 6vop.dovo-i
rpcis Oeovs, Tpeis \6yovs, rpetp
vovs, Tpels dvdpayrrovs. "Avcadev St
dno Tqs dyevvrjo-ias, Kal TTJS
1 Hunc parallelismum indicavit Bernays apud Bunsen.- iv. p. xlv.
2 Supra 'AfcejUj87?s 6 Kapva-rtos. Cod. KapoiffTios. 3 Cod. '
TltpariK6s. 4 Debebat 5c T^S rptxn 5mtp. Miller. 5 Fort, olovel
jiia. Miller.
310
APPENDIX.
VOVS, Tpfls dvQpWTTOVS. 'EKa(TT6>
yap p,epei TOV /coVpour^S" StaipeVecos
8iaKKpifj.evr)s, fiiStWi KOI deovs Kal
Xoyovs Kal dvdpwTrovs Kal ra XoiTra.
"Ai>ci>0ei> fie OTTO rrjs dyevvrjcrias Kal
ri}? TOV Kocr/iou TrpooTtjs Top.rjs, TTI
oa>i>TeXeta \onrov TOV KOCTJLIOV KaBecr-
TTJKOTOS, Kare\r]\v6evai eVt rots
'Updodov xpovois rpi(pvf) 6 riva av-
Bpatirov KOL rpicrco^iarof KCU Tp&wa-
fJLOV, KakoVfJifVOV XplOTOI/, OTTO TU>V
rpiatv e^oi/ra rov KocrfjLOV p,epS)V ev
avrto TrdvTa ra TOV Koapov (rvyKpi-
fjLaTa KCU Tas Swd/jLeis. Kcu rovro
flvai 6e\ovo~i TO elpr]fjLvov, " 'Ei/
6) KaTOiKfl Trdv TO
e aTro TWV
5po, rov re dyevvrjTOV Kal TOV ai/TO-
yevvrjTOV, els TOVTOV TOV KOO~^.OV, ev
o) eo~fjiev f^els, TravroTa 8vvd/j.ea)v
o~7repp,a.Ta. KareX^Xu^eVai de TOV
XpiaTov avtodev OTTO dyevvrjo-ias, Iva
8ia Trjs KaTa(3do~ea)s UVTOV, TrdvTa
o-(a6fj 8 ra Tpix?) diyprjfjieva. A
p,ev ycip, (pijalv, eo~Tiv (ivcoBev /care-
vr)veyp.va, dve\evo~eTai dt CIVTOV, ra
vTa Tols KaTeinyvey-
d<piel eiKrj, KCU Ko\ao~6evTa
Ailo 5e eiVat p.epr) ra
Xeyet, ra vnepKeipLeva,
aTraXXa-yeWa r^? (j)6opds' TO de
TpiTov a7roXXv(r^ai, 9 oi/ KOUJUOV
iSiov KaXeT. TaOra KOI 01 ITeparat.
Philos. p. 318.
O 5e 7rdvo~o(f)os Si'/zcoj/ ovrcoj
roO KOVfiov StaipeVea)?, Trap' avTrjv
Trjv TOV Koo~fJ.ov o~vvTf\eiav, ev roTs
'Hpa)5ou ^poi/ois Ka.Te\7)\v06vat rpt-
<pvr) rii/a avdpwov, fcai
/cat Tpi8vvafj.ov,
KCU 8ie\delv TOV re dyevvrjTov
Koo~p,ov, Kal TOV avToyevrj, KO\ e\6elv
fls Tovbe TOV Koo-fjiov ev (o eo~/jiev.
KareX^coi/ 8e 6 Xpifrro?, ra p.ev
(ivcodev KaTevr)veyp,eva enaveKBelv
ava> 7rapao~/<eudo"ei, ra fie rovrotp
Kai rov /u,ei/ dyevvrjTov K.oo~p.ov, Ka\
TOV avToyevj), o-<t)6rjo-eo-6ai \eyovo-t'
TOVTOV 8e TOV Koo-pov
ov IdiKov 6vop.dovo~i.
The odor et i. i.
fie Trpcoros, 6
8 Cod.
9 Cod.
7 Coloss. ii. 9 ubi (Tw/jLaTiKus.
8 Cod.
APPENDIX.
311
Xc'yfi" aTTfpavTOv flvat 8vvafj.iv,
Tavnjv pifofjia TWV o\a>v elvat.
y Eort 8e, (f)rjo-lv, fj drnpavros Su-
va pis TO Trvp *a$' avTo, 1 ovdev
a7r\ovv KaQdnep ol TroXXoi drrXa
\eyovTes flvai TO. (8e) 2 Teo~o~apa
, Kai TO Trvp d-rrXovv fLvat
, aXX' elvai TOV Trvpbs
TTJV <j>vo-iv SiTrXrJi/, feat T^y dnr\r)s
TOVTT;? KaXeT TO /tieV n 3 KpVTrrov,
TO de (pavepbv, KfKpv<pdai de TO.
KpVTTTa V Tols (f)aVpo'lS TO TTVp, 4
Kai TO (j)avfpa TOV Trvpbs VTTO TWV
<pu7TTai/ ytyovfvtu' Havra 8e,
(f)rj(rl, vevonKTTai TO fJLfprj TOV Trvpbs
opaTa KO\ aopaTa (frpovrjcrtv ^X fLV '
Teyovev ovv, (fiacrlv, 6 KdVfioy dyev-
VTjTOS OTTO TOV dyeVVyTOV TTVpOS.
"Hp^aTo Se, fyrjalv, OVTMS yivf(T0ai'
* pilaff ras TrpcoTas T^y tzp^^s 1 T^ff
yfve&ews 6 dyevvrjTOs drrb TTJS dp%TJs
TOV Trvpbs (Kfivov XajScay' TavTas
yap pias yeyovfvat KUTO, o-vvyiav
OTTO TOV TTVpOi, OS" TIVOS KaXfl VOVV
teal fTTivoiav, (fxdvrjv xal ovop.a, 5
\oyio~p.bv Kal vBv^criv.
Philos. p. 326.
e 6 IIOVTIKOS Kal Kep-
TOVTOV 8ido-KaXos, Kal avTol
6pi(ovo-tv clvai TpdsTas TOV rravros 6
dpxas, dyaObv, SiKaiov, vXrjv' Tives
O TOVTO>V p.a6r]Ta\ Trpoorideacri,
\yovTs dyadbv, diKaiov, Trovrjpbv,
v\r]V. Ol 5e TrdvTa," TOV pev dyadbv
o p-ayos, TTJS TOVTOV
vTrovpybs dvf<f)dvi.
OVTOS TOVTOV \ivBov (yvvr)o~(v.
"Arrtipov TIVU inrc6fTO 8vvafj.iv' TOV-
Trjv Se pifapa TO>V SXatv tKoKfcrfV
Eivai oe avTyv Trvp e<p?7<re, 8t7r\rjv
fvepyfiav e^ov, TTJV fiev (f)aivofj.vrjv,
TTJV oe KeKpVfj.p.evr)v' TOV 82 Koo~p,ov
yevvrjTov elvai, yeytvrjo~dai de (K
TTJS (f)aivop.evr]S TOV rrvpbs tvep-
yeias.
Hp)TOV 8e e
Tpels o~vvyias, as Kal pias fKa-
Xeo-e' Kal TTJV fj,ev TrpwTTjv Trpotrrjyo-
pfvo-f vovv Kal enivoiav, TTJV 8e
8evTepav, (fxovfjv Kal evvoiav, TTJV
8e Tpirrjv \oyio-p.bv Kal e
Theodoret i. 24.
MapKivv 8e, Kal Kep8cov 6 TOVTOV
8i8do~KaXos, Kal avTol fjiev eK TTJS
2ifJLo>vos f^aTrd-rrjs e\aj3ov TTJS ^Xao--
(prj/jLias TO.S d<popp.as, aXX' erepav
eKaivoTOprjo-av do-efteias 686v.
'O 8e MapKicoj/ 6 HOVTIKOS, Tavra
Trapa KfpScoi/oy Trai8evdels, OVK
1 Cod. a0' O&T&V. 2 Dele 5f, ortum ex 8*. Miller. s Cod. M"
rot. 4 TOV Trvp6s. Scott. 5 An leg. tvvoiw ? 6 Cod. TOWS vavT6s.
7 Leg. videtur ot 5e TrdvTts. Miller.
312
APPENDIX.
ovdev aXXooy TTfTroirjKfvai, TOV Se
diKaiov, ol /j.v TOV Trovrjpbv, oi 8e
fJLOVOV dlKUlOV OVOp.doVO~l, TTfTTOir)-
Kevai de ra ivavra (pdo-KOVO~iv ex rrjs
VTTOKtfJivr)s v\r)s' 7re7roir)Kvai yap
ov KaXa>s, aXX' dXdya>y. 'AvdyKrj
yap TO. yev6fj,va o/zota aval r<u
irenoirjKOTi' dib KOI rals 7rapa/3oXai
Taty evayyeXiKois OVTWS ^pcon-ai Xe-
yovres" " Ov dvvarai devdpov KaXov
KdpTTOVS TTOVTjpOVS TTOielv," 8 KO.I TO.
e^f, els TOVTO <pd(rK(i>v elprjaOai ra
V7T aVTOV Ka.KO)$ VOp,l6fJ,Va. TOV
fie Xpio-rbv viov elvai TOV dyadov
KOI UK* aVTOV 7rTTp,<p6ai eVt CTtoTr)-
pia Tmv ^v%Q)v, ov eo-a) avOpanrov
/caXei, o>s civ6pa>7rov (pavevTa Xe'-yeov
OVK OVTCt avOpUTTOV, KCli Q)ff VO~apKOV
OVK evo-apKov, doKijo-ei TTfCprjvoTa,
OVTC yeveo~iv VTropeivavTa oi/re Trddos,
dXXa raJ doicelv. Sapica Se ov 8e\ei
dvio~Tao~6ai' Tdp,ov de (pdopav elvai
\e'ya)V Kvi/iKcorepa) (Bico 7rpoo~dyo>v 9
TOVS fj.adr)Tas, ev TOVTOIS HOft/^aM*
XuTreii/ TOJ/ drjp,tovpyov, el TO>V vif
CIVTOV yeyovoTtoV rj apio-pevtov dn-
e'^oiro.
Philos. p. 327.
KrjpivOos Se 6 eV r^ Aiywrw
ao-Kiy^ei? avTOS ov% vrrb TOV Trpcorou
$f oO rov Koo~p,ov yeyovevai rjdeXrjo'ev,
aXX' VTTO dvi/dpeas TIVOS d
iroXv Kf^u)pio-p.vr]s KOI
TTJS vnep ra oXa avQevTias, KOI
dyvoovo-r)s TOV vircp irdvra 6f6v.
e TTJV Trapadodflo-av SiSacr-
KaXtav, aXX' r)vr)o~ TTJV do~ej3eiav.
Terrapay yap dyei'i'^rovs' ovcrias T<
Xoyw SieTrXatre. Kai TOI/ /zei/ 6a-
Xeo-ei/ dya^di/ r KOI ayi/axrroi', ov
/cat Trarepa irpoo"r)y6pevo~ TOV
Kupi'ou' TOI/ 8e dr)p,iovpyov T Kai
di<aiov, ov Kai Trovrjpbv wvo^a^f.
Kai Trpo? TOVTOIS TTJV vXrjv, Kaxrjv
T ovo-av, Kai vn aXX /ca/cai re-
Xovorai'. Tbv de drjpiovpybv irfpi-
yevoncvov TOV KOKOV, TTJV V\TJV \ajBelv
re, Kat e'< Tavrr]s drj/jiiovpyrjo-ai ra
Theodoret i. 3.
Kara 8e TOV avTov xpovov Kai
KrjpivQos ere'paff rjp&v atpeVeeos.
OVTOS fv AlyvTTTCO TrXela-roi/ dia-
Tpfyas xp ovov > Kai ras <pi^oo-o<pous
Tratdevdels eViorr^/za?, vo-Tpov fls
TT)V 'Ao-lOV dfpLKCTO, Kai TOVS OIKCLOVS
CK riys oiKeias Trpoo-rjyopias
S. Matth. vii. 18. 9 Corrig. irpoadyti. Miller.
APPENDIX.
313
Tbv de 'Irjo-ovv Xe-yet pr] CK irapBe-
vov yey(vvr)0~6ai' 1 yeyovevai de OVTOV
f *Ia)o-r)(p Kal Mapias 1 vlov, opoiov
TOIS XotTTOtS 1 dvOpWTTOlS, Kill dteVT]-
voxevat ev diKatoo-vvr) Kal <ra><ppo-
o-vvrj Kal o-vveo-ei vTrep navras TOVS
\onrovs. Kai /iera TO /3a7rrt0y<ta
KaTf\rj\vdevai els avTov < TTJS VTrep
TO. oXa avdevrias TOV XpiOTOi> ev
e iSei Trepi&Tcpas, KOL Tore
TOV ayvtoVTov iraTepa KCU
fVtreXeo-at. IIpos de TW reXci rou
ndflovs dnoTTT^vai TOV Xptcrroi' tiTro
roC vlov' 2 Trenovdevai TOV '
roi' Sc XptaTov aTradrj
Kvpt'ou v
'Ei'Sae de OVTOS, tva
p.ev eivat TOV TU>V oXcoi/ Qcbv, OVK
avTov de elvat TOV Koo~fiov 8rjp.iovpybv t
tlXXa dvvdfjifis Tivas Ke%(i)pi<rfjievas,
/cat iravT\a>s avTov dyvooixras. Toi>
'lr)o~ovv de, Tols 'Efipaiots irapa-
TT\T)o~i(ji)S e(pr)o~ Kara <pv(riv (
dvdpbs yfyevvrjcrdai KOI yvvatKos,
TOV 'la)o~r)<p Kal TT}? Mapiay, <ra)(ppo-
vvvT) de Kal diKaio(TVV7) Kal TOIS
aXXoiy dyaBols fitaTTpe'^at. Toi> 8e
Xpio-Tov ev ei'Sei TreptoTepay avafav
els avrbv KOTeXfalv, Ka\ rr/j/tKavra
TOV dyvoovpevov KTjpvgai Qebv, Kal
Tas dvaypdnTovs eViTfXe'crat 6av-
p.aTovpyia$. Kara de TOV TOW
TrdOovs Kaipbv, aTroor^vat * p.ev TOV
XpiaTov, TO 8e ndQos vTro^elvai TOV
'Irjo-ovv.
Theodoret ii. 6.
Phihs. p. 328.
"Ertpoi Se /cat e avT&v
Tols irpofipr)fj,evois \eyovo"iv,^ ev
povov ev8ia\\davTe$ ev rw TOV
MeX^tcreSeAC &s vvap,iv Tiva vrr-
fi\r)<pevai, (pd&KOVTes avTOv vnep
Trdo'av dvvapiv vrrdp^eiv, ov 4 /car*
fiKova de elvai TOV Xptoroi/ 6e-
\ovariv.
Philos. p. 329. Theodoret iii. 2.
"Erepoi de avTa>v 5 TTJ T&V No;- Tives de avrnvTas Tpety vTroor-a-
Tiav>v aipeo~ei 7rpoo-Keip,evoi, TO. pev aeis TT)$ 6eoTT)TOs Sa^eXXtcp Trapa-
TTf pt ra yvvaia /cat 6 Moi/ravov TrXr/o-tW ypvyo-avro, TOV avrbv elvat
6p.oio)S doKovo-i, TO. de Trepl T&V heyovTes /cat JlaTcpa, xat Yfov, cat
1 Cod. 767e/f)o-0aj. 2 'l77<roC. Scott. Vide not. Phil. 247, 43 9.
8 Cod. \4yovffi. * o5. Scott. 5 Montanistaruin sc.
Pro Kal fort. /carcJ. Miller. a - An OTroTrT^j/at, avol&sse?
p.ev elvai TovT(f>v <pa(rl, Kaff ev de
povov diacpwvelv, TO Tctv MeX^7<8e:
8vvap.iv Tiva. Kal deiav Kal p.eyiaTTjv
V7ro\api^dveiv, /ear' eiKuva de avTov
TOV Xpio-Tov yeyevrjo-dai. *Hp|f de
TTJS aipe'creajs TavTrjs aXXoy QeodoTos,
apyupa/zoi/36y TTJ
314
APPENDIX.
oXcoi/ Ilarepa 8v(r(j)rjfji,ov(riv, avrbv
flvai vlbv Kal Trarepa Xeyoi/rey,
oparbv Kai doparov, yevvrjTov KOI
dyevvrjTOV, dvrjTov Kal aOavarov.
OVTOL TCLS d<popp,ds airo Nor/roi)
Ttvbs X
Philos. p. 329.
'Opoifos be Kai NoT/roy ra> fie
yeVet utv 2/j.vpvalos, dvrjp aKpiro
ToidvSe aipeo~ti/ e 'Emyovov Tivbs
fls KXeo/LieVrii/ x(opr]o~ao~av, Kal
OVTWS ea>? vvv eirl TOVS 8ia86%ov$
', Xeycoi/ va TOV Ilarepa
ran/ oXcoi/' rouroi/
TTfTrotT/Kora, dfpavr) p,ev Tols
yeyoi/ei/ai ore 7^/3ouXero' (pavrjvai
Se rore ore r)6e\r)O~e' Kal TOVTOV
eii/ai doparof ore /LIT) oparat' oparoi/
Se, orai/ oparat' dyevvrjTov Se, oral/
/it) yevvaTai' yfvvrjTov 8e, orai/ yei/-
varai e 5 K rrapOevov, dnadrj Kal dOdva-
rov, orai/ P.T) Trda-^rj /Li^re 6vr]o-Kr)'
cndv 8e nddrj TrpocreX^r/, Trdcr^eiv
Kal 6vrjO~KfLV TCVTOV TOV Trarepa'
uioi/ vofj,iovo~i Kara Kaipovs
irpbs ra o~vp,j3aivovTa.
TOVTCOV TT]V aip(O~iv e
KaXXiaroy, ov rov /3ioi/
, 8 6s Kai auros atpeo-ti/
Cod. irot/crAos.
ayiov Tlvevpa, TrapaTrXTjcrta)? ra>'
'Ao-iai/ai NoT;ra). Kara roura>i/
o-Wypa\fsv 'ATroXii/apio?, 6 rr^y
Kara Qpvyiav lepas TroXea)? eVi-
(TKOTTOS yeyova)?, avj)p a^teVaii/os 1 ,
*cal Trpos rT} -yi/a)o"fi rcov deiatv Kal
TraiSeiW 7rpooreiXri(pQ>s > .
8e Kai MiXrtaST;?, Kai
?, Knt erepoi o"uyypa<peT?.
Kara Se npo^Xou rr^s avTrjs al-
Tato?, ou Kat irpoadev ep.vrjo-drjfj.fv.
Theodoret iii. 3.
'O
TO yvos,dveverio-aTo 5e TTJV alpeviv,
fjv 'ETTi'yoi/os 1 /LieV re? oura) KaXou-
pevos dirfKvrio-e Trpwros 1 , KXeo/Lie'w;?
Se TrapdKajBtov ffitftaiwo-f. Taura
5e eVn r^? aipeVecos ra K<pd\ata.
"Ei/a (pavlv flvai Qebv Kal Ilarepa,
rciy oXo)i' 8rjfj.LOVpyov' d(pavrj p.V
oral/ e'^eXrT, <paiv6p.evov 8e fjviKa civ
/SouX^rai' Kai roi/ avTov adparoi/
eii/ai Kai 6p^tp,fvov, Kai yevvrjTov
Kai dyevvrjTOV dyevvrjrov p,ev e'|
cip^f/s 1 , yfvvrjTov Se ore K TrapQevov
yvvrj6r}vai rjdeXrjo-e' d-nadr) Kai
a^ai/aroi/, Kai TraXti/ au TradrjTOV Kai
6vTf]TOV. 'A.Tra6r]s yap cov, (prjal, TO
TOV o~Tavpov Trddos f6e\r)o-as t7re-
/zeti/e. Tovroi/ Kai Yiof oi/o/ia^ovo"i
Kai Ilarepa, Trpos ra? xP f ^ as TOVTO
KaKflvo KoXovfjievov. Norjriai/oi
irpoo-riyop(v6r]o-av ol riyi/Se rj)i/ ai-
peo~iv o~TfpavT(s.
Taurrj? /Liera roi/ Noriroj/ inrrp-
8 Fort. e/crefletVefla
Miller.
KaXXurros, firi
KOI OVTOS eVti/oj/o-av rfj
APPENDIX.
S)v dcpopynas \aftu>v
Kai avTos OfjLO\oyu>v tva fivai TOV
Trarepa Kal 6fbv TOVTOV 8i~uiovpybv TOV fio'y/zaros.
TOV TTOVTOS, TOVTOV fie fivai vibv
ovofjt,aTi jj.ev Afyufjifvov Kai ovouafo-
fjifvov, ov(riq fie [eV 9] d vait jrvfvpa
yap, (prjo-lv, 6 6fbs oi>x erepoi/ eWi
Trapa TOV \6yov rj 6 Xoyos Trapa TOV
6f6v' fv ovv TOVTO 7rp6o~(onov bvo-
TOVTOV TOV \6yov eVa e^at Sebv
ovop,afi Kai o~fo~apKa)o~6ai Xeyet.
Kai TOV p.v Kara trap/ca 6pa>ufvov
Kal KpaTovfievov vibv efi/ai ^eXei, 1
TOV de fvoiKovvTa Trarepa, ?rore fj.ev
rai Noj/rou ~ 86yp,aTi irfpipprjyvv-
[ifvos, 3 Trore fie r<5 Geofiorov, urjo'ev
ao~<pa\es Kpartav. Tavra TOIVVV
KoXXicrros.
315
r i vas
Philos. p. 330.
'Epuoyevrjs fie ns Kal OVTOS
0\r)o-as TI \eyeiv, e(pr) TOV 6fbv f
v\r)s o-vyxpovov Kal VTTOKfifjievijs TO.
7TTrotr]Kvai' dfivmrcos -yap
TOV 6fbv JUT? ovyi e'^ OVTMV TO.
Theodoret i. 19.
*O fi^ 'Epfjioyevys
Kal o~vvayfvvr t TOV TOV Qtbv f(f)rj
8r)fjLiovpyTJo-ai TO. Trdvra. 'AftvvaTov
yap v7re'Xa/3ei> 6 e'/i/SpdiT^ros Kal Tfu
0ea> TCOV oXtoi/, e'/c (JLTJ oireor
fij;/iiovpyii/.
Philos. p. 330. Theodoret ii. 7.
"Erepoi fie rives o>s Kaivov TI Oi fie 'EX/cetratoi, e<c TIVOS *EX-
Trapfio~dyovTfs fK ~rao~S)V alpecrfatv Acetrai r^s atpetrecos apavro? TT^V
fpavio~a.fi.fvoi evr)v j3ijS\ov CTKCV- irpoo-r)yopiav \aj36vrfS, fK 8ia(p6pa)v
do~avTfS 'HX^aaar 4 TIVOS eVoi/o- atpetrea)!/ pvOovs pavio~dfjL(vot, TTJV
p,aop.vr)v, OVTOI ras /iev dp^as rov oiKfiav awTfOeiKaai TrXdvrjv. Kai
TvavTos 6/MOttos 6p<oXoyoi}crti' VTTO roi) Trepi yiei/ r^i/ rctfi/ oXcoi/ dpx~iv (rv^-
6eov yfyovevai, Xpicrrov fie eVa ov^ (pavovcriv fjfjiiv. "Eva yap dytvyijTov
9 Addidimus tv. Miller. J Cod. 0e\eti/. * Cod. NOT/T^. ' Cod.
irfpiprjy . . /j.f->os, duabus literis evanidis. 4 Titulus rubricatus 'E\xaffaiTai.
316
APPENDIX.
6[j,o\oyovo~i,v, dXX' eivai TOV p.ev civa>
eva, avrov fie juerayyto/u,ez>oi/ ev
a~a>fj,a(rt [noXXols 5 ] TroXXaias 1 , KOI
vvv fie ev ra> 'iqcrou 6/zotco? [Trjore
p.ev e< TOV 6eov yeyevrjo-dai, Trore
8e Trvevpa. yeyovevai, TTOTC Se ex
irapdevov, Trore 8e ov. Kai TOVTOV
fie HfTfTTfira del ev crca^ao-t fierray-
yie<rdai KOI ev TroXXoty Kara Kaipovs
Xpaiirrai fie e ? 7ra[ot
eVi r rcov
i fie
aorpoXoyiai/ *ai p.adr)p,aTiKr]V, KOI
JIpoyvaxTTiKovs fie eau-
Kat rovror roii/ airavrav
Ka\ov(ri drj/Jiiovpyov. Xpurrbv 8c
oi^ eva \eyovaiv, aXXa roi/ /ne v ai/to,
TOI/ fie /cara). Kai rovroi' TraXai
TToXXoIs 1 evcoKrjKevai, v&repov fie
KaT\r)\v6evai' TOV fie 'l^(roGi/, Trore
/tzeV e/c roi Geov etVat (prjtrl, Trore fie
nvevp.a KaXei, Trore fie x irapOevov
eo-x^Kevai /jirjTepa. 'Ei> aXXots fie
0-vyypdp.p.ao-LV ovfie ro{/ro. Kat
TOVTOV fie TrdXij/ p.fTfv<ra)[j.aTovo~6ai t
<a\ els aXXa tevai (nw/xara Xeyet, /cat
ffa^' eKacTTOV Kaipbv dicxpopcos fiei'/c-
vvadai. 'ETrajfiai? fie Kai fiai/!ioi/a>i/
7TlK\r)(TeO-l KCll OVTOl K eXP^Td! , KO.I
fBanTio-pao-iv eVi r^ rail/ aroi^eia)!/
6/ioXoyia. 'AcrrpoXoyiaf fie\ KOI
TrXdvrjv, KOI TIpoyvaxTTiKovs eavTovs
Trpocrrjyopevov. Tbv fie aTroo'roXoi'
TratreXcos 1 rjpvr]dr)o~av' KOL f3i(3\ov fie
ovpavS)v e(f)a(rav TrenTaxevai. Tau-
r?/s roi/ aKrjKooTa a(peo-iv dpapTi&v
Xapftdveiv Trap' fjv 6 XpiaTOS eScopr)-
5 Vocis vo\\o7s vestigia exstant sed non prorsus certa. Miller. 6 Litene
plane evanidae. Post nayiKols excidit fortasse enTo-nvTai. Miller.
APPENDIX C.
On the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp.
THE mention of St. POLYCARP, the disciple of St. John, and
Bishop of Smyrna and Martyr, whose name occurs not unfrequently
in the foregoing pages, suggests an occasion for submitting a ques-
tion to the consideration of the reader, in reference to the History
of his Martyrdom, as narrated in the contemporary LETTER of the
Church of Smyrna, and transcribed by Caius, supposed by some
(e.g. by Ussher) to be, perhaps, Caius the Roman Presbyter
(mentioned above, chap, iii.), from the copy of St. Irenseus, who had
conversed with St. Polycarp. (See Eccl. Smyrn. Epistola de S.
Polycarpi Martyrioin Patr. Apostol. Coteler. ii. p. 204, Amstel. 1724,
or in Bishop Jacobson's edition of the Apostolic Fathers, ii. p. 604,
ed. 1863.)
In that interesting narrative of St. Polycarp's Martyrdom it is
related (cap. 16), that the body of the venerable Bishop not being
consumed by the fire which was kindled by the heathen officers, in
order that he might be burnt therein, orders were given to the
executioner to pierce him with a short sword. The original words
of the Letter are as follows, ire pas olv Idovres ol ai/o/zoi ov dwdpevov
avTov TO (Tfop-a vrro TOV Trvpos daTravrjdijvai, eWAetxrai/ Trpo<j-f\66vra. avT<a
Kop.<pKTopa 7rapa/3vo-ai i<pi8iov. The Letter then proceeds to say,
according to the received reading of the passage, KOI TOVTO 71-0117-
aavTOS, %ri\@e IIEPI2TEPA KAI irXrjdos ai/xaroy, wore Karacr^farai TO
irvp, i. e. " a Dove came forth, and a stream of blood, so as to quench
the fire."
The old Latin version is as follows, " Quumque hoc ita fuisset
318 APPENDIX. '
effectum, ecce subito fluente sanguinis copia COLUMBA processit de
corpore, statim sopitum cruore cessit incendium." But the DOVE,
which is so strangely combined in this passage with the stream of
blood, appears to owe its origin to an erroneous reading. Eusebius
had it not in his copy. He has transcribed the LETTER, nearly
verbatim, into his History, and writes thus (Euseb. iv. 15), eWXeuora?
TrapaSvcrai i(pos, KOI TOVTO iroirnravTOS ei)X0e ir\r]dos
Nor had Nicephorus any mention of the Dove in his MS.
of the LETTER. His words are (iii. 35) eneXtvov nva vvai |t'(ei TOV
ayiov e^adev' ov 817 yevop.vov irXrjdos at/zaroy et-eppvrj, as IKCLVUS
fX LV < aTa fJ>UpClivlV TT)V a.K.\lT]V TOV TTVpOS,
If the Dove had been mentioned in the Letter, as read by Eusebius
and Nicephorus, it is not likely that they would have omitted to
notice so singular a circumstance. See Bishop Jacobson's note,
pp. 645, 646, who enumerates various conjectures on the passage., by
Le Moyne, Dr. Jortin, Ruchat, Whiston, and Allan.
In short, the words IIEPI2TEPA' KAI* appear to be corrupt, and
ought, probably, to be amended to HEPI' STY'PAKA, i. e. about the
haft. " No sooner did the executioner pierce the body with his
steel, than a stream of blood flowed upon the haft of the weapon, so
as to quench the fire." The word o-rupa| signifies v\ov TOV CLKOVT'LOV
(Ammon. Valckenaer, p. 133), and sometimes means the handle of
a smaller weapon, as here.
This correction has now been approved and accepted by Lagarde
(rel. jur. Eccl. Grasc. p. 84), and by Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn
(Patr. Apostol. Martyr. Polyc. p. 157, ed. 1876).
On a Passage in St. Justin Martyrs Dialogue with
Trypho the Jew.
Let me pass from St. Polycarp's Martyrdom to an incident in the
history of St. Justin, who suffered as a Martyr at Rome about the
same time as St. Polycarp at Smyrna.
At the close of that interesting Dialogue the most interesting that
has been preserved to us from early Christian Literature the Dialogue
of St. Justin with Trypho the Jew at Ephesus, Trypho expresses the
APPENDIX. 319
pleasure and profit he had derived from trie colloquy on the claims of
Christianity to be regarded as the fulfilment of the Mosaic dispensa-
tion, and says that he would be thankful for more frequent opportu-
nities of such edifying intercourse, but that he must be content with
asking Justin to bear him in his friendly remembrance, inasmuch as
Justin was on the point of departing on a voyage to another country
The original words, as they are now read in all the editions, are, eV* 18?)
Trpov rf) dvayayrj fl (i. e. inasmuch as you are on the point of em-
barking) KCU K.a.6* f)p.epav TI AOFIEI20A1 TrpovftoKas, p.f) OKVCI cos (piXa>v
rip&v pfp.vri<T0ai. For TI AOriEI20AI (which is manifestly a corrupt
reading) Thirlby conjectured vavri\fla8ai, to set sail j the Benedic-
tine Editor Maran would read TT\OVV yeveaBat, which Otto approves ;
at the same time he suggests TT\OVV Troido-Qai. All agree that the
words mean since. you are in daily expectation of being on the sea,
do not deem it irksome to remember us as friends. None of the
above conjectures appear to be quite satisfactory. May I be
allowed to offer another ? For TrpoadoKas TI AOriEI29AI, I would
suggest TTpoadoKcts HEAAriEISOAI, i. e. you expect to be on the high
seas. Tlikayifivdat is the future infinitive of reXoytfo/MU, which, as
well as TreXayi^o), is used in this sense. See D'Orville's Chariton,
viii. 6, p. 697, vavs f'xav p-eyaXas eVeXa-y i e r o. St. Justin soon after
this Dialogue with Trypho left Ephesus, probably for Rome, where
he suffered Martyrdom, about A.D. 167.
THE END.
GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, ST. JOHN'S SQUARE, LONDON.
A NEW EDITION OF
THE HOLY BIBLE,
With Introductions and Notes by
CHRISTOPHER WORDSWORTH, D.D., BISHOP OF LINCOLN.
THE OLD TESTAMENT,
In the Authorized Version, with Introduction, Notes, and Index.
In Parts.
In Volumes.
PART S. d.
VOL.
s.d.
I. Genesis and Exodus . o 14 o
I. The Pentateuch
.150
II. Leviticus, Numbers,
Deuteronomy . . o 12 o
II. Joshua to Samuel .
. o 15 o
III. Joshua, Judges, Ruth .090
IV. Books of Samuel . .070
III. Kings to Esther
o 15 o
V. Kings, Chronicles, Ezra,
Nehemiah, Esther . o 15 o
IV. Job to Song of Solomon
.150
VI. Book of Job . . .070
VII. Psalms . . . . o ii o
V. Isaiah to Ezekiel
I f, O
VIII. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,
Song of Solomon .090
VI. Daniel, Minor Prophets
(
IX. Isaiah . . . .0100
and Index .
o 15 o
X. Jeremiah, Lamenta-
tions, Ezekiel . .0160
XI. Daniel . . . .050
XI L Minor Prophets . .090
Index . . , .020
660
600
THE GREEK TESTAMENT,
With Introductions, Notes, and Index.
In Parts - In Volumes.
s. d.
VOL.
/ s d
I. Gospels . . . . o l6
II. Acts of the Apostles .080
III. St. Paul's Epistles . . i 3
I. Gospels and Acts of the
Apostles
x> . .
i 3 o
IV. General Epistles, Apoca-
lypse, Index . . o 16 o
II. Epistles, Apocalypse, and
Index .
i 17 o
^330
300
Any Part, or any Volume, may be had separately.
RIVINGTONS : LONDON, OXFORD, & CAMBRIDGE.
PFTIIPM
RETURN TO the circulation desk of any
University of California Library
or to the
NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
Bldg. 400, Richmond Field Station
University of California
Richmond, CA 94804-4698
ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS
2-month loans may be renewed by calling
(415)642-6233
1-year loans may be recharged by bringing books
to NRLF
Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days
prior to due date
DUE AS STAMPED BELOW
AUG 9 1989
F(
n
/ I >~N
HR
221646