Skip to main content

Full text of "St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome in the earlier part of the third century : from the newly-discovered "Refutation of all heresies""

See other formats







Just Published. 3 Vols. Price 36^. 




Being Selections from his Works. 


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 

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. 



<%fortj, antJ Cambridge. 


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 







C I C 









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- 





earlier $art of tbe Cfrirfc Cmturp. 









anfl Cambridge. 



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 

Events which have taken place at Rome since the 
publication of the first edition of this work, especially 



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. 




The recent discovery of the " Philosophumena ; or, Refutation of all 
Heresies" . . I 

Who -was its Author ? Was Origen ? 7 


Another name considered Caius . . . . . . .16 


Another name suggested St. Hippolytus. His Statue at Rome . 29 


Objections to this Suggestion considered ...... 44 


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 


Some Objections to the veracity of his Narrative considered . .130 


Other Objections to the Author's veracity considered . .146 




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 


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 

Silence of Ancient Church Historians. Objections from it considered 181 

Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus -io8 

Ancient Lists of Works of St. Hippolytus ..... 233 


Orthodoxy of St. Hippolytus . . . . . . . .241 

Episcopal See of St. Hippolytus 255 


On the "-Development of Christian Doctrine,"" as tested by the 
writings and acts of St. Hippolytus 271 


On the present Claims of the Roman Church to Supremacy and In- 
fallibility ', as tested by the writings and acts of St. Hippolytus . 281 



A Fragment of a Work of St. Hippolytus ..... 306 


Evidence that the recently. discovered Treatise was known to and used 
by Theodoret in theffth century 309 


A Conjecture on a passage in the Ancient Acts of the Martyrdom of 
St. Poly carp, disciple of St. John 317 


On a passage of St. Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Try p ho 
the Jew 318 


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 


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 

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 



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. 


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 
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 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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/, 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. 


To this question we would reply in the nega- 

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. 


" 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. 


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 


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. 

1 Book ix. 12, p. 290. 38. 


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 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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, 


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 

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. 



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. 


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 


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. 


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 


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 

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- 


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 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?. 


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. 


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. 


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- 

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. 


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 

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. 


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- 

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. 


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. 


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 


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. 


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 

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. 


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. 



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, 










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, 
^ rraffcav at pe treaty 


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- 

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 

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 


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. 

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 


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 

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. 


3. We have also seen that the Author, in that 
passage, as in many others of this Treatise, copies St. 

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. ; 


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. 


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. 


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, 


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. 


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. 


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 

We have been engaged in considering the ques- 

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 


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 

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. 

2 In the First Volume of " HIPPOLYTUS and his AGE," by C. C. J. 
BUNSEN, D.C.L., Four Volumes, Lond. 1852. 


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/, Kal tin TJ irpbs 'Efipaiovs eTriaroA^ OVK fffnv rov 'Airo(TT6\ov 

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- 


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 


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 

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. 


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. 



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 

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 


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 


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 

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- 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. 


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 


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 


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. 


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 

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. 


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 ; 

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 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 



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." 


THE following are the contents of the NINTH BOOK P- 278 

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- 


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. 


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 


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? 


(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. 


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 


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- 


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 

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, 


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]( 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/ 


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. 


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 


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 


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?" 


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 


'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. 


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- 


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. 


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 


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. 


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 




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 


, 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 


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- 

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 / 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<>[<p irav'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. 


(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 


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 


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. 


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. 


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 

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\ 8e rpiTrjv, T^V x^-P tv T u 'Aylov 
Uar^p yap els, irp6(ro:ira Se 5vo OTI Kal 6 vibs, rb Se 


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. 


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 

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 


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) 

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. 


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, 


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. 


'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 


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^i(f } 


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 


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 


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. 


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- 

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. 


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- 



&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. 


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 

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 


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. 

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 


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- 


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. 


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 


%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- 

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 


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. 


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 


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. 


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 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 



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. 


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 


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. 


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 

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 


we know to have been a Man of the same nature with P. 338 

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 


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- 

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$ 


ib. aevvdov. Lege aevdov. 


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/', 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 


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 


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 


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 

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 

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 


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 


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 


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/'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, 

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 


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 


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 


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. 


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 


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- 

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 


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 

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. 


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 

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. 


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 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


of Callistus are represented as forming a majority at 

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- 


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 


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 


Bishops of the Church because they were abettors of 

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. 


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. 


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 


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." 


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. 


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 


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 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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 

9 Above, p. 97, and 329 (Miller), alpeffiv eojy vvv CTT! rovs SiaSoxovs 

From the terms in which Sabellius is mentioned in this 


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. 


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. 


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 ? 


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. 


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 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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 

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. 



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. 



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. 


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 

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 


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. 


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 


Kusebius, IL E. viiu $, wul see ibid, c, 


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. 


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 

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. 


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 

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. 


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, 


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. 


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). 


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. 


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. 


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, 


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. 


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. 



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- 

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. 


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. 


Silence of Church Historians. Objections from it 

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 


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 ? 


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. 


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- 

Each age has its own character. The ante-Nicene 
period is different from the Nicene. The Christian- 


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 


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. 


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. 


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 

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 

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- 


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 

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. 


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 

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. 


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 


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"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 


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 


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. 



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- 


4 Haeret. Fab. Comp. iii. 3, torn. iv. pt. i. ed. Hal. 1772, p. 343. 

5 See below, APPENDIX B. to this Volume. 


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 

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 


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 

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. 


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. 


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, 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 


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 

Let us observe, also, our Author's position as 

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- 



./Eschyl. Agam. 430. 


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. 


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 

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. 


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- 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 

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. 


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. 



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 


familiar to the Roman literary world through the 
translation made by Cicero, of which some portions 

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 


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- 

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 KaOapy irapa^ivaaa, $ 
ft> rcf K.6(T/J.(p vvv SIKCUCOS (Tvutfitvuvoa. For vvv SiKalus the MS. of 
Irenseus supplies the beautiful words 


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 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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 


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. 


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 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. 


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. 


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 


already said 8 with regard to the Author of the 
Treatise on the Universe, in this respect is applicable 

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 

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 ? 


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. 


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 


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. 


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. 


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 

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. 


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 


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. 


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. 


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. 


HOLY SPIRIT, in the Holy Church, now and for ever. 

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. 


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." 


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 


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. 


Kal TTpO? Yl(\)aTO)Va 

f) Kal Trepl rov 

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 

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 

On Spiritual Gifts : Apostolic Tradition. 

Against the Heathen t and against Plato, or on the 

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- 


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 


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. 


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;" 


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 


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 

" 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 


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 

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 

2 Assemanni Bibl. Oriental, iii. pt. i. p. 15. 

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. 



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. 


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 


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 

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." 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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." 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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). 


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 


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. 



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, 


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. 


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. 

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 


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 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. 


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 

It is inserted in P. G. Lumperi Historia Sanctorum Patrum August. 
Vindel. 1791, Pars viii., where it occupies 255 8vo. pages. 


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 


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 

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." 


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. 


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 


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. 


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. 


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 


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 

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." 


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 

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. 


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. 


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 


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. 



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(, 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." 


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 


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- 

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." 


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. 


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. 


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 


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. 


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 

' S. Iren. iii. 3. 


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- 

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- 


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 

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." 


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 


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." 


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." 


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 


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 


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. 



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 

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 


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 


/ 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. 


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 

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. 


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 


Man, but would not acknowledge His Divine Per- 

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. 


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, 


and every Christian, must submit to the Bishop of 

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 


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. 


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. 


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 


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. 


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 

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. 


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." 


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, 

We of the Church of England may recognize in 


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. 


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. 


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. 

6 /ifra StKcuW dpiOpbs 
j/ei dveK\ei7rTos apa 
dyye\ois Kal Geou 
%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- 

6 /z e y a s SiKaiuv dpi0/ SiajMti/et 
dvK\nrTos, a/za dtKdiois dyyeXois 
Kai.'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 



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 


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* 

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\ 
OVT ovs fJKOVO~V, ovre eirl 
Kap8iav dv0pd)7rov dveftr], ocra rjToi- 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 


TTOvrjpav cKViKrjo~at ro> UCTO TTJV 
pfTavoiav XP OV <? dKpifteias, de delrai 
TroXX?}? vnep TTJS paKpav a<ro> * Tre- 




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 


ra> 0e<u Sd|a. 

4 "Offta, sed O in loc. raso rescript. 
* ffTpoty (ut videtur). 
6 Post o/0pw desunt literse sex vel 

Xpovov 7ro\iTiav irovrjpav 
viKija-ai TO) /xera TJ)J/ 
^poi/ep' dfcpififias de fietrai 
Q)o~7rep Tols /xa/cpa I/OCTG) * TTC- 

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 


3 Hinc liquet Hippolytum nos- 
trum Novatiani de poenitentia pla- 
citis non fuisse mancipatum. 


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. 



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- 


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), 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. 



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- 


"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 


teal fTTivoiav, (fxdvrjv xal ovop.a, 5 
\ 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- 

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 \ 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<, 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. 



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 


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 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- 

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 


CK riys oiKeias Trpoo-rjyopias 

S. Matth. vii. 18. 9 Corrig. irpoadyti. Miller. 



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 

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- 

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 



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. 


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 


KaXXurros, firi 
KOI OVTOS eVti/oj/o-av rfj 


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 


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 

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 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. 



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 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. 


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 


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. 





With Introductions and Notes by 


In the Authorized Version, with Introduction, Notes, and Index. 

In Parts. 

In Volumes. 

PART S. d. 



I. Genesis and Exodus . o 14 o 

I. The Pentateuch 


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 


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 




With Introductions, Notes, and Index. 

In Parts - In Volumes. 

s. d. 


/ 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 

x> . . 
i 3 o 

IV. General Epistles, Apoca- 
lypse, Index . . o 16 o 

II. Epistles, Apocalypse, and 
Index . 

i 17 o 



Any Part, or any Volume, may be had separately. 



RETURN TO the circulation desk of any 
University of California Library 

or to the 

Bldg. 400, Richmond Field Station 
University of California 
Richmond, CA 94804-4698 

2-month loans may be renewed by calling 

1-year loans may be recharged by bringing books 

to NRLF 
Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days 

prior to due date 


AUG 9 1989 



/ I >~N