cu-.! m / 'I ,.oi:-LX£.s7-,. ////. ST. HIPPOLYTUS THE CHURCH OF ROME EARLIER PART THE THIRD CENTURY. FROM THE NEWLY-DISCOVERED PHILOSOPHUMENA. CHR. WORDSWORTH, D.D. t\NON OF WKSTMINSTER, 4M) FORMERLY FELLOW OF TKI.MTV COLl.Ei;R, tAMBIUUCE. LONDON: PEANCIS & JOHN EIVINGTON, ST, Paul's cnuncH taed, and Waterloo placr. 185S. LONDON : flll.BERT 1% RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, ST. John's square. PREFACE. The present Work consists of two Parts. The for mer contains a Dissertation on the Authorship of the newly-discovered " Philosophumena," and on the Life, Times, and Works of the Writer, especially in reference to Christian Doctrine, and to the early History of the Church, particularly of the Roman Church, with some application to the circumstances of our own age. The latter Portion of the Volume is occupied with the Historical Narrative, which is contained in the " Philosophumena," concerning the Church of Rome in the first quarter of the Third Century, and is the most ancient and ample record, now extant, of the condition of that Church in that early age. This Narrative is presented in the words of the Original, with an English Translation, and Notes. A 2 iv Preface. The Notes are, for the most part, critical ; some of the conjectural readings there jiroposed have been followed in the English Translation, in a few pas sages, where the Greek Text of the MS. did not appear to afford a clear sense. But none of these have been introduced into the Text itself. In the Appendix will be found a Fragment of a Work by the Author of the " Philosophumena," from an Oxford MS. This is followed by a collation of passages in the " Pliilosophumena " with a Work of Theodoret, showing that the newly-discovered Treatise was recognized as an authoritative docu ment in his age, — the fifth century, — and that con siderable portions of the Tenth Book were adopted by him. Cloisters, IVestminster Abbey, March 23, 1853. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. PAGE St. Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus near Rome ... 1 CHAPTER IL " The Philosophumena ; or. Refutation of Heresy" . . .12 CHAPTER III. The Philosophumena; or. Refutation of Heresy " — its Author. Whether Origen ? 18 CHAPTER IV. Another Name considered 27 CHAPTER V. Another Name 42 CHAPTER VI. Objections considered. — Photius and others . . . . 67 vi Contents. CHAPTER VII. page Objections considered. — Narrative concerning the Church of Rome ....... ... 76 CHAPTER VIII. Objections considered. — Narrative concerning the Church of Rome .... ...... 92 CHAPTER IX. Objections considered Silence of Church Historians . .120 CHAPTER X. Inferences from the foregoing Enquiry. — Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus 152 CHAPTER XI. On the Theory of Development of Christian Doctrine, as applied to the Writings of St. Hippolytus 179 CHAPTER XII. Appeal to St. Hippolytus on the present Claims of the Roman Church to Supremacy 195 Contents. vii PART II. PAGE Narrative concerning the Church of Rome from " Philo sophumena ; OR Refutation of Heresy" — Book IX., in Greek and English, with Notes 22.3 The Author's Address to the Heathen World, from Book X,, in Greek and English, with Notes , . . , , 276 APPENDIX. A. — Fragment from a Work "on the Universe," by the Author ofthe Philosophumena 306 B. — Collation of passages in the Tenth Book of the Philosophu mena with the Compendium of Heresies by Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus and Ecclesiastical Historian, circ. a.d. 450 . 309 C. — On a passage in " the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp," Bishop of Smyrna , . . . . . . • . • .317 ERRATA. P. 87, lino 1 1,/or deny read denies. P. 134, last line,/or more read in ore. DISSERTATION. CHAPTER I. ST. HIPPOLYTUS, BISHOP OF PORTUS. Rather more than a century ago. Cardinal Ottoboni was Bishop of Porto, — the ancient Portus, — a mari time city, which is situated at the northern mouth of the Tiber, about fifteen miles from Rome, and had enjoyed considerable commercial celebrity in former times '. He possessed a noble library, and endea voured to restore the architectural beauty of his ' See Dio Cass, in Claudio, lib. Ix. num. xi. tom. ii. p. 949, ed. Hamburg, 1752, and Sir W. Gell's Vicinity of Rome, ii. p. 174-9, and Contorni di Roma, by Nibby, ii. p. 323, who has published a separate work on Porto. See also Westphal, Die Romische Kam- pagn, ep. 172. The harbour (Portus), whence the city derived its name and importance, had been constructed by the Emperor Claudius, 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. See Martyr. Ignat. § 5, § 6, p. 569, 570, ed, 2nd, Jacobson. 2 *S'^. Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus. 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 among his predecessors, who had reflected honour on his See in earlier ages. Of these, one stood pre-eminent ; one, whom he numbered in the lineage of his own episcopal ancestry, — had shed lustre not only upon the See of Portus, but on the Western Church, and on Christendom at large ''. He had been celebrated for holiness and orthodoxy, for learning and eloquence^; he was reckoned among the Saints and Martyrs of the Western Church. He was also venerable for his antiquity ; he had flourished in the second and third centuries of the Christian era. He had* been a scholar of St. Irenseus, who, in his youth, had listened to St. Polycarp', the dis ciple of St. John. This was St. Hippolytus. It was the earnest desire of Cardinal Ottoboni, Bishop of Portus, to do honour to the memory of this great man. We may well sympathize with him ^ Card. Baron, ad Ann. 229. " De Hippolyto hactenus, in quo utraque conveniunt ut Orientalis et Occidentalis Ecclesiae ingens decus merito dici possit." ' He is called "Vir disertissimus " by St. Jerome ad Lucin. iv. p. 579, ed. Bened. " Sacratissimus et magnus Doctor Veri- tatisque testis fidelis," by Anastasius in Collectan. apud Galland. Bibl. ii. p. 469, and a " stream of living waters to the Church," ¦jroTafw Vol. i. p. 872—909, ed. Paris, 1733. It was first printed from a Medicean MS. in vol. x. p. 579, of Gronovii Thesaurus Ant. Graee. ^ The following is the Author's description of his own work. 14 The Philosophumena ; intended to be introductory to the rest. The writer then proceeds to treat of the various heresies in order of time, vvhich 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. Irenseus * and Tertullian ^ had ob served) the dogmatic systems of heretics had their foundation, — not iu Scripture, — but in the schools of Heathen Metaphysics. He disputes their claim to originality, and treats them as plagiarisms from Pagan Philosophy. The circumstances now stated, with regard to the materials of which this work is composed, will suggest the reason why it bore a double title. It is inscribed " Philosophumena ; or, a Refutation of all Here sies °." 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 lib. x. p. 311 : (Tvix-TrepiKa^ovre^ ra iravrwv rw Trap EXXijo-t (TO(j)o>v Sd-y/iara iv recrcrapcri /Si/iXloLi, ra Se tois alpecndpxaig iv Trivre, vvv tov wepl dXrjOeLa^ \6yov iv evl (Cod. 'eva) tTrtSttfo/tej', avaKeeftaXaiov/xevoL irpSirov ra Trao-t SeSoKr/ixeva. * S. Iren. ii. xiv. 2. * Haereticorum Patriarchae Philosophi, says Tertullian adv. Hermogen. c. 8, illi sapientiae professores de quorum ingeniis omnis haeresis animatur. De Anima, c. 3. 23. De Praescr. Hseret,, c. 30. See also S. Jerome, Epist. 84, where he speaks of Tatian and others, who had traced heresies to philosophical sects. '' i\oao(j)OVfjt.eva, -q Kara. iraaSiv alpia^etav £A£y;^os. or. Refutation of Heresy. 15 applicable to the last or tenth Book, which is an Epitome of the others ; and concludes with a decla ration of the truth, in an address to the Gentile world. In the sixth and seventh Books the Author is often treading on the same ground as that traversed by St. Irenseus 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 ob serve, 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 Irenseus, where till now we possessed only the Latin Version. The recovery of this work is a re covery, in part, of the text of Irenseus. In some places, it will enable a future Editor of Irenseus to restore Irenseus to himself. The two last Books of this Volume are those which impart to its discovery an historical importance, which it is not easy, at present, adequately to ap preciate. Time alone can show in all its bear ing the full importance of this work, composed sixteen centuries ago, and discovered in the nine teenth 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 ' Some evidence of this may be seen in p. 203 of the Philoso phumena, and following pages. See also the passages cited in the Ecclesiastic, LXVII. p. 47. 1 6 The Philosophumcwi ; editorship of a French scholar, in an English Uni versity. Time, it is probable, will prove that the hand ofan all-wise and merciful Providence may be distinctly seen in its preservation, and also in its publication at the present critical juncture in the History of the Church and the World. On what grounds, it may be enquired, do we en tertain such anticipations ? Because, we would reply, this newly discovered work unfolds to us, in the ninth Book, a portion of ancient Church-History with which hitherto we have had comparatively but little acquaintance, from the lack of mate rials 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 wliich he deals is one of great importance to us, on account of its relation to certain questions of Chris tian 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 exactness, events which took place in the Church of Rome in the second and third centuries after Christ. 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 pro- or. Refutation of Heresy. 17 minent part in the occurrences which he narrates. In a word, we have here a Suffragan 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 character, and forms a substantive whole, and possesses peculiar claims on public attention at pre sent, it appeared to deserve consideration, whether it might not be detached from the rest, and offered separately to the English reader in his own lan guage, 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 presumptuous 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 1 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 evi dence of his veracity ? This let us endeavour to do. CHAPTER in. the philosophumena ; or, refutation of HERESY — its AUTHOR. The Treatise now before us bears on its exterior the name of Origen '. It has the same name inserted in its title, and inscribed on its back. 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 I 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 I Is it then from the pen of Origen ? ' Its title is, 'O.piyevov'i (j)i\oa-0(j>ovfieva, -q Kara iraaiuv alpecrewv cXe-yxos. Origenis Philosophumena, sive Omnium Haeresium Refutatio : e Codice Parisino nunc primum edidit Emmanuel Miller. Oxonii, e Typographeo Academico, 1851, p. 339. ^ P. 334. 'ilpi.yh'-rj'i Kai 'Qpiyevovs 8d^a. ' Origenis Opera, ed. Car. Delarue, iv. voll. Paris, 1733. Vol. I. pp. 873—909. The Philosophumena — its Author. 19 We must reply to this question in the negative. 1. 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, name less 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*. 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. It would be more difficult to say what he had not written, than what he had. 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 * See Bentley, Dissert, on Phalaris, pp. 6 — 8, ed. Lond. 1777. c 2 20 The Philosophumena ; name without further enquiry. A list of works, erroneously assigned to Origen, may be seen in the " Origeniana " of Huet ^ 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 Avords " 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 jEneid. 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 jEneid was composed by Ennius, or that the marginal annotator had ima- ' Appendix to lib. iii. in the ivth Volume of the Benedictine Edition, p. 321. See also the Preface to that edition, p. xiii. or. Refutation of Heresy — its Author. 21 gined that this was the case — but the contrary. And so the words, " Doctrine of Origen" do not appear to intimate, that in the copyist's opinion " the 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 mar ginal 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 * : and the recent dis covery of the main portion of the remainder has corroborated their judgment. Their opinion that the work is not by Origen was grounded on a passage occurring in the first Book ', where the Author describes himself as " a successor of the Apostles, a partaker with them in the same grace and principal sacerdocy, and doctor- ship ^, and as numbered among the guardians of the Church." These words, they very justly observe, could only have been employed by a Bishop, speak ing of himself. Origen was not a Bishop ; and he was distinguished by modesty, as well as by learn- ° Origenis Opera, i. p. 873, ed. Bened. 1733. Huet. Orige niana, iii. Appendix xi. vol. iv. p. 527. ' Philosophumena, p. 3, 1. 63, ed. Miller. ' apxiepa-Ttia. Compare the language of Tertullian de Bapt. c. 17: "Dandi baptismum quidem habet jus i-ammui sacerrfos, qui est Episcopus." 22 The Philosophumena ; ing. 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 par ticular time which falls within the period described in the present Volume. He came to Rome in the Pontificate of Zephyrinus ; but his visit was of brief duration ^. Origen was only a sojourner at Rome for a short stay. The Author of the Philoso phumena 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 Philoso phumena laid before the reader in this Volume, that the Writer was at Rome, or its neighbourhood, before the Pontificate of Zephyrinus, that he re mained there during that Pontificate-^ — which was not a short one, but lasted nearly twenty years — and that he continued there till after the death of Cal- listus, the Successor of Zephyrinus. Therefore, this Treatise was not written by Origen. 5. Besides : the Author of the Philosophumena de scribes himself as holding an important office in the Roman Church ; he represents himself as having exercised ecclesiastical discipline there, and as having evOa ov TToXv SiaTpixj/a^, says Euseb. vi. 14. Origen is said, by St. Jerome (de Vir. Illust. c. 61, and by Nicephorus Callist. iv. 31), to have been among the hearers who listened to a sermon by St. Hippolytus, who was Bishop of Portus near Rome. This was probably on the occasion of this visit. or. Refutation of Heresy — its Author. 23 separated certain persons from Church-communion by sentence of excommunication '. 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 question of authorship, it appears more safe to dwell on circumstantial evidence, than to lay stress on discrepancies of thought and manner as visible in this Treatise, when contrasted with what is seen in undoubted 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 ^ 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 ' 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. ' Book ix. 12, pp. 290. 35. ' Lib. viii. pp. 276, 277 ; ix. pp. 278—291. ' S. Hippol. c. Noet. iii. apud Routh Script. Eccies. Opnsc. p. 48. ravra jSo-uXovraL ovtw 8irjyua-$ai, kol airois fAovoKtoXa ^iIi/Aevoi, — 24 Thc Philosophumena : 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 de graded Him to the level of an ordinary man, ani mated by the Spirit of God, and that thus, through fear of an heretical dogma, they had lapsed uncon sciously into heresy *. This was a liberal view. It was suited to the po- * Origen, in Matth. T. xvii. § 14, says that they err eftavToxria. rov hoiaZ,eiv -xpia-Tov, and in Johan., Tom. ii. c. 2, calls them ^lAo- Oeov^ elvai eixo/Aevovs, and offers also some apology for them as evXajSov/Aevovs 8vo avayopevaai 6eov%, koX irapa tovto TrapLirCinovTaq ij/evSecri koX do-e/Becri SoyjAacri, 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 Sal- vatoris Deitatem, unam eandemque subsistentiam Patris ac Filii asseverant, i. e. duo quidem nomina secundum diversitatem cau- saium recipientem, unam tamen mroa-Taenv subsistere, i. e. unam Personam duobus nominibus subjacentem, qui Latine Patri- passiani appellantur. Origen's success in dealing with Beryllus of Bosra is well known, Euseb. vi. 33. S. Jerom. de Viris. Illust. c. 60, and was probably due to his Christian temper not less than to his profound learning, ovk av prjTa koi dpprjra Xeyoifiev av Tovs aXXa So^a^ovras, he says, c. Cels, v. p. 273, OVK av aTToa-Tvy-qa-aiev tovs 7rapa;;^apaTT0VTas rd ^la-Tiavia-fAov, ho says in a spirit which can hardly be reconciled with the language of the present Treatise. OT, Refutation of Heresy — its Author. 25 sition 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 the Philosophumena on the other. He who wrote the former could hardly have written the latter. Therefore again it would appear that the Author of the Philosophumena is not Origen. 8. One more remark of this kind. The opinion of 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 ^ Thus false charity betrayed him into heresy. But the author of the Philosophumena speaks a very different language. He does indeed, at the close of his work, address an affectionate invitation to the heathen world. He portrays with glowing and rapturous eloquence, the dignity, blessedness, and glory of those privileges which would be theirs, if they were Christ's. He describes the immense love of God in Christ to the world, and His earnest desire for their salvation, and he exhorts them to ' See Origen, 19. Homil. in Jerem. Tom. iii. p. 267. De Princ. i. 6. 26 The Philosophumena — its Author. accept God's gracious offers, and to enter the Church of Christ. But he does not pause there. He pre sents 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 ^ 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 '. Such is his mode of dealing with that solemn subject. He builds his charity on faith, and speaks the truth in love. Probably enough has been said here and else where, to satisfy the reader that the author of the Treatise before us is not Origen. Let us pass to another name. ' Philosophumena, pp. 338. 4, ppaxTfAov devdov Xijxvr}^. ' Compare the similar statements of doctrine by St. Irenaeus, iv. 78 ; V. 27. CHAPTER IV. ANOTHER NAME CONSIDERED. It is a remarkable circumstance, that very few of the Roman Poets were natives of Rome. Catul lus, 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 even 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 distin guished Orators, Philosophers, and Historians, whose names are generally connected with that of Rome. Scarcely one of the most eminent Roman writers was born within the walls of Rome. A similar re mark may be made with regard to the early Ec clesiastical writers and distinguished men of the Latin Church. Few were connected by birth, or even by residence, with Rome. Of the fourteen Bishops who governed the Church of Rome during the first two centuries, two only appear to have left any reputation for literary attainments : St. Cle ment, whose Epistle to the Corinthian Church still 28 Another Name considered. survives, and whose native country is uncertain ; and Victor, supposed to have been of Africa, who is re garded as the first Ecclesiastical Author who wrote in the Latin tongue '. There are very few names, of literary celebrity, which are in any way con nected with the Roman Church in the first three centuries of the Christian era ^. 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 identification — not to speak of others at present. He represents himself — 1. As a Bishop ; 2. As taking an active part in the Ecclesiastical affairs of Rome ; and 3. As having written other Works, whose titles he specifies. Who was there, let us ask, that corresponded to this description ? The name of Origen, suggested by the title, being ' S. Hieron. de Viris Illust., c. 34. 40. 53. ' 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, Antistes prcedicat unde Deum. Another Name considered. 29 dismissed as untenable, perhaps the first person who would present himself to the mind of an enquirer 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 Victor, and of Victor's successor, Zephyrinus ^ ; and the Author of this Treatise lived in the age of Victor and Zephyrinus. Caius is also known as a learned and eloquent man, and as having conducted a theological disputation, probably by the appoint ment of Zephyrinus *, with Proclus, a leader of the INIontanists at Rome, and to have gained honour by the ability which he displayed on that occa sion. From the fragments which remain of his controversial argument, we learn that he wrote in Greek ; and we are informed, that, being a Pres byter of Rome, he was promoted to the Episcopal order ^ ' Euseb. ii. 25 ; vi. 20. Phot. Cod. 48. Victor is generally supposed to have sate in the see of Rome from a.d. 192 to a.d. 202; Zephyrinus from /i.d. 202 to a.d. 218. Jaffe Regesta Pon tificum, p. 5. * Hence, perhaps, the assertion of Optatus i. 9 : Marcion, Prax- eas, Sabellius, Valentinus et caeteri usque ad Cataphrygas tem- poribns suis a Victorino Pictaviensi, Zephyrino Urbico (J. e. Episcopo Urbis Roniae), et a Tertulliano Carthaginensi et aliis adsertoribus Ecclesiae Catholicae superati sunt. ' Phot. Cod. 48. rovTOV toi/ raiW irpea-fivrepov ^aeriv -yc-yc- -vrfuOai, T^s Kara 'Vmixrfv cKKXr/o-tas eiri OviKTopos Kat Zevpivov apyiepewv, -xet-poTovrfOrfvai, 8c avrov KAI ESNilN iiria-Koirov, where Fabricius reads KAI AQHNDN. A change in the reading may perhaps be necessary, since the Romans themselves -were 'edftj, 30 A nother Name considered. Thus he appears to satisfy some of the most im portant conditions of the present case. Another point, also, may be noticed here. Among the Works which the writer of this Trea tise specifies as having been produced by himself, is one entitled " On the Substance of the Universe \" 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 ', which he wrote when on a diplomatic mission as an ambas sador in Assyria, and in which he describes the con tents of the books he had read, refers to a Work ^ 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 and St. Paul calls himself iOvSiv d-iroa-roXov with reference to Rome, Rom. xi. 13, and says v/aIv tois iOvea-iv in writing to Rome. We might, therefore, perhaps read KAI EflQINON, i. e. though presbyter of Rome, Caius, as practised in writing and speaking Greek, was consecrated a Bishop of the Easterns. " pp. 334. 78. £io-ovrai, evTv;^dvTes ij/nSv ;Si)8Xa) ircpte^ovoTj irepX Tq^ rov TravTos ovo-ias. ' See Fabricius, Harles. x. p. 678. ' Phot. Bibl. Cod. 48. Another Name considered. 31 readers to another work of his own composition' — a work " On the Substance of the Universe '." 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 Trea tise on the Universe. Indeed, if the question con cerning the authorship of any one of these three Treatises is settled, the question also would seem to be decided concerning the other two. ' M. Bunsen says (" Hippolytus and his Age," i. p. 248), that the " Author of the ' Cause ofthe Universe ' referred to the ' Little Labyrinth' as his." This is an oversight. Indeed the reverse was the fact. Photius informs us (Cod. 48) that the Author of the " Labyrinth" referred to the work on " the Universe." The ingenious author of " Hippolytus and his Age " is somewhat severe in his strictures on the Patriarch of Constantinople, and charges him not unfrequently, and not very fairly, with writing carelessly and inaccurately ; but a little more attention to the words of Photius would have saved M. Bunsen from the error which has just been noticed, and from some others. A Constanti- nopolitan envoy in Assyria in the ninth century did not possess the advantages for the revision of his works which he would enjoy if he were resident in England in the nineteenth ; and perhaps the distinguished Author of " Hippolytus and his Age" may have ample cause to ask for the indulgence which he has not been disposed to concede to Photius and to many others that might be named. " Mqanm est Peccatis veniam poscentem reddere rursus." ' iv T(3 TcXci TOV Xa/3vpiv6ov BiefAaprvparo eavrov elvai rov irepi ¦rijs TOV TraVTog ovtrias Xoyov. This work, says Photius (Cod. 48), was entitled in some MSS. irepi r^s tov TravTos aZria?, in others, TT. T. T. TT. ovo-tas I Itt othcrs, irepi rov TravTos. He appears to have seen various MSS. of it. 32 Another Name considered. 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, Mrites Photius, has been ascribed to Origen ^ but " they say that it is by Caius '." Photius then mentions that the Author of the Labyrinth referred to the Treatise on the Universe as written by himself*. 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 Treatise on the Universe. He had the Treatise on the Universe as well as the Labyrinth in his Library. He describes its contents ^ He says that this Treatise having been '^ See also Theodoret. haeret. fabul. ii. 5. ' Phot. Cod, 48. Palov, ov (jiacri, o-vvTa^at Kai. tov Xa/SvpivOov. He is reporting their opinion when he adds, Taiov ia-rl irovrjfxa rrj aXrjOeia tov v airoaToXwv KaTao-Ta^eis, bs aTro- o-Tas TTJi Kar eidetav SiSao-KoXtas eSiSacTKev dSiaeftoptav /Jiov T« Kai yvcoo-cois- ' P. 259. 95, M, Miller reads ov tovs fAaOrfrdi evv/Jpi^ovras TO aytov Hvev/^a 8ia tijs 'A7r0KaXui/f«u)s 'IiudvvTjs iqXeyxe. 40 Another Name considered. He refers to the Book of Revelation, ii. 6. 14, 15. He quotes it as inspired, and as the work of St. John \ But what is to be made of the words ENTBPI- ZON TOI M. Miller proposes ew^pitpvTa^ ; we may perhaps read EN TBPEI ZflNTAS, living in licentiousness. This passage, like many others in the Treatise be fore us, is almost a transcript from the work of St. Irenseus against heresy ' : and thus, as was before noticed, it helps us to the original Greek of that ve nerable 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 Trea tise may be often corrected from Irenseus. ° It is observable that the Author of the Treatise on the Uni verse appears to refer to the Apocalypse. See Fabric. Hippol., i. 220 : XtfAvrj irvpos, k.t.X. ' Another correction — perhaps more probable — is offered by a writer in the Ecclesiastic, LXVII. p. 57, evvfipttpv to d. ir. Some doubts may be felt concerning the propriety of the word ivv(3pt^w, as applied to the Holy Spirit, and used with an accusative ease ; but perhaps they may be removed by reference to p. 265. 33, 0COS ivvftpl^wv del toTs KaTeiXruxfAevois, and p. 287. 50, oi 'lov- 8aiot ivv/Spia-avrei avrov. ' 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 moechando et idolothyton edere. Quapropter dixit et de iis sermo Sed hoc habes quod odisti opera Nicolaitarum quee et ego odi." (Apoc. ii. 6.) Another Name considered. 41 Irenaeus, in the old Latin version, says of the Nicolaitans, indiscrete vivunt; which perhaps our Author represents by e'x^ v^pei ^rnvTai; ^ St. Irenteus, 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. Irenseus ; and, in the passage before us, he follows Irenseus in acknow ledging the Genuineness and Inspiration of the Apo calypse. Here then, as it seems, we have sufficient proof, that the Author of this Treatise is not Caius of Rome. ' As well as by eStSao-KCV dStaeXe(TTaTOV. S. Epiphanius, Haer. xxxi. c. 33, refers to Hippolytus as one of his predecessors in refuting Heresy. * Gobar. ap. Phot. Cod. 232, Trotas v7roX»ji/f£ts eTj^cv'IirTrdXvTos irepi NiKoXaov tov cvos tS)V ^ StaKovcov, Kat oti la-xvpZi avrov Kara- yiVUXTKCl. ' Gobar. ap. Phot. Bibliothec, Cod. 232. ' See above, p. 39. ' Phot. Cod. 121, Madnp-rji 'Elprjvalov 'IiriroXvToi;. Another Name. 51 The time in which our Author lived, the mode in which he deals with the work of Irenseus, make it probable that he was reared under his training. He writes like a scholar of Irenseus. 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. Irenseus would speak '. 4. We have contrasted that testimony with the mode in which Caius the Roman Presbyter treated ' One word may be said here concerning the date of the Apocalypse. St. Irenaeus, who had seen Polycarp, the scholar of St. John, asserts (v. 30) that the Revelation was seen by St, John at the end ofthe reign of Domitian, a.d. 96 (ovSc yap irpo iroKXov ypovov iwpdOi], dXXa crp^cSov eirl tijs -fffAerepa^ yevcas, Trpos riS reXet rrjs Ao/teTiavov appf^s). Yet M. Bunsen declares (ii. 141), " At all events the book itself plainly says the contrary. The horizon of the Vision is the latter half of the year 68 ;" i. e. St. Irenaeus made a mistake of about 30 years concerning what he says took place almost in his own age ! In the same oracular tone, M. Bunsen pronounces (i. 25), that " the Romans knew better than any body, from their first regular Bishop, Clemens, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not St. Paul's." Why Linus, to whom the Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul first com mitted that Church (Iren. iii. 3), is not to be regarded as a regular Bishop, does not appear. (Compare Bp. Pearson, Dissert., ii. v.) As to the Epistle to the Hebrews, St. Clement imitates it, and it is probable that he and the Romans knew from St. Peter (2 Pet. iii. 15), as well as from other sources, that the Epistle was St. Paul's. See the arguments of Bp. Pearson, Dissert, i. c. viii. pp. 357—359. E 2 52 Another Name 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 con temporaneous 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 '. There we read the following : — " A defence of the Gospel according to St. John and of tlie Apoca lypse '." 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. It appears to be probable, that St. Hippolytus wrote in defence of the Apocalypse, — against Caius. For in the Chaldee Catalogue of the Works of Hippolytus ^ is one, entitled, "Chapters of St. Hip polytus, against Caius." ° This Catalogue may be seen in Gruter. Inscript. 140 ; Le Moyne's Varia Sacra, i. p. 496 ; S. Hippol. ed. Fabricii, i. p. 38 ; Cave, Historia Eccl. ed. Basil, 1741, i, 104; Bunsen, " Hippo lytus and his Age," i. pp. 288, 289. ' "YTTcp ToS KaTa 'Iwawr/v Eva-yytXiov Kai ' AiroKaXvxj/ehi^. * By Hebed. Jesu. See S. Hippol. ed. Fabric, i. p. 224. Another Name. 53 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 '," — 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 au thority of the Apocalypse. Why otherwise should Hippolytus defend it ? If Caius, the Roman Presby ter, treated the Apocalypse as we have seen he did (pp. 37, 38), 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 suspi cion. What more reasonable, then, than that Hip polytus his contemporary, the scholar of Irenseus 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 Au thor 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. ' Fabric. Bibl. Graec. Harles,, vii. p. 197, ed. Hippol., i. p. 224, 64 Another Name. Certain it also is, that in both these respects, as in many others, he followed Irenseus. It is also evident, that St. Hippolytus did the same ; and that he was a Scholar of Irenseus. Hence, then, we recognize some further confirma tions of the previous probability that our Author is St. Hippolytus. Lastly, let us consider, by way of recapitulation, the personal history of the writer of this Treatise. 5. He writes, and writes eloquently, in Greek, and yet he lived in the Western Church. Besides this Treatise against all Heresy, 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 *. He was a Bishop, and speaks of his obligation as such to refute heresy, and to maintain the truth \ He exercised Church discipline, in resisting false doctrine, and in separating open and obstinate offenders from Com munion with the Church *. 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. * Book ix. passim. * Book i. p. 3. * See p. 290, where the Author uses the plural we, speaking of himself. See the Rev. T. K. Arnold's Theol. Critic, vol. ii. p. 597. So p. 334, 78, ij/iaojv yStySXai. ' P. 286. Another Name. 55 All these and other particulars which might be noticed, correspond with what we know of Hippo lytus. His name is not of Latin origin, but Greek. Being a scholar of Irenseus, he was probably of Eastern extraction. And all Antiquity witnesses that he wrote in Greek. He composed a " Refutation of Heresy," and a " Treatise on the Universe." He lived under Zephyrinus, Callistus, and his successor, probably later. He was, also, a Bishop. As has been proved in the learned Work of Ruggieri, men tioned at the commencement of this enquiry, his Episcopal See was Portus, the harbour of Rome. He was, therefore, a Suffragan Bishop ° of the Roman » M. Bunsen (pp. 12. 207. 214) asserts that St. Hippolytus was a member of the Roman Presbytery, by virtue of the office he held as Bishop of Portus. But it does not appear that in ancient times the Suburbicarian Bishops of Rome had (as such) parochial cures in the city of Rome. Nor does there seem to be any analogy, as M. Bunsen supposes, between the case of St. Hippolytus and that of the Cardinal Priests, who now derive titles from Churches in Rome. The present successor of St. Hippo lytus, the Bishop of Porto, is not a Cardinal Priest, but is one of the Six Cardinal Bishops. M. Bunsen (p. 316) affirms also that Hippolytus was Bishop of the Nations, " For (says M. Bun sen) that this title is mentioned (by Photius) as given to Caius the Presbyter, is, as we have seen, only a consequence of his (Photius) having taken Caius to be the Author of the Treatise about ' the Cause of the Universe.' " Strange to say, in the sen tence immediately preceding that to which M. Bunsen refers, Photius implies that he himself did not know who wrote that Treatise, ovirw fAoi yeyovev evSrjXov. (Phot. Cod. 48.) " JJ'^hat Photius knew (continues M. Bunsen) was that this author was 56 Another Name. Church. Hence, he is often called by ancient writers, a Roman Bishop, and even (in the language of those days) a Bishop of Rome '. He is comme morated as such in the Roman Martyrologies. As such he was honoured by a Statue in ancient times. As such he is venerated in the Roman Breviary '", and has been received into the Vatican, sitting in his marble Chair. He is there installed in episcopal dignity, — as a Teacher ofthe Western Church. A Treatise, therefore, like the present, coming from St. Hippolytus, and recovered almost miracu lously in the middle of the nineteenth century, is entitled to respectful attention, especially from the Western Church. And it may reasonably be ex pected, that it will not fail to receive it. made Bishop of the Gentiles. Consequently this was a title given to Hippolytus." Is this Church-History ? ' See above, cap. i. pp. 9, 10. " Aug. 22. CHAPTER VI. objections considered. — PHOTIUS and others. A considerable amount of evidence may be ad duced 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 exa mination, and arguments are adduced on the other side, that conviction may be weakened, and the mind may waver concerning the soundness of its former persuasion. We have been engaged in considering the question, — To whom is the newly- discovered Treatise on Heresy to be assigned ? We have been led to observe, that the Candidates for its authorship cannot be numerous. We have examined the pretensions of two Competitors — Origen, and Caius of Rome, who appeared at first to have strong claims on our attention. We have seen that the Work could not be adjudged to either of them. 58 Objections considered. — Another name was then adduced, — that of St. Hippolytus. 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. JNIore than a year ago, a learned English Theolo gian ', speaking of this newly-discovered Treatise, a.ssigned 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 ^ ' Archn. Churton, page xxvii. of the Preface to his Edition of Bp. Pearson's Vindiciae Ignatianae, where he calls this Treatise " Opus nuper felicibus Academise Oxoniensis auspiciis publica luce donatum, Christianae Antiquitatis cultoribus acceptissimum, Origenis, ut titulus praefert, sive ut mihi cum Viris compluribus bene doctis probabilius videtur, S. Hippolyti." This preface is dated vii. Kai. Feb, mdccclii. ' In the First Volume of " Hippolytus and his Age," by C. C. J. Bunsen, D.C.L., Four Volumes, Lond. 1852. It appears that this Volume was written in June and July, 1851. It is much to be regretted that M. Bunsen's work should be often marred by great confidence of assertion on very slender grounds, and some times on none at all. And some of those assertions concern the most vital articles of Christian faith and practice, as well as important questions of Church History. And these asseverations are accompanied with contemptuous insinuations against the lite rary honesty of others — especially of the dead*. It is with un feigned reluctance that the writer of these lines expresses himself * i?. p. p. 316 : " It is a fable, whether indented or picked uj) somewhere by Cave, that Hippolytus was Clemens' disciple." Again, p. 263, concerning Bp. Bull : " Bull often makes assertions also which have no foundation." Photius and others. 59 But " Audi alteram partem " is the counsel which is suggested by experience in questions of this de scription. We cannot justly feel satisfied with any conclusion, till we hear what may be adduced against it. And it is not to be denied, that, in the present case, there is much to be said which might seem at first to be of sufficient weight to constrain us to sus pend our judgment, if not to incline it in another direction. Let us, then, address ourselves to the considera tion of this other evidence. 1. The learned Patriarch of Constantinople, Pho tius, had in his Library a Work ascribed to St. Hip polytus ; and it was a Work " Against Heresy." In his bibliographical Journal, composed in As syria, Photius describes it thus ^ " A biblidarion " (a diminutive of little book) " of Hippolytus — was read to me*. Hippolytus was a thus. But a sense of obligation compels him to say, and he has considered it a duty to adduce reasons in the course of this volume for his conclusion, that his exhortation to the reader of M. Bunsen's Volumes must be, Na<^e, Kai /Ae/Avaa- diricrre'Lv. ' Phot. Cod. 121. dveyvwcrOr) fii/SXtSapiov 'liriroX-vTOV MaO-rfrrji Se Eip»;vaiov 6 'IiTTroXvTOS' -qv Se ro a-vvrayjAa Kara, alpecreiav X/B'. dpx'jv iroLov/Aevov Aoa-iOeavow Kai lAexpi Notjtov Kai T^o-rjriavSiv Sia- XajJiPdvov (sic Bekker, pro vulg. 8taXayLi^avop,£vov) TavTas Se va-iv. . crvvia-Tdvovcri Seiv to oiiTOJS, " iiroi-qcrev to irdcr)(a. 6 irda^a TJj Teo-o-apeo-KaiSeKaTj; vpio-Tos TOTe, rrj ^/aepa Kat (j; ?) tov jut^vos <^vXacro-eiv KOTa r-qv ' F 2 68 Objections co?isidered. — Hence then it is manifest, first, that the Bishop of Alexandria had some work of Hippolytus on Heresy in his possession ; and, secondly, it is evident 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, 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 the name of Hippolytus 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 requisite 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. hraOev, Sio Set Kajiie SeT ov Tpoirov tov vojaov Biarayrjv iv -g av o Kvptos iiroi-qcrev, ovtws iroieiv." -qp.epa iiAire(rrj. . . ov irpotre^ov- ireirXdvTjrai Se, /Arj yiyvtoo-Kojv oti Tes o Ti 'lovSaiots evop-oOereiTO, T<3 Kaipia (w?) eTrao-xev* 6 -^i- Tots /xeXXovo-i to dXrjdivov ird- o-Tos OVK evpivov reXevTrjv, vo/ai^oiv Terux,r]- 80 Narrative concerning Upon this, " Callistus threw off Sabellius as he terodox, through fear of me (says our Author), and because he supposed that he would thus be able to wipe off the stain of obloquy to which he was ex posed in the eye of the Churches ^ as not being of a sound faith." Being, however, pressed by Sabellius on the one side, and by our Author on the other, and being 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 \ 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 is such, " ven ture to call themselves a Catholic Church ^" Our writer, however, treats them as Heretics. He calls Kevat ov iOrfpdro, compared with p. 284, 77. ra-vrqv T-qv aipea-iv eKparvve KdXXto-TCS — Orjpiap.evo'; rov t^s eirto-KOTr^s Opovov. ' Perhaps, as was usual with Bishops in ancient times, Callis tus had sent missives to other Churches to notify to them his election ; and some enquiries or remonstrances may have been addressed by them, and some requisition may have been made that he should clear himself from the charge of heresy. ' P, 290, 42. eTTtTovTov. " P. 291, 72. the Church of Rome. 81 their congregation their school, and says that it sur vived at the time he was writing, which was after the death of Callistus, and that they were named Callistians '. Such is our Author's account of the Callistian Heresy. In the perusal of this narrative, two questions arise. We know that from about a.d. 192 to a.d. 222*, the See of Rome was occupied in succession by Victor, Zephyrinus, 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, scholar of Ire nseus, and Bishop of Portus, near Rome, who is now venerated as a Saint and Martyr by the Roman Church ? ' P. 292, 80. ' Jaffe (Regesta Pontificum, Berlin, 1851,) arranges their Epis copates thus, pp. 4, 5 : — S. Victor, a. d. 190 or 192 ?— 202. (Euseb. V. 20. 22, 23.) S. Zephyrinus, a.d. 202—218. (Euseb. V. 28; vi. 21.) S. Callistus, a.d. 218 — 223. (Euseb. vi. 21.) See also Labbe, Concilia, i. pp. 591 — 615, ed. Paris, 1671. G 82 Narrative concerning These are grave questions. It is scarcely possible to overrate their importance, in religious and civil respects. 1. As to the former of these two enquiries, it will be observed that the Author no where ascribes to Callistus, whom he charges with Heresy — the style and title of Bishop of Rome. He appears, in some respects, to regard him rather as a professorial teacher, than as an Ecclesiastical Primate. He calls his dis ciples " a School" — but never gives them the name of " a Church." This is the more remarkable, be cause when speaking of Victor, who Mas Bishop of Rome, from a.d. 192 to a.d. 202, and who was suc ceeded by Zephyrinus, he uses no such reserve. He openly and explicitly calls him " the blessed Victor, Bishop of the Church ^" 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 succeeded by Callistus the Heretic, we seem to be put off with a vague and equivocal phrase ; " After the death of Zephyrinus," M-e read ^ "he (Callistus) imagined that he had gained the object of his ambition" — which we learn from another part of the narrative to have been the Bishoprick of Rome. There is something almost mysterious in this = P. 288, 70. " P. 288, 96. the Church of Rome. 83 seeming 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 1 Why does he seem to decline the assertion ? Ts 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 faltering, why this hesitation ? Why does he not say plainly, — Victor was succeeded by Zephyrinus, and Zephyrinus was succeeded by Callistus, in the Roman See ? 2. In considering these enquiries, let us remem ber that our Author's narrative was written after the death of Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome. He mentions that event '. Our Author, living at Rome, must have known that a Callistus had succeeded Zephyrinus in the Roman See. And, if Callistus the Heretic was not Callistus the Bishop, he would (we may suppose) have taken good care that no one should confound the two. But he has not done this. On the con trary, 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*; 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 imagined himself to be Bishop of Rome. 3. Again, he uses the expression — "such events ' P. 288, 96. * p. 279, 37. G 2 84 Narrative concerning took place under 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 Episco pal 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 Mas 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. 218; and Cal listus 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 haud, the followers of Callistus are represented as forming a majority at Rome. 5. On the whole then we are led to conclude that — according to our Author, — Callistus the Heretic was Callistus, Bishop of Rome. But M'hy then does our Author use such an am biguous expression as this, " Callistus imagined him self to have attained the object of his ambition?" Why does he not say that he did actually attain it ? 6. To this question we mayanswer — No one doubts, M'e suppose, that Zephyrinus — the Zephyrinus men- " eTrl TovTov. P. 290, 42. and p. 291, 72. the Church of Rome. 85 tioned by our Author — M'as Bishop of Rome. No one questions that he succeeded Victor, and sat in the See of Rome for about eighteen years. No one doubts that our Author intends us to understand that the Zephyrinus of whom he is speaking, was Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome, and no other. Now, what we may here observe is, that our Au thor uses almost the same term when he is speak ing of Zephyrinus, as that which he uses Avhen he is speaking of Callistus. " Zephyrinus," he says, " imagined that he governed the Church (of Rome) at that time '." And " Callistus (he says) imagined 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 imagined himself to be Bishop, and he was Bishop of Rome. Callistus imagined himself to have attained the Bishoprick ; and he also was Bishop of Rome. 7. But why did our Author say that they imagined themselves to be Bishops ? why did he use such ex pressions as these ? The reason, probably, was this: He wished to contrast the orthodox Victor with his unworthy suc cessors. He therefore calls him " Victor of blessed memory. Bishop of the Church." But, according to our Author, Zephyrinus and Callistus were heretics. They imagined themselves Bishops. But our Author, when speaking of their false teaching, would not call ' P. 279, 30. 86 Narrative concerning them Bishops. He would not profane the title of Bishop, by assigning it 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. It does not appear that the Author of this treatise affirmed that the ministerial acts of Zephyrinus ^ and Callistus were null and void. But he prefers to re sort to a circumlocution, rather than to call them Bishops of the Church. The validity of Episcopal and priestly ministra tions, 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, particularly in the controverted question of heretical baptism, under St. Stephen of Rome on the one side, and St. Cyprian of Carthage on the other. It was afterwards illus trated by the learning of St. Jerome in his disputa tion M'ith the Luciferians, and was elucidated by the wisdom, and adorned by the piety, of St. Augustine, in his dealings with the Donatists. ' In the extract from the " Little Labyrinth," quoted by Euse bius, V. 28, and written by Hippolytus, concerning which more will be said in the next Chapter, Zephyrinus is called a Bishop {irpoa-ire(Teiv Zevpivv tjs eKparvve to 8oy//.a KaT eKeivo Kaipov Zevpivov Steireiv vop.it,ovTOiXdpyvpov. ' De Lapsis, p. 435, cap. v. Silence of Church Historians. 139 expressed himself in language which affords a strong confirmation of our narrative, and an eloquent com ment upon it, and admirably enforces the important moral which it suggests to the mind. " The gloom of persecution," he says, " ought not so to blind the reason, as not to allow light to sur vive for the contemplation of the divine law. When the cause of the malady is ascertained, then a remedy for it is discerned. The Lord would try His house hold ; and because a long peace ^ had paralysed the discipline which we had received from heaven, the divine chastisement roused our Faith, which was lying prostrate and almost asleep ; and when we for our sins merited severer retribution, our most merci- ° I.e. from a.d. 210 to a.d. 235. Sulpicius Severus (lib. ii. p. 383) says, "Severe imperante Christianorum vexatio fuit; inter- jectis deinde annis xxxviii pax Christianis fuit, nisi quod medio tempore Maximinus nonnullarum Ecclesiarum clericos vexavit." The Emperor Septimius Severus, at the beginning of his reign, A.D. 193, was not unfavourable to the Christians (Tertullian ad Scap. c. 4) ; but a.d. 203 he issued an edict forbidding them to receive proselytes ; and persecutions, not however general, ensued. Euseb. vi. 7. Caracalla, a.d. 211 — 217, did not persecute. Heliogabalus and Severus Alexander favoured Christianity, so far as to regard it on a par with other religions. The successor of Severus, Maximin, a.d. 235, revived the rage of persecution, especially (Eusebius says only) against the Bishops of the Church. Euseb. vi. 28, where see the note of Valesius. Probably it was then that St. Hippolytus, as a Bishop, suffered martyrdom ; and there may be some allusion to the fact stated by Eusebius in the line of Prudentius concerning Hippolytus (xi. 80), as a reason urged for his death, " Ipsum Christicolis esse caput populis." 140 Silence of Church Historians. ful Lord so tempered all things, that the storm which has now passed over us seemed rather an ex amination, than a Persecution. " Every one among us was eager for the increase of his riches, and, forgetting how believers acted in the time of the Apostles, and how they ought to act in all ages, every one was anxious to augment his own wealth. No longer were Priests adorned with devout religion, nor Ministers by faith undefiled, no more was there mercy in acts, or discipline in con versation. Many Bishops, who ought to have given admonition and example to the rest, deserted their flocks, grasped at Secular gain from lucrative traffic, and coveted heaps of money, while their brethren in the Church were famished, and seized estates by M'ily frauds, and augmented the interest of their money with manifold usury." Such is St. Cyprian's picture of the state of the Church ' before the Decian persecution, that is, at the period described by our Author in the narrative before us. Thus the Bishop and Martyr of Car thage, bears testimony to the truth of the history written by the Bishop and Martyr of Portus. 1 7. An observation may be introduced here, which is suggested by this narrative, as applicable to our own times. ' A similar description of disciplinarian laxity in the Church is given by Commodian, who wrote in the third century. In- structiones, v. 873 — v. 1057. Silence of Church Historians. 141 It seems to be imagined by some, that, in order to the maintenance of pure doctrine and wholesome discipline in a Church, it is almost indispensable that she should not be connected with the Civil Power by any ties of alliance ; and, in cases where the Church is so associated with the State, they are desirous of seeing a disruption of that union, and cherish a confident hope that soundness of doctrine and effective administration of discipline will be obtained by the severance of the one from the other, and are not to be looked for without it. Let attention be therefore paid to the condition of the Church of Rome, with regard both to doc trine and discipline, at the beginning of the third century, as presented in this Volume. She was not hampered by any trammels of civil control, but was exempt from all secular restraints. Indeed, she was precisely in the position which has been selected as most favourable to dogmatic sound ness, moral sanctity, and disciplinarian strictness, and which, it has been supposed, will, by a natural conse quence, produce those inestimable benefits. Be sides, she had some among her who were little removed in the line of succession from the holy Apostles. The teaching of Apostolic men sounded in her ears. She had an Hippolytus, the third in degree from St. John. And yet, melancholy truth, she was corrupted with heresy, torn with schism, and polluted with vice. She was governed by a Zephyrinus and a 142 Silence of Church Historians. Callistus ; and St. Hippolytus was stigmatized as a heretic. . . . Let not the warning be lost ! But to return. 18. We have been reviewing certain passages of ancient writers M'hich incidentally reflect lighten 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, Mho may find profitable employment in observing such undesigned coincidences as these. 19. 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 M'e 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 1 600 years ? One reply, and one only, as it would seem, is to be made to this question. It has pleased Divine Providence that it should be so. And the ways of Providence are marvellous. The preservation, the discovery, and lastly the publication of this Volume, demand our grateful admiration. It may not be presumptuous to say, that the same Divine Power Silence of Church Historians. 143 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 great purpose in view, in the wonderful burial and resurrection of this interesting Work. He Who allowed the copies of His Holy Word to be de stroyed, and Who hid one, and one only, copy in his Sanctuary, may have had some great design in view, 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 nothing more than the names ! Let us cast our eyes over the pages of Dr. Routh 's " Reliquiae Sacrfe ;" how many writers do they present to us of the Ante- nicene age, how many titles of M'orks, and how few are the fragments there gathered together. In that Sacred Reliquary, in that spiritual catacomb of the Primitive Church (if we may be permitted so to 144 Silence of Church Historians. call it), a little dust — precious indeed as gold — in a few sepulchral urns, is all that now remains^. 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 sM'ord. 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 snatched 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 rather to be surprised — that a single copy remains. 20. Let us observe, also, our Author's position as writer ; it was very peculiar ; He was an Eastern writing in the West. He wrote at Rome in the language of Greece. And he published his work when the use of the Greek language was becoming less common in Western Christendom. As the Church of Rome grew in Ppaxv a-ixrjy/jia Svo-ScxKpvTOV ctv- T^vopos (TiroBov yefJii- t,ov Xe^rfra^ evOerov. ^schyl. Agam. 430. Silence of Church Historians. 1 45 importance, so the language of Rome became more and more the language 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 Irenseus, 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. Tertullian's Greek works are lost. A few paragraphs are all that remain of Caius. Hennas survives only in Latin. Clement of Rome probably omcs 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 superseded by other works on Heresy, such as those of Philastrius aud Augustine, written in Latin, and soon sink into oblivion. 21. 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 Hippolytus, as a Refutation of Heresy, was once in existence. Now, let us observe, the newly-recovered Treatise on Heresy appears to have been either anonymous, ' See above, pp. 59 — 75. L 146 Silence of Church Historians. 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 his admirable dedication prefixed to Polybius *, 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 Porphyrogeni- tus innocently and unconsciously perpetrated a mas sacre of ancient Historians, by ordering their works to be abridged. Henceforth no one would purchase, no one could transcribe them. The imperial Ab stracts superseded the voluminous and costly ori ginals ; just as it is to be feared, the cheap compen- diums of Butler and Paley and Locke would have done, in days gone by, in our own Universities, if we had lived in an age of manuscripts, and not of printed books ^ If a small Work and a large Work, bearing the name of the same Author and treating on the same ' Casaubon, Dedicatio ad Polyb. p. 18, vol. iii. ed. Amst. 1670. Accessit pestis alia, Compendiorum et Epitomarum confectio, quod genus Scriptionis publice noxium et magnis scriptoribus semper fuit exitiosissimum. ' " Epitomes " (says Lord Bacon) " are the moths of History, Silence of Church Historians. 147 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 by Casaubon « that Eustathius, the Arch bishop of Thessalonica, in his vast Homeric Com mentary, rarely quotes from the entire work of Athenaeus, but generally uses the Epitome of that Author ; and Bentley has shown that Eustathius ap pears never even to have seen the entire Athenaeus, but always to have used the Epitome'. Similarly it may be remarked, that Epiphanius wrote tM'o works on Heresy, his " Panarium," a very voluminous one, and an Epitome of it, called " Anacephalaeosis," or Recapitulation. St. Augustine has left us a Mork on Heresies, and he refers to Epiphanius ; he copied from the " Recapitulation," but does not appear to have known the " Panarium '." Our Author wrote tMO 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 ofthe First Book, M'hich has been which have fretted and corroded the sound bodies of many ex cellent Histories ;" and, we may add, of many excellent works on Theology and Philosophy also. * Casaubon in Athenaeum, i. 1. ' Bentley, Dissertation on Phalaris, p. 95, ed. Lond. 1777. ' " Anacephalxosis sola sine Panario venit in manus Augus- tini," say the Benedictine Editors, viii. p. 47, ed. Paris, 1837, and see Lardner, i. p. 583. L 2 148 Silence of Church Historians. published long ago °, and we have this newly-disco vered MS. of Six other Books. But not one of these five MSS. bears the name of Hippolytus. Hence, it came to pas.s, that the narrative con tained in the Ninth Book concerning the Roman Church, did not attract the attention that otherM'ise it would have done. 22. Nor is this all. Not only did a smaller, and separate. Treatise on Heresy by Hippolytus exist, which interfered 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 Hippolytus'. 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. 23. Further, may we not say, that such a book as " In the Benedictine edition of Origen. See above, p. 18. ' See below. Appendix B. Silence of Church Historians. 149 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 M'ith favour in the region of Rome, where it was composed and published ? It displays a picture, which no member, and especially no presbyter or Bishop, of that Church, could otherwise regard than with feel ings of sorrow and shame. They would not be eager to transcribe it, or to purchase copies of it. And 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, under Pro vidence, it owed its preservation to its having been transported by some friendly Greek from the West to the East, and lodged in a cell of Mount Athos. And now it has come forth from its place of refuge, and has been brought back by a Greek from the East to the West, and it speaks to the World at large. 24. On the whole, it appears, that this Narrative concerning the Roman Church in the early part of the Third Century, was written by St. Hippolytus, a scholar of St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Portus, near Rome, an eminent Doctor and Martyr of the Church. He was an eye-witness of what he relates, — his rela tion, therefore, is entitled to credit ; it is to be re ceived as true. 150 Silence of Church Historiatis. 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, M'ere unfavour able to its circulation. It was antecedent to Church History, and Church History Mas 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 even a Saint and a Martyr in the Roman Church. Therefore, the silence of Church Historians — such Silence of Church Historians. 151 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 M'hich this Narrative concerning the Roman Church is contained. It reminds us how much we have gained by this dis covery. For this Narrative affords us new and most effective means for the successful resistance and re futation of novel and dangerous errors, and for the firmer establishment and maintenance of Scriptural and Catholic Truth. CHAPTER X. INFERENCES FROM THE FOREGOING ENQUIRY. 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 burgh, by Dr. John Albert Fabricius ' of Leipsick, 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 ' S. Hippolyti Episcopi et Martyris Opera non antea collecta et partem nunc primum e MSS. in lucem edita Greece et Latine ; accedunt Virorum Doctorum Notae 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. Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 153 critics and divines. But others had expressed a 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 ^ 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 ^ The Bene dictine Editors of St. Ambrose seem to have ima gined that all the writings of St. Hippolytus were lost *. 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 enquiry concerning the Authorship of the newly- discovered Treatise on Heresy. We 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 ' Proleg. in N. T., n. 655. See Lardner, Credibility, i. p. 499. ' Note on Bp. Bull, Def. Fid. Nicaen. c. 8. These passages were collected by Lardner. Cp. Bull, Def. F. N., iii. 8. 4, p. 596, and Waterland, iii. p. 102. * Temporum iniquitate perierunt. ' See above, p. 48. 154 Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. M'e have been brought by other considerations to the conclusion, — that the newly-discovered Treatise is rightly ascribed to St. Hippolytus, — it becomes a reasonable and interesting subject of enquiry ; — Whether the other writings attributed to Hippo lytus on a certain amount of presumptive evidence, and inserted in the edition of his works, bear marks of being from the same hand, as the Treatise on Heresy? 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 M'orks — to which we have referred, — as genuine. The evidence here applicable is partly external, aud partly internal. I. The Author of this Treatise affirms, that he Mrote a Book on the System of the Universe ^ St. Hippolytus wrote a work bearing that title, as ap- l)ears from various testimonies, and particularly 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- ' p. 334. ' Trpos "EXXijvas Kat Trpos HXdruiva ^ Trept tov HavTos. Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 1 55 mogony, contrasted with that propounded by Plato in his dialogue bearing a similar title — "On the Universe, or Timaeus^" which had been rendered familiar to the Roman literary world through the translation made by Cicero, of which some portions remain. (') One very interesting fragment, from a Work having this title, " On the Universe," and bearing the name of St. Hippolytus, was discovered in a MS. in an Italian Library, and thence first printed by David Hoeschel, in a note to Photius ^ and subsequently by Stephen Le Moyne, in his Varia Sacra ', and by Fabricius, in his edition^ of Hippolytus l On examining this fragment, we find much re semblance, both of thought and language, between it and the latter part of the recently-discovered Trea tise on Heresy *. They mutually illustrate each other. And thus the proof that the Treatise 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- ' Platonis Opera, vii. pp. 234 — 372, ed. Bekker, London, 1826. The remains of Cicero's translation are in his Works, vii. p. 930, and are entitled " Timaeus seu de Universo," ed. Oxon. 1810. ' P. 923. ' P. 1119. ' I. p. 220. ' And also (in some respects more correctly) in the Sacra Parallela bearing the name of John Damascene, ii. pp. 755. 788, ed. Lequien, where a portion of the fragment is attributed to Meletius, and a portion to Josephus ('IiooT/TrTros). ' The subject of both is the condition of departed spirits in 156 Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. polytus, corroborates the proof that the Treatise is also from him. another world. Some of the parallels are as follows concerning the place and punishment of the wicked : — Fragments from the work " On " Refutation of Heresy," p. the Universe," p. 220. 339. )(Oipiov viroyeiov ev o) <^ws k6- eK^evfetr^e raprdpov ^ocjiepov a-fiov OVK iiriXafxirei ; <^ wTO s ofifia d(j>uynarTov viro Aoyov ^to- ro-vvw TOVTO) T(3 X'^P'-V t^V '"'" ^^ M-V KaTaXa/KJiOh', Kai /3pa- TaXa/tTTOVTOS . . . e<^' o) KaT- o-p.6v devdov Xijjivq'i yevvTy- ea-rdOrjo-av dyyeXoi (jipovpol Topos <^Xoyos, Kai raprapovxi^v wpos Tas eKao-TOJV Trpafets Slave- dyye'Xojv KoXao-Toiiv op.p.a del /xovTes Tas tmv Tpd?rIJipl(Trai Tis Xifivrj irvpos da-pia-TOV. P. 221. ot dSiKOteis dpicrrepd eXKOvrai viro dyyiXwv KoXa- (ttSiv, p-erd yStas a)S Secr/xtoi eX- Kop-evot, ois 01 c<^eo-Ta)Tcs ayye- Xot hiairefXirovTai ovetSi^ovTes Kat (jjofSepio op./AaTi eTraTretXovv- T e s, T^s yee'wr/s eyytov ovTes rov PpacT ixov dStaXetTTTios viraKov- ovo-t, Other resemblances between the Treatise " on the Universe " and the " Philosophumena," indicating their common origin, and, by consequence, showing that the author of the " Philosophu mena" is Hippolytus, may be seen in the notes accompanying the translation inserted in the latter portion of this volume. An argument might also be adduced in confirmation of the Hippoly- tean origin of this fragment from its similarity to the language of Irenaeus on the same subject. See Iren. ii. 63, 64, on " the Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 157 This Fragment is of great value. It describes the place of departed Spirits, which it terms " Hades ;" and it pourtrays 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 fore bodings of the still greater and interminable woe and shame to which they M'ill be consigned in Hell, at the general Resurrection and last Judgment, Mhen 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 follow ing doctrine concerning the spirits of the righteous on their deliverance from the burden of the flesh. Bosom of Abraham :" " dignam habitationem unamquamque gen- tem percipere, etiam ante Judicium." 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 {x'^^^^"^9'-°^\ ^"d ^11 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. Irenasus (p. 468, Grabe), whence, in one place, it may be emended. The Author is speak ing 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 afi'ection which the body and soul ought to have for each other : '/'vx^ (rvy^ap^creTat KaOapd KaOapw irapa- fx,eivaaXov. The same correction is to be made in jElian. Hist. Animal, xvii. 31. iKirTva-aofxevov depa, Perizon. p. 949, where the Medicean MS. has very nearly preserved the true reading iKirriaa-oixevov. It has iKirricrojJievov. The false reading Sta- irr-qiavrK XeTTTci for StaTTTtcravTes still remains in some editions of Theophrastus, Hist. Plant, ix. 17. ^ E. g. dSeX^SiV icrri ypd/JL/xara irpeajivrepa tuiv ^iKTopos xpovusv iv ois aTrao-t ^eoXoyetTat 6 p(pi0T0S- \j/aXp.ol Se oo-ot Kai wSai dSeX<^Gv dir dpp(^s vtto ttio-tSv ypa^eiaai rov AOTON tov ©eov TOV XPI2T0N vp.vova-1 OeoXoyovvre^. Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 163 This Fragment, — not inserted in the edition pub lished by Fabricius — will doubtless 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 iu Latin, and was first printed at Ingolstadt, in 1602 \ from two Paris Manuscripts; whence it was trans ferred into the edition of Fabricius ^ 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 (M'hen 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 M'ork ; therefore it has been attributed to him by some learned per- * In Canisii Antiquarum Lectionum, tom. ii. p. 179. It was also printed by Labbe, Bibl. nov. MS, p. 298, Paris, 1657, from a third MS. ' i. pp. 49—59. ' It is entitled by Fabricius " Chronicon Anonymi quod ad S. Hippolytum viri docti referunt; certe scriptum ilia aetate," p. 49. Bp. Pearson, Dissert. Posthuma, i. cap. x. § 1, calls the author "quidam anonymus." See also Dodwell, Diss. c. xiv. § xix., doubts whether it is by S. Hippolytus. 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. m2 164 Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. The discovery of the present Treatise appears to remove all doubt on this subject. Our Author informs us' that he had written a chronological work, and refers his readers to it. He then introduces an abstract of his chronological sys tem, in regard to Jewish History. Suffice it to say, that the details in the Treatise harmonize in lan guage and substance with those contained in the Chronicle '. They seem to be from the same hand. Thus, then, the Treatise strengthens the evidence already existing, that the work in question is by Hippolytus ^ 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 '." Such a work was written by St. Hippolytus, as we know from the testimony of St. Jerome ^ and Photius ' ; An- ' P. 331, 81. ' Compare Philosophumena, pp. 331 — 333, with the Chronicon in Fabricius' edition of Hippolyti Opera, i. pp. 50 — 53. ' Henry Dodwell supposes, with good reason, that the Chro nology 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. ' i. p. 4. It was first published by Marquard Gudius, from two French MSS,, at Paris, 1C61, and after him by Combefisius, in a Catena on Jeremia ii. p. 449. ' De Viris lUustr. 61. ' Phot. Bibl. Cod. 202. Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 165 dreas, of Caesarea, and Arethas, refer to it in their comments on the Apocalypse *. On comparing this Mork with the Treatise on Heresy, we see good reason to believe that they are from the same hand' ; 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 Anti christ to him by ancient MSS., is a further proof that the Treatise on Heresy is by Hippolytus. There is also considerable similarity in some pas sages of this Work to certain sections of the Work on Heresy by St. Irenaeus, the master of St. Hippo lytus, especially in those portions where our Author treats on the Apocalyptic prophecies ''. Upon these, however, the reader may remark, that Hippolytus appears studiously to have avoided any approximation * On the Revelation, xii. 18 ; xiii. 1 ; xviii. 10. ' E. g. Work on Antichrist. Treatise on Heresy. p. 5, c. 2. /ji-q irXavS), used pa- p. 336. 18. ixrj irXavS), 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. Aoyos 6 tov 0eov p. 336. 44. Aoyos o ®eov, 6 Hats, TrpiDToyovos HaTpos Hats. p. 6, c. 3. ets 6 TOV 6eov Hats. ° Compare p. 25, c. 50, on the name of the Beast in the Apo calypse, with Irenaeus v. 30. 166 Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. to Millenarian tenets, favoured in some degree by his predecessor and teacher, St. Irenaeus. Indeed, he inculcates doctrines wholly at variance with JNlille- narian notions '. What has been already said ' with regard to the Author of the Treatise on the Universe, in this respect is applicable here. This Treatise was not a public address, but was transmitted privately to a certain Theophilus, aud was accompanied M'ith expressions of reverential fear^ 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 IMo- narchy of Daniel with the Roman Empire ' ; and he also identifies the Babylon of the Apocalypse with the City of Rome ^ 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 ' See particularly cap, 44 — 46, on the Two Advents of Christ, and cap. 64, on the Second Advent, represented as contempora neous with the General Resurrection, and Judgment, and Confla gration of the Earth. ' Above, p. 157. ' c. 29, TavTa o-ot /tera (f>6j3ov /ieTaStSop.ev. ' P. 14, c. 25 ; p. 16, c. 32. Orfpiov reraprov — rtves ovtoi dXX' ^ 'PoDpaioi, oTrep ecTTiv 6 o-tSijpos, -q vvv ea-rCxra /3ao-tXeia ; P. 16, c, 34. -^St; Kparet o-tSr;pds, ' P. is, c. 30. Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 167 obnoxious to such Roman readers as did not look M'ith pious hope beyond the subversion of the Roman Em pire, and the fall of the Roman City, to the full and final victory of Christ \ Photius, in his Comment* on this Treatise of St. Hippolytus On Antichrist, remarks that it re- ' Thus incidentally the author explains St. Paul's reserve in 2 Thess. ii. 6. ¦* 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 re nounce the exposition of Time for the exposition of the Fathers, with regard to prophecies unfulfilled in their age, and who 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 Exposition 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 them of living in a later age, and of reading prophecy by the light of history. In order to be consistent, ought not such expositors of prophecy to interpret the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning Christ, not by the facts of the Gospel, but by the opinions of learned Jews, who lived before Christ ? 168 Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. sembled the Exposition by the same Author of the Book of Daniel ', and that both Mi-itings evinced somcM'hat of 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 re cords the judgment of the Church concerning the true interpretation of prophecies which had been fulfilled in that age, it is of very great value, parti cularly if it be supposed, which appears to be most probable, to have come from the pen of Hippolytus, ° Cod. 202. Fabricius appears to have been led in one in stance 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 contained in the Exposition on Daniel by Hippolytus, as appears from Photius, Cod. 202, who adds that Hippolytus reckoned 5500 from the Creation to Christ. M. Bunsen infers that Hippolytus wrote the Treatise in a time of peace, because he placed the appearance of Antichrist at about 300 years after his own time. But this reasoning is fallacious. Hippolytus placed the ap pearance 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 chronolo gical calculations, would have expired then. • The MS. of St. Germanus has i^aKtax'^'oiTTqi -irei/TaKOiriiji eret: but the true reading, I conceive, is iK xP'i^rov TreiiTaKoalif eret. The reason of this will appeal- frum what is said in the note above. Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 169 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 * the readings of the manuscript used by Hippolytus, the third in order from St. John '. It is also an important witness of primitive doc trine. It teaches, in the most explicit manner, the Di vinity and Humanity of Christ, the Word of God ^ by Whom we, says the Author, have received the Regeneration effected through the Holy Ghost'. It 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 ' " Perhaps," — because the reading in Hippolytus may have been altered to suit a text of the Apocalypse. ' In Rev. xvii. 8 this MS. had Kai irapea-rai, and Rev. xviii. eKoXX-q&qa-av. 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 Scholz and others as such. ' c. 61. -xpuTTOV, iratSa 0€ov, ©eov Kat dvBpwirov Kard-yycXXo- jxevov. ' c. 3. 170 Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. wafting the Vessel in its course to the harbour of eternal peace '. V. Another Work ascribed to St. Hippolytus is a Homily on " the ^ 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 Mould be introduced through that Holy Sacrament, 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-disco vered Treatise. But there is, in one respect, a wide difference between them. The Homily was ad dressed to those who had been previously trained under Christian Instruction. But the peroration of the Treatise on Heresy 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 two last pages of the Homily there are twenty-five direct ' See the notes on this passage below, pt. ii. near the end. ' M. Bunsen translates this title " a (baptismal) Sermon on Epiphany," p. 276, which conveys an incorrect idea. On the word 6eo<^dveta, see Casaubon, Exc. Baron, ii. sect. xi. Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 171 quotations from Holy Scripture, but in the pero ration to the Treatise on Heresy 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 " the Confes sion of Faith " of St. Hippolytus. But this is a very 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'. This Homily on the Theophania was supplied to Fabricius, for his edition, by Roger Gale, from a MS. in the valuable library of his father, Thomas Gale, and is the only contribution of that kind which . was made by the libraries of this country *. ^ It is to be regretted that M. Bunsen 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 : " Hippolytus' own Confession." It is also to be deplored that M. Bunsen, in framing a " Con fession of Faith '' for St. Hippolytus, has paid little or no regard to the various heresies which Hippolytus refutes in his Treatise on Heresy. 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. * 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. 1 72 Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 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 our Treatise '. Thus it may be regarded as supplementary to that other address, and may aid us in ascertaining from St. Hippolytus what he himself would have recognized as his own " Confession of Faith." In corroboration of this assertion, let me ad duce some paragraphs from the conclusion of this Homily. Perhaps there is no document extant, among the Patristic remains of the Antenicene age, which states in a shorter compass and clearer terms the doctrine of the primitive Church concerning the Sacrament of Baptism. The Author is speaking to the candidates for Bap tism, and thus expresses himself. " Give me your attention, I beseech you, with earnestness, for I desire to recur to the fount of life, and to see the well-spring of healing flowing forth. The Father of Immortality sent forth his Immortal Son and Word into the World. He came to wash man with Water and the Holy Ghost, and having regenerated him to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the breath of life, having clothed us with the armour of immor tality. If then man has become immortal, he will '^ Some evidences of this may be seen in the Notes to the Trans lation at the close of this Volume. Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 173 also be divinized^; 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 adop tion 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 adop tion of sonship to God. . . . And how ? you may ask. ... As follows — If you do not commit adultery, or murder, or idolatry'. 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 ^ ° eo-Tat Kat 0eos, et Se Oeos Si' See Philosoph. p. 239. yeyo- vSaTOS Kat TTvevp-aTOs dyiov fxerd vas ydp 0eos . . . o-ov TTTOivevet TYjV r^s KoXvpL/BrjOpai; dvayev- ®eos, koi ere ©eov TTOtrJo-as eis VTjo-iv yiyverai, koi crvyKX-qpovo- Sd^av avTov. /Aos -xpuTTOv evpia-Kerai. ' A negative argument against Infant Baptism has been derived by 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. ' Is. i. 16. 1 74 Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. Wash ye and seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge 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 S7ww ; though they be red as crimson, they shall be as wool ; if ye be will ing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land. " You see, beloved, how the Prophet foretold the purifying efficacy of Baptism. For he M'ho 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, M'hat is most of all, he comes forth a son of God, and felloM'-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 very important document for ascer taining 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 '. It has generally been received as his, and the points of resemblance in thought and lan guage, between that Homily and the Ninth Book of our Treatise, are so numerous and so striking, that ' S. Hippol. Opera, ii. 5—20. Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. 175 they greatly strengthen the proof, that they are from the same person, — and that this person is Hippolytus'. The whole of this Homily is so valuable and in structive, as a witness of Christian teaching in the beginning of the third century, that it Mould be difficult to make extracts from it. But as it has been alleged that our Author 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 ', 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." He then encounters the argument of the Noetians, who charged the orthodox with belief in two Gods, because they maintained that the Father is God, and the Son God, — He replies, " I will not say two Gods *, ' Portions of this Homily have been adopted by Epiphanius in his article on Noetus. Haeres. Ivii. pp. 479 — 489. It does not appear that Epiphanius had read the article on Noetus and Cal listus in our Treatise, or he could hardly have said (p. 479) that Noetus arose about 1 30 years before his time ; which would bring Noetus down as low as a.d. 245. ' M. Bunsen, i. pp. 302—304. ^ S. Hippol. in Noet. c. 12, ed. Fabric, ii. p. 14. ' c. 14. 176 Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus. but one God, and two Persons. For the Father is one ; but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son, and the third Person is the Holy Ghost ^ The Father is over all things; the Son through all things ; the Holy Ghost in all things. We cannot otherM'ise 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 ^ Go and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the name ofthe Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, showing 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 described the human acts and sufferings, as M'ell as the divine miracles, of Christ, he concludes with saying ', 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 ' Compare also ibid. cap. 9 : " Whatsoever the Holy Scrip tures 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." Yet M. Bunsen (p. 297) quotes with approval the following statement, which he has translated from the German original : " Hippolytus decidedly ascribes no personality to the Holy Spirit." ' Matt, xxviii. 19. ' c. 18. Works ascribed to Si. Hippolytus. 177 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 Holy Spirit, in the Holy Church, now and for ever. Amen." Sufficient has now been said to shoM- the value of the newly-discovered Treatise, with regard to those other Works ascribed to St. Hippolytus '. The * It has not been the design of this Chapter to notice all the works assigned to Hippolytus ; particularly the work " De Con- summatione 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. St. Hippolytus is recorded to have been among the earliest expositors of Holy Scripture. On his Statue are inscribed the words ei Above, pp. 174—177. * How different from M. Bunsen's judgment concerning the theology of St. Hippolytus is that of another German Theologian who had examined his works with care. " Castigaiissime loquitur sanctus Hippolytus de mysterio Sanctissimse Trinilatis aperteque declarat fidem circa unitatem Naturae et distinctionem Persona- rum. . . . Sane nemo posset hisce temporibus magis accurate loqui de Mysterio Trinitatis. ¦ . . Pari praecisione loquitur sane- 186 071 the Theory of Development With regard to Dr. Newman's allegation, that the Eternal Generation of the Son is not taught by Hi[)- polytus, this has been fully discussed in another place, and it M'ould be superfluous to say more on that sub ject here '. To prove that Hippolytus was not a Photinian is happily as needless '. But for the sake of some readers it may be desirable to offer some remarks on the Theory of M. Bunsen and Dr. Newman as applied to St. Hip polytus, and to others of his age ^. 1. First then, let it even be supposed, for argu ment's sake, that St. Hippolytus and other ancient Fathers of the Church had spoken ambiguously or inadequately, or even erroneously, concerning certain Articles of the Faith, now received by the Church, and embodied in her Creeds. tus ille Episcopus de Divinitate ac consubstantialitate Verbi." P. Gottf. Lumper, Histor. Theol. Critica, viii. 123 — 131. It may here be observed also, that the venerable President of St, Mary Magdalene College, Oxford, Dr. Routh, has made choice of the Homily of St. Hippolytus against Noetus for a sound Exposition of the Catholic doctrine concerning the Nature of Christ. Script. Eccl. Opuscula, Pref. iii. Oxon. 1832. ' Letters to M. Gondon, Letter viii. pp. 210 — 214, ed. 3. See also below, Notes to Pt. II. near the end. ' See above, p. 180, note. ' I call it the theory of both, for though the developing Autho rity is different in the two systems, yet each asserts the principle of Development. of Christian Doctrine. 187 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 acknow ledge that Faith, and acknowledge it as complete ; or that a single iota has been added to it since their age. For (2) let it be remembered that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament existed in their time. 3. 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 Faitli, whole and complete, is contained in those Scriptures. Nothing can be more explicit than the testimony of St. Hippolytus, and of his master St. Irenseus, and of other ancient Fathers to this effect '"•. " See, for example, S. Hippol. c. Noet. § 9. ets ©eos, ov ovk aXXo^ev iiriyi-yvuKTKOfjiev, -q eK tGv dytcov ypav . . . oo-oi 6coa-e/3eLav do-Ketv fiovXafieOa ovk dXXoOev da-K-qcrop-ev -q €k tZv Xoyioiv tov ©eov. "Ocra Totvvv K-qpva-crova-iv al $eiai ypatftal, iSo)/j.ev, KOI ocra SiSdo-Kovcriv iiriyviDiJt.ev, . . . p.-q Kar' tSiav irpoai- pecriv fJi-qSe Kar iStov vovv, prjSe ^la^ofievoi Ta viro rov ©eov StSd/neva, dXX' ov rpoirov avTOS i/SovXrjO-q Std tuv dyioiv ypaS>v Seliai, ovrus iSto/aev. See also S. Hippol. ap. Euseb. v. 28, con cerning heretics, ypads, Kai cto-tv dTrto-TOt -q eavToiis iTyovvTat o-o^ooTe'povs tov 'Aytov nvevp,aTos virdpxeiv. The 188 On the Theory of Development Next (4) let it not be forgotten that Articles of Faith are confessedly mysterious ; and that a careful consideration, collation, and comparison of various texts of Holy Scripture is requisite for the avoidance of error, and for the declaration of truth in perfect plenitude and harmonious proportion ; and that such consideration, collation, and comparison, is a work of time. statements of St. Irenaeus 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 oo-a ^avcpSs Kat dvap,(^i/3dXaipe(j6ui. S. Basil, de Fide, c. 2, avepd eKTrTwo-is Trio-Teois 1} d^CTeiv Ti Tulv yeypa/JL/jievwv, -q iireia-dyeiv tZv p.rj yeypap.- p,evwv. So that Hooker had good cause to say, Eccl. Pol. ii. v. 4, " To urge any thing upon the Church, requiring thereunto that religious assent of Christian belief wherewith the words of the Holy Prophets are received, — to urge any thing 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 ever more think unlawful, impious, execrable." See also the authorities quoted in the seasonable publication of the Christian Advocate, The Rev. J. A. Frere, Cambridge, 1852, pp. 110—135. of Christian Doctrine. 189 5. Let it be observed, that men are prone to d M'ell on specific truths, to the neglect of others equally important. In dealing M'ith 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. 6. The Catholic Fathers protest against this par tiality — and no one more forcibly than St. Hippo lytus '. 7. 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 Mas yet dominant at Rome, the fear of Polytheism tended to produce Monarchianism, and so acted as an obstacle, in cer tain quarters, to the reception of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, misconceived to be Tritheism. This fear of abandoning the doctrine of the Divine Unity engendered Sabellianism on one side, and Photini- ' See, for example, c. Noetum, § 3, where he rebukes the Noetians for quoting the Scriptures /ttovoKtoXa, i. e. piecemeal, — single texts, broken off from the context, — and refutes their false reasoning deduced from isolated texts, by reference to Scrip ture as a whole, oXoKXijptos, § 4. birorav ^eX^o-oio-i iravovpyevecr^ai TreptKOTTTOvo-i Tas ypaUTp,a tov totc Tt) iroXei irepia-rdvra ki'vSvvov xapeX^eiv iiroi-qa-ev, Sicrirep veo%. Longinus, de Sublim. c. 39. CHAPTER XII. APPEAL TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS ON THE PRESENT CLAIMS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH TO SUPREMACY. 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, " the sum of Christianity '." 1. Among the arguments adduced by our Romanist brethren, in behalf of the Papal claim to Supremacy, none appears to be urged with greater frequency or more confidence than that which they derive from a well-known passage of St. Irenseus ^ 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 ; ' Bellarmin. de Pontifice, vol. i. p. 189, ed. 1615. De qua re agitur cum de primatu Pontificis agitur ? Brevissime dicam, De summd rei Christianitatis. ' S. Iren. iii. 3. 0 2 196 Appeal to St. Hippolytus He is describing " the Church of Rome, as founded 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 I" Here, it is affirmed by Romanist Theologians, is a declaration from St. Irenseus, one of the most emi nent Bishops of the Church in the second century after Christ, that every Church " must coniform to the Church of Rome, on account of its more power ful principality." Therefore here is an acknowledgment, they say, of her Supremacy; and an assertion that it is the duty of all Christians and of all Churches, to submit to the Church of Rome. And, since the Bishop of Rome is the head of that Church, therefore all, they affirm, are bound to pay dutiful homage and filial obedience to him. 2. This passage, it will shortly be seen, may form an introduction to an Appeal on this important ques tion to the authority of St. Hippolytus. But more on this shortly. In the mean time, let us 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 *, he next \ ' S. Iren. iii. 3. ' iii. 2. ° As was usual with the primitive Catholic writers in his age. on Roman Claims to Supremacy. 197 proceeds to encounter them by the testimony of the Catholic Church. 3. How was this testimony to be obtained ? " It would be very tedious"," he tells them, to cite, as it were, all the Churches of Christendom as witnesses. He M'ill therefore be content with one Church. His argument is — ab mid disce omnes. He will, we say, be satisfied with one. And since he is writing in the West, the Church, which he will select, shall be a Western Church ; it shall be the Church generally acknowledged to have been planted by Apostolic hands in the West — it shall be a Church founded by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul — one whose succession of Bishops was well authenti cated and generally known — the Church of Rome '. St. Irenseus then introduced the passage to which Bp. Pearson, Dissert, i. cap. 3, says, " ab Episcoporum succes sione argumentari solebant secundi tertiique seculi Patres ad versus sui temporis Haereticos." " Valde longura esset omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare succes- siones. ' The reader may compare the very similar argument of a contemporary of St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, De Praescr. Haereticor, c. 21. Constat omnem doctrinam quas cum illis Ecclesiis Apos- tolicis matricihus et originalibus fidei conspirat veritati deputan- dam. C. 36 : Percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesident, apud quas authenticae literae eorum recitantur, sonantes voeem et repraesen- tantes faciem uniuscujusque. It is observable that Tertullian dwells on nearness of lime to the Apostles, as well as identity of place, as a ground for this 198 Appeal to St. Hippolytus Ave have already adverted. Unhappily that passage is known to us only through the medium of an old Latin Translation. The original Greek words of Irenseus 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, con servata est ea quse est ab Apostolis traditio." 4. 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 Irenseus 1 It does not appear that they are. For (1) they are at variance with the drift of the 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 to such an appeal now to the Churches of Ephesus and Corinth, whom she 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 auctoritas prassto est." on Roman Claims to Supremacy. 199 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 testi mony. 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 col lected 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 kncM- 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 enume rates from the first Bishop of Rome, Linus, to M'hose charge (he says) those two blessed Apostles com mitted the Roman Church, down to the then pre siding Bishop of Rome, the twelfth in order, Eleutherus. 2. What then would he next say ? What does he say in the words " ad hanc Ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est omnes qui sunt undique fideles ? " Not, that every one, then and for ever after, must submit to the Church of Rome. No. If that had been true, then he would never have said, that, " be cause it would be tedious to appeal to all Churches," he would therefore appeal to one Church — the Church of Rome. Such a statement would have 200 Appeal to St. Hippolytus been absurd, if Rome had been supreme ovcr 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 M'ords mean ? They signify this : That, on account of tlie greater antiquity of Rome — for such is the meaning of the words " potentior principalitas ^ " — it may be taken for granted, that every Church coincides with Rome, and is represented by her ; that is, all believers, who exist in all places ', agree with her ; or, in other words, every Church (he says) in which the tradition from the Apostles has been preserved by those M'ho exist every where, i. e. by true Catholics, as opposed to heretics, M'ho existed only in particular places. Hence, then, he means to * Principalitas, in the old Latin version of Irenasus (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 posterioritas. The argument may be illustrated by Tertullian's reference (see above, p. 197,note) to Ecclesias originates et matrices. The original words used by Irenaeus were probably iKavwrepav dpxaiorrjra. In this same chapter the Latin Translator has rendered iKavoiraTj; by potentissima. 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 primitive- ness." ' The word undique, as is well observed by Thiersch on this passage, is used in this old Latin Version of Irenaeus for ubique. on Roman Claims to Supremacy . 201 say, his reference to Rome is a just one; and by appealing to that Church he has appealed to all Churches, whose testimony may be supposed to be embodied and involved in hers. 3. Let it be observed, further, that St. Irenseus, so far from countenancing in this passage the doctrine of Papal Supremacy, as taught by Romish Divines, does in fact, by implication, overthrow the founda tion on which they make it rest. They base that doctrine on the words of our Blessed Lord to St. Peter ^ ; whom they affirm to be the Rock on which the Church is built. And they 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 suc ceeding 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 supre macy for St. Peter alone, as Head of the Church, and also claims the same prerogatives for the Bishops of Rome, as successors of St. Peter. ' Matth. xvi. 18, " On this Rock I will build My Church." 202 Appeal to St. Hippolytus Such then appears to be the true meaning of the words of St. Irenseus. 4. In confirmation of this interpretation, let us revert to the fact, that the words quoted by our Romanist brethren as from St. Irenseus are not his own words, but are only a Latin Version of them. This is necessary to be borne in mind. Since this Old Latin Version is a literal one (as is evident by comparison of it with the Greek iu 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 avdyKT]. The word avwyKi), it is well known, often implies a reasonable inference, — not a moral obligation. Such an use is common to all Greek Writers in prose and verse ; ttoXX?; 7' avdr/Kr) — Traa e'crr' av- dyKT] — in the Greek dramatic writers, and in the Dialogues of Plato, signify simply, " By all means," or, " it follows, of course, that it is so, or will be so." The same is the case in Ecclesiastical Writers. Thus when Theodoret says ', dvOpdnrov; avdyKi} irpoa-'n-Taieiv ovTa<;, 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 one is free from error. When St. Chrysostom says *, dvdyKrj tov 6p,t- ' Eccl. Hist. iv. 5. ¦* These words are quoted from St. Chrysostom in " Hele's Select Offices of Private Devotion,'' published by the "Society on Roman Claims to Supremacy. 203 \ovvTa 0ea KpeiTTOva yeveaOai, BavaTov, koi irdar]!; htav KaKuiv yevopevqv yvwprjv 6ppi]cravTas SieXey^ai Tives a'l TavTrjs cipxai, OTTWS evyvwcTTOi at eKt^vddes avTrjs drracri yevo- pevai KaTa(f)povr]9(i)ai. Teyevr]Tai ns ovopan 'Notjtos, T(p yevei 10 'StpvpvaTos. Ovtos eiv ervval- tum iigunt, nonnulU ad a.d. 219 pea-6ai ra \6ya. continuant. Vide Clintoni Fas- 27. Haec et quae sequuntur co- tos ad a.d. 210. Ab a.d. 202 lorem orationis traxisse videntur ad a.d. 218 sedisse statuit Jaffe, ex Apostoli historia suam ipsius Regest. Pontif. p. 5, ed. 1851. cum B. Petro concertationem ., J , ,,. s enarrantis, ad Galat. ii. 5 — 13. lb. Zemvptvov vopiQovros oi- „, . , , . \ a> o > ,,.. , ji.. 1 31. eiri rov avrov pofipopov av- eireiv rqv eKKAqmav, de hac lo- -r t> . o " oo » quendi formula vide, si lubet, quae supra monuimus, pp. 83 — 90, eKvXiovTo ex B. Petr. 2. ii. 22, vs Xovcrapevq els KvXiirpov 0op/3d- pov : quae quidem Sancti Apos- 20. wppqTo sic MS. Sed le- toll verba ex Graeco Senario Pro- gendum videtur Mpfiaro. verbiali videntur efficta, quem sic 26. avvaipel(T6ai ita ex Codice se olim habuisse conjecerim, MiUerus. Sed reposueris avvai- els iSiov e^epap' enia-Tpe-^lras kviov, peadai ; vide Philosophumena, inf. XeXovpevq 6' vs els KvXicrfia j3op0o- 288, 89. (Tvvapdpevov, et p. 143, pov. 230 Philosophumena. P. 280 'AXX' eVei Ti\s yeveaXoyias avrwv rrjv SiaSoxvP cTredei^anev, doKcT Xoittov Kai twv Soy- f^idnov T7]v KaKodidauKaXiav eKOedOai, Trporepov rd 'Hpa/cXetr^ np "SiKoreivt^ So^avra TzapaOe- 5 pevovs, eireira Kai rd tovtwv peprj HpaKXeireia ovra (^avepwuai, a rv^ovres ol vvv TrpodTdrai TTJs aipeaews ovk \aa(Tiv 'ovra tov ^Koreivov, void^ovTes elvai Xpia-Tov. Ois el everv^ov, Kav ovTW 8v(TioTri]0evTes Travaovrai rrjs aOeov dva- 10 (prfpias. 'AXX' el koI Trporepov eKKeirai v(^ ripwv ev To7s ^iXoao^ovfievois rj do^a Hpa- kXcitov, dXXd ye SoKeT TTpocravaTrapaxOrjvai Kai vvv, OTTWS Sid tov eyyiovos eXey^ov (f)avepws SiSaxOwcriv ol tovtov vopi^ovres Xpiarov eivai 15 pa6r]Tas, ovk ovras, aXXa rod ^Koreivov. 'HpaKXetros /.lev ovv (jyrjaiv eivai to ttciv Siaiperbv, aSiaiperov, yevrfTov, ayevqTov, Ovtjtov, dOdvarov, Xoyov alwva, Trarepa viov, deov Si- Kaiov. " Ovk epov, aXXa tov Soyparos aKov- 20 aravras bpoXoyelv ao^ov eanv, ev jravra 5. Cod. eire\ KOI rd. 7. Cod. e'ia-a(Tiv. II. Cod. <^iXo- a-o(j)ovpevovs. Cf. lib. I. Cap. 4. 12. Cod. Trpos dvirapaxBqvai. 13. Cod. d-yyiovos eKKey^ov. 20. Cod. iiTTiv ev. 11. Pro Kav ouTo) iravtTovrai le- 21. \6yos dia ovcrias roii irav- gendum videtur Travo-aicTOTt, vide ros hiqKoiv. Heraclitus vocat ou- Praef. p. 2. Ziras ala-xvvdevres crlav elpappevqs, vide Stob. Eel. Travtravral rt rqs dKoyia-rov yvi>- Phys. i. vi. 15. Galen. Hist. pqs. Phil.x. Plutarch. Placit. Phil. 28. 13. Lib. i. p. 10. ib. iravra yj/vxcov koi 8aip6va>v Digression on Heraclitus. 231 But since we have indicated the succession ofP-280 their lineage, it seems requisite now to exhibit the pravity of their doctrines. (This we will do) first by setting down the opinions of Heraclitus the Ob scure, next by displaying those portions of their 5 system that are derived from him, which they who now promote this heresy have espoused, being not aware that those tenets are borrowed from Heracli tus ; but they imagine them to be from Christ. If, however, they met with them (thus displayed), per- lo haps 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 "Phi losophumena," yet we Mill now also revert to them, in order that by this closer examination, those per- 15 sons may be instructed, who imagine that these men are disciples of Christ, whereas they are scholars not of Him, but of Heraclitus. Heraclitus then asserts that all things are divisible, indivisible ; created, uncreated ; mortal, immortal ; 20 Reason, Eternity ; Father, Son ; but that Deity is by chance. " It is M'ise," he says, " to listen, not to me, but to the doctrine, and to confess that all thiugs eTvai nXea statuebat Heraclitus: Koiovh.e.estfortuitum: eiKalovcum vide Diog. Laert. ix. SUaiov confundi alibi monui (ad 21. Beov SUatov. Sic Codex, Theocr.p. 115). Quodadsensum etiara Bernaysio tacente, et ut attinet, rem expUcare videtur nos- videtur, probante apud Bunsen. ter inf. 281. 77, roi/s pev fieour (i V. pp. xl. xiii.) vix a me impetrare i'Sei^e roiis Se dvdpwirovs, sed utrum possum, utAiVaioK sanum credam. horum, esse incertum. Quippe Ne te morer, pro AIKAION legen- Providentiam abnegabat Heracli- dum conjecerim A' EIKAION ; f(- tus et omnia casui permittebat. 232 Philosophumena. eivai, 6 'HpoKXeiTos (j)r)(Ti, Kai on tovto ovk laraai Travres ovSe bpoXoyovtriv, eTTipep^erai wSe TTWS' " Ov ^vviaaiv okws Sia(j)ep6pevov ewvTip opoXoyeeiv TraXivrpoTTOs dpfiovir] okws 25 Trep ro^ov Kai \vpi]S. On ce Koyos eanv aei TO TTav Kai Sia TTavros wv, ovtws Xeyei' " Tov Se Xoyov TOV Seovros aei a^vveroi yivovrai dvOpwTTOi, Kai TTpoaOev 7] aKovrrai Kai aKOv- uavres to TTpwrov' yivopevwv yap ttuvtwv P. 28 1 icara tov Xoyov rovSe UTTeipoi elaiv, eoiKaai rreipw^evoi Kai eiTewv Kai epywv roiovrewv bKoTa e'yw SiTjyevpai, Siaipewv Kara ^vtriv koI (^pd'Cwv OKWS e;^ei. Urt oe eori Trais to TTav Kai ci 21. Cod. iravra elhevai. 22. Cod. fto-ao-i. 23. "Pro TToKlvrpoTros legitur irdKivrovos apud Plut. de Isid. et Osirid. p. 369, A ; naXiKroj/os yap dppovir) Koa-pov axrirep \iprjs Ka\ ro^ov, Ka6' 'HpaKKeiTov." Miller. 25. Cod. &v. 26. Cod. del ^erot. " Correctum ex Clem. Al. Strom. V. p. 716." MiUer. 28. Cod. aKOvaavras et yivopevov. 1 . Cod. oTroIa. 2. Cod. hirjyevpai, Stepetov. 3. Cod. onois. 23. opoXoyeeiv. MiUerus le- Trep Xvprjs Kai ro^ov. His ad- gendum censet opokoyeei, sed scribi meretur nobile Heracliti jungenda videntur ^vvlaa-iv opo- fragmentumquod conservavit Sto- \oyeetv, dixerat enim e7rip€p(j>eTai baeus Eclog. Phys, i. xiii. a-uv- OTi TOVTO ou;^ opoXoyoviTiv. ai//-eias ovXov Kai ov^l ovKov a-vp- ib. dLa(f)ep6pevov eoyijra irdklv- ^epopevov d i a ej> e p 6 p e v o v, rpoiros dppovLTj 6kep6pevov del avp(l)epeTai. Euseb. Praepar. Evang. xiv. 4, et Schleiermacher de Heraclito in Mus. Antiq. Stud. I. p. 408. 26. Aristot. Rhet. iii. 5. ra 'HpaxXeiVov Siaa-ri^ai epyop, (f)rj(rl yap " rov Xo-yoif roOS' eovros alel d^vperoi apBpairoi yiyvopraf " aSij- Xop yap TO alel Trpos oirorepop dei Stao-Ti'lai. Citat v. 26 usque ad oKas exei Sextus Empiricus adv. Mathem. Lib. vii. p. 162, ed. Aurel. 1621. 28. Comparari possunt verba Heracliti ap. Clem. Alex. p. 156. 14, Potter, oi poveova-iv Toiaiira TroXXol oKoa-oi eyKvpeova-i, oiSe padovres yiyvaa-Kova-i. 1. airiipol elcriv eoUaai ireipto- pevoi Kai eireav. Sic MS. Delet ela-i MiUerus, adstipulante, ut ait Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 718, sed ibi Ko}cf)o1s foiKao-i Clemens, unde pro AHEIPOl EI2IN eoUaatv, le- gere mallem AHEIPOISIN eoUaa-i, i. e. inexperOs similes sunt, et sic reddidi. 5. Lucian. in Vitarum Auc- tione, i. p. 554, ed. Hemsterh. APOP. ri ydp 6 Alaip eVn; HPA- KAEIT02. Trots iral^av, neaaevuip, 8ia(t>ep6pepos, ubi res humanas plo- rat Heraclitus, on epireSop oiSep, dXXd K(os els KVKeapa irdpra (Tvpei- Xeerai Kai on tiovto repyj/is, drep- ^irf, yvaxTis, dypaairf, peya, pi- Kpop, dv(o, Kara), irepi\opevopra Kai dpeijBupepa ev Tjj rov alavos iraidlrf. ib. Trais. Sic enim viam sibi munit Hippolytus qua ab Hera- 234 Philosophumena. 5 alwvos alwvios fiaaiXevs twv bXwv ovtws Xeyei' " Alwv TTals ecrrl TTaiZ,wv, ttcttcvwv' ttuiSos 7) /3a(rtXr/iJj." "On ^e' eanv b TTarrjp Trdvrwv twv yeyovoTwv yev7\TWv, ayevrjros KTicris Srjpiovpyos, cKeivov XeyovTOS aKovwfiev' " HoXepos TTavrwv 10 pev TTarrip ean, Trdvrwv Se ^aaiXevs, Kai tovs pev 9eovs eSei^e, tovs Se dvOpwrrovs, tovs pev SovXovs eTTOitjae, tovs Se eXevOepovs. 'On Se ianv " dppoviT] okws Trep to^ov Kai Xvptjs. On Se [^earlv] d(l)avrjs b ddparos ayvwaros avOpwrrois 15 ev TOVTOis Xeyei' " 'Ap/tovtrj d(l>av7js ^avepris KpeiTTwv." '^TTaiveT Kai TrpoOavfia^ei Trpo rov yivwaKopevov to ayvwarov avrov Kai aoparov TTJs Svvdfiews. 'On Se eanv bparos avOpwTTOis Kci'i OVK dve^evperos, ev rovrois Xeyei' " Oawv 20 oipis, dKOT], pdOrjais, ravra eyw rrponpew, (f>rjai, Tovreari ra bpara rwv aopdrwv. Atto twv ToiovTwv avrov Xoywv KaravoeTv pq,Siov' e^rjTra- ryvrai, <^r]alv, ol avOpwTTOi Trpos T7]v yvwaiv rwv (f)avepwv TrapaTrXyaiws Opripif), os eyevero twv 25 ^XXrivwv ao^wrepos Trdvrwv. FiKeTvov re yap TraiSes ^Oeipas KaraKreivovres e^rjTrdrTjaav el- 9. Cod. aKovopep. 14. In cod. post Sc vocula verme exesa. 19. Cod. ap e^evperos. ib. Cod. oa-op o-^is. clito Noetum sua sumpsisse con- praeiverat Irenaeus v. 6. Vide c. firmet. " Solenne enim Hippo- Noet. §5. §7, voCs llarpos 6 lyto Filium Dei appellare TraiSa Hais. J II, Ad-yos NoSs os Trpo- ©eoO," ait Grabius ad BuU. Def. ^aseVKda-pae'SeiKvuTonatseeot). Fid. Nic. ii. 8. o, Sed in hac re de Antichristo, c. 3. ut in aliis plerisque, Hippolyto 12. Vide Heraclit. ap. Stob, Heraclitus. 235 eternal king of all things through eternity, he thus declares. " A boy at his games, playing with his dice, is eternity ; the kingdom is his ;" And let us hear how he teaches that uncreated creature creating is the parent of all created things. "Antagonism lo is the parent of all things, and the ruler of all : and some it generated to be gods, and some men ; some it produced slaves, and some free." And that there is a harmony, as in a bow and lyre. And that invisible harmony is better, unseen and 15 unknown to men, he thus says : " Harmony invisible is better than visible." He thus praises and prefers that which is unknown and invisible of its power, before that which is visible. But that harmony visible to men and not un- 20 discoverable is preferable, he says thus : " As many things as are subject to the sense of sight, hearing, intelligence, these I prefer," he says : that is, he prefers the visible to the invisible. From such words as these it is easy to compre- 25 bend him. " Men," says he, "are deceived with re gard to the knowledge of what is evident, as Homer was, who was wiser than all the Greeks." Eclog. I. iii. 28. Trvp diSioi' eK rrjs Kpelrrtop. Tum post dcpavffs de- epavTioBpopias hrfpiovpyop rap lendum O. oXap. 25. Karavoelp paSiop, ironice 20. Post on 8e vocem verme dictum. exesam notat MiUerus qui sup- 28. Caetera quae in hoc com- plevit e'cTTiV. Supplendum videtur mate leguntur prudens praetereo. 236 Philosophumena. TTovres, ' Oaa eiSopev Kai KareXd^opev, ravra UKoKenropev, oaa ce ovre eioopev ovr e\a- (iopev, ravra ^epopev. 30 Ovtws 'Hpa/cXeiros ev \ay poipq, riOerai Kai npg, ra ep(f>avrj roTs a^aveaiv, ws 'ev n to P.282 ep^aves Kai to agaves bpoXoyovpevws VTrdp^ov. Tis yap, ^7]aiv, " dppovi7] a^avrjs (f)avep^s Kpeir- TWV. Kat oawv oxyis, aK07], pauyais {rovrean rd opyava), ravra, ^rjaiv, eyw Trponpew," ov 5 ra a^avri Trporifiriaas. Toiyapovv ovSe aKoros ovSe (j)ws, ovSe TrovTjpov ovSe ayaOov erepov (f)r]aiv elvai o Hpa/cXetro?, aXXa ev Kai rb avrb. FiTTinp^ yovv 'YlaioSip 'on rjpepav kci'i vvKra olSev. Hpepa yap, (j)i]ai, Kai vv^ eanv ev, 10 Xeywj^ wSe ttws' " AiSdaKaXos Se TrXeiarwv HaioSos' TOVTOV eTTiaravTai TrXeXara elSevai, bans rjpepTjv Kai ev(^p6v7]v ovk eyivwaKev. "E«m yap ev Kai ayadov Kai kukov. Ol yovv larpol, (^7]aiv o Hpa/cXeiros, refivovres, Kaiovres, rravrr) 15 jSaaavi^ovres KaKws rovs appwarovvras, CTrai- Tiwvrai pr)Sev a^iov piaOwv Xapjidveiv rrapd rwv appwarovvTwv, ravra epyaZ,6pevoi rd ayadd Kai Tas voaovs. Kat evOv Se, (j)r]ai, Kai arpe^Xbv, TO avTO can. Tpa^ewv, (f)7]aiv, bSos evOeia koI 2. Cod. dpfiovia rj dfpavrfs. 12. Cod. ei^poirvprfv. 2. Cod. lis yap, (prftrlv, dp- legendum censet ean, deinde popia ij dipaprfs. Pro ris MiUerus appopir) ds apa elirep'Hpd- Tas voa-ovs. KXeiros, ^ApOpoiiroi Oeoi- Qeol av- 24. Homeric. AUegor. } 24. o Bpairoi. Sext. Empir. iii. 24. d ¦yoCj' SKOTeiVOs 'HpdicXeiTos 6eo- 'HpaxXetTos ^rfaip on Kai to ^p Xo-yei rd (fivaiKci, Si 2) p (ftrfa-i, Seoi Kai ro diroBavelv Kai ev ra ^v rfpds SpTfTol, dvdptiyiroi dddparoi, ^avres eo-rl Kai ep ra redpavai' ore pep TOP eKelpap Bdvarov, 6vr]a-KopTes ydp rjpeis ^S>pev Tas -v^up^as f/pSip rffp eKeiptop (afjp. Hue fortasse reBvdpai. Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. Heraclitus. 239 the screw is both straight and crooked ; and the revo lution in the graving-tool is both straight and crooked. For it goes upwards at the same time, and revolves in a circle. And ascent and descent is one. 25 And a road upward and downward is one and the same. And, he says, that what is impure and pure is one and the same, and what is potable and not potable is one and the same. The sea, says he, is very pure water and very impure, being potable and 30 preservative to fish, but not potable and destructive to men. Similarly he says, that what is immortal is mortal, and M'hat is mortal is immortal, in such lan guage as follows : Immortals are mortal, mortals are immortal, the one living the death, but having 36 died the life of the other. He affirms also the Resurrection of this visible P. 283 flesh in which we were born ; and recognizes God as the cause of this Resurrection, saying thus : That they arise again there [through God's aid], and be come the guardians vigilantly of quick and dead. 5 He asserts also a Judgment of the world and all things therein by Fire. Thunder, says he, steers all p. 434. oixi Kai 'HpaicXeiTos 6d- Bunsenium, iv. p. xliii. ep6a 8id varov rrfV yepeaip KoXel ; vide ad Qeop re eiravio-TaoSai Kai 0uXaKas Plat. Gorg. p. 495. A . yiveaOai eyeprl faij/Tmi' Kai veKpccp. 26. Vide Heeren ad Stob. Eel. Color poeticus esse videtur, ita Phys. hi. Cum omnia mutatione ut fortasse versuum hujusmodi re- fieri statueret Heraclitus, hanc ip- liquias delitescere censeam, sam pera^oXrfp obop dva Kai Kara ep6a 8 eopras vocavit teste Diog. Laer. ix. 8. eiirev dpia-raa-Bai (fivXoKds re ye- 4. evda 8' eoPTi eirapiaraaBai veadai eyeprl Kai (j)vXaKas yiveaSai eyepn^op- (,i>PTa>v koi veKpSiv. rap Kai peKpav. Sic Cod. Locum 7. De igne omnium exploratore ita constituit Bernaysius, apud Heraclitus ap. Clem. Al. p. 2.33. 240 Philosophumena. " Ta ^e Trdvra olaKiZ,ei Kepavvbs, rovrean Karevdvvei' Kepavvbv rb TTvp Xeywi^ to alwviov. 10 Aeyet ^e Kat (f>p6vipov rovro elvai to TTvp Kai rrjs SioiK'^aews twv oXwv clitiov' KaXe? Se avro ¦)(pi]apoavv7]v Kai Kopov. Xpyapoavvr] Se eanv 7j SiaKoap7]ais Kar avrov, 7j Se eKTrvpwais Kopos' " Tlavra yap, (prjai, to Trvp eTreXOov KpiveT Kai 15 KaraXTJxperai. Ei^ Se rovn^ T

ai. cunque, et gustui ejus gratijicatu- Vide etiam ibid. J 8. ri Trpos rav- rum. ra vorfo-ei Norfios pr) voap rrfp dXrf- R 242 Philosophumena. vevai aKpoards, dXXd ye [raj rip NorjTip So^avra alpovpevovs ava(f)avSov, ravra opoXoyeTv. Ae- 30 yovai ydp ovrws 'eva koi rbv avrov debv elvai TTavrwv Srjpiovpyov Kai Trarepa, evSoKriaavra Se TTe^yvevai roTs dp^rjOev SiKaiois ovra aoparov. Ore pev yap ov^ opdrai 7]v aoparos, a^x^wpTjros P. 284 ^e ore pr\ ^wpelaQai BeXei, ^wprjrbs Se ore 'x^wpeT- rai. Ovtws Kara rbv avrov Xoyov aKpdrrjTos, ayevrjTOSi aOdvaros Kai 6v7]t6s. Hws ov^ Hpa- KXeiTov ol ToiovToi Sei^Oyaovrai paOrjrai; prj 5 avry ry Xe^ei Sia(j)9daas e^iXoao^yaev o ^ko- reivos ; "On Se koI tov avrov vlbv elvai Xeyet Kai Trarepa ovSeis ayvoel. Aeyet ^e ovtws' ore fxev ovv pr] yeyevrjro b rraryp, SiKaiws rraryp TTpoarjyopevTO. ' Ore ^e TjvSoKtjaev yeveaiv vtto- iQ fielvai, yevrjOeis b vlos eyevero avros eavrov, ov^ erepov. Ovrws ydp SoKei iiovap^iav avv- lardv, ev kcu rb avrb (f)daKwv VTrdp^eiv Trarepa Kai vlov, KoXovpevov ov)^ erepov e^ erepov, aXX 28. " Add. rd. Vel ra in to mutandum." Miller. 32. Cod. Tre<^riKepai. 2. In cod. dKpdrrfTos bis scriptum. 5. Cod. T^ TTI^ prfhe Xe^ei. 8. Cod. prj yeprfro. deiap ; Hinc Callistum, Noetia- permeavit, qui Noetianos insen- nam impietatem haeresim novis satos appellant, vide Philastr. Hae- quibusdam additamentis ador- res. in voce. nantem, Theodoretus tradit e'lriSrj- 31 . toCtg opoXoyeiv. Legendum (COS TiKos enivofja-ai rff Svaae- raird pro TavTu quivis viderit. 0eia rov Soyparos, Haeret. Fab. 32. Post ovras interpungen- iii. 3. Lusus etiam ad Latinos dum. Noetus. 243 dogmas of Noetus, avow the same tenets with Heraclitus. For they say 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. 35 For when He is not seen He was invisible, and in comprehensible when He is not willing to be com- P. 284 prehended ; but comprehensible when He is compre hended. Thus, according to the same argument. He is incomprehensible and comprehensible ; unborn and born ; immortal and mortal. How will not 5 these persons be proved to be Scholars of Heraclitus ? Has not the Obscure Metaphysician anticipated them by philosophizing in their very words ? For every one knows that he, Noetus, calls the same both Son and Father. For he speaks thus; When the Father lo 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. Thus he professes to establish the principle of Monarchianism, saying, that one and the same 1,5 Essence is called by the two names. Father and Son, not one born from the other, but Himself born from 3. Cod. dKpdrrjTos, aKpdrrjTos, " Duos et tres Deos jam jactitant dyevTjTos, dddvaros. Ex tenore a nobis praedicari quasi non et sententiarum patet esse legen- Unitas irrationaliter collecta hae- dum aKpanjTos KpartfTos, dyeprj- resim facial, et Trinitas ration- Tos, yevrjTos. aliter expensa veritatem consti- II. irpoa-rfyipevTo- Mallem tuat. Monarchiam (inquiunt) te- irpotrrfyopevero. nemus. ' 15. Tertullian. c. Praxeam, 3. 16. irarepa Kai vlov, KaXovpepop r2 244 Nai-rative avrov e'6, eavrov, bvopan pev Trarepa koi vlov 15 KaXovpevov Kara ¦^(^povwv rpoTrrjv, 'eva Se elvai TOVTOV TOV (pavevra, Kai yeveaiv eK TrapOevov VTTopeivavra, Kai ev avOpwTTOis dvOpwrrov dva- arpaipevra, vlov pev eavrov roTs bpwaiv bpo- Xoyovvra Sia rrjv yevoiievrjv yeveaiv, Trarepa Se 20 etVat Kai roTs j^wpovaiv /i?j aTTOKpvijjavTa. Tov rov rradei ^vXov TTpoaTrayevra Kai eavnp rb TTvevfia TrapaSovra, aKoOavovra Kai pr] anoOa- vovra, Kai eavrov ry rpiry ypepq. avaaryaavra, TOV ev pvr]pei(p ra^evra Kai X6y)(T^ rpwOevra, 25 Kai yXois KaraTTayevra, tovtov tov twv oXwv Oeov Kai Trarepa elvai Xeyei KXeopevys Kai b tovtov xopbs,'^lipaKXeiTeiov aKoros eTreiadyovres TToXXoTs. Tavryv ryv dipeaiv eKparvve KaXXioro?, 30 dvr]p ev KaKia rravovpyos koi ttoikiXos Trpos TrXdvrjv, Or]pwjxevos rbv rrjs eTriaKOTrrjs Opovov. Tov Ze(f)vp'ivov, avSpa ISiwryv Kai aypdpparov Kai aTTeipov rwv eKKXyaiaariKwv bpwv, ov TreiBwv Soypaai Kai aTrairrjaeaiv aTreiprjpevais r]yev els 35 o e^ovXero, ovra SwpoXrjTrryv Kai ^iXdpyvpov, 18. Cod. dpaaTpe(j)epTa. 30. ttoikiXos et Brfpopevos. 35. Cod. 6 ^ovXero. ov)( erepov e'| erepov. Ita MiUe- 3. toCtoj' Kai vlov dpopd^ovai Kai rus, sed interpunctione mutata irarepa irphs toe -)(peias tovto ud- legendum tt. k. vIop KaXovpevov, — . Kelpo KaXovpepop. Vide Theodoret. Haer. Fab. iii. 26. tovtov irddet $vXov irpoa-- concerning the Church of Rome. 245 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 20 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 that He was a Father from those Who received 25 Him. 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 M'ith the lance, 30 and pierced ¦with nails, that He is the God of the Universe and Father — so says Cleomenes and his school, who thus envelop many with the darkness of Heraclitus. Callistus strengthened this heresy ; a man crafty 35 in evil, and versatile in deceit, aspiring to the chair of the Episcopate. He influenced Zephyrinus, who was an unlearned and illiterate person, and unskilled in Ecclesiastical Science, and whom, being a re ceiver of bribes and covetous, Callistus led as he 40 pleased, persuading him by dogmas and unlawful demands ; him, Callistus was ever instigating to irayepra. Ita Codex. Legere de Noeto, et de Callisto, dicturus mallem tovtop iraBeip, $vX(f est Hippolytus in compendio sive irpoairayepra. dpaKe(l)aXatao-ei, lib. X. pp. 329, 35. Comparanda sunt quae infra 330. 246 Narrative P,285 en-et0ev aet ardaeis ep^aXelv avapeaov twv dSeX^wv, avTos rd dp^orepa pepy varepov Kep- Kwrreiois Xoyois Trpos eavrov (piXiav KaraaKeva- Kwv, Kai To7s pev dXrjOeiav Xeywf opoia (ppo- 5 vovai TTore kuO' 7]Siav ra opoia (ppoveTv rjTrara' TrdXiv S'' avToXs rd SajSeXXiot^ bfioiws, ov Kai avrov i^eaT7]ae Svvdpevov KaropOovv. Ei/ yap T

pove'iv. 'O ^e rore pev ryv Travovpyiav avrov ovk evoei, avOis Se eyvw, ws Siyy^aopai per ov ttoXv. Avrbv Se rov Ze^vpTvov Trpodywv Sypoaiq, cTreiOe XeyeiV 15 'Eyw olSa 'eva Oeov Xpiarov 'lyaovv, Kai rrXyv avTOv 'erepov ovSeva yevyrov Kai rraOyrov. Wore Se Xeywr, Ov^ o Trarrjp aTTeOavev, dXXd b vlbs, OVTWS aTTavarov T7]v araaiv ev rip Xaip Siery- pyaev, ov rd voyfiara yvovres rjpeTs ov avve^w- 20 povpev, eXey^ovres Kai avriKaOiardpevoi VTrep 1 . Cod. dvapeaav. 3. Cod. KepKairois. ib. Cod. eauToij (fiiXiap. 4. Fort. Tols pev ev dXrjdeia. Miller. ib. Fort. Xeyav rd opoia (ppopelp rjirdra* irdXip de airols popovo-i irore Kar ISiav rd 2a|3. MUler. 7. Leg. videtur Sui/afiei/os. Miller. 10. Cod. paireip correxit MiUerus, 20. Cod. e'XXey;(ovTes. Z. To'is pev dXrjBeiavXeyav opoia MS. Pro vitiosO KAO' 'HAI'AN povova-iv jroTt Kaff ffSiav to legendum conjecerim KAT' 'lAE'- opoia (fipovelv rfirdra- irdXiv 8' air- AN, i. e. sub specie vel colore si- Tois Ta Sa^eXXiot) opoias. Ita mUia sentiendi. Tales haereti- concerning the Church of Rome. 247 introduce strife among the brethren; and then P. 285 Callistus himself swayed both sides by wily words to incline to his own interest ; and at one time speak ing true doctrine to the one party, who held like sentiments (to the truth), he, under pretence of 5 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 was able to keep him right. For when Sabellius was exhorted by me lo 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 Cleo menes. Sabellius did not then perceive his subtlety, but afterwards he discovered it, as I will shortly tell. 15 Callistus putting Zephyrinus himself forward pub licly induced him to say, " I know one God, Christ Jesus, and beside Him I know none, who was born and suffered." But he (Callistus) sometimes saying " Not the Father suffered, but the Son," thus kept 20 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. eorum praestigias tangit Irenaeus, Pro airoXs recte Bunsenius (i. p. iii. 17. "Similia loquentes fide- 132) au tois. libus non solum dissimilia sapiunt 8. Novatian. de Trin. 12. sed et contraria, et per omnia " Quid dubitant cum Sabellii te- plena blasphemiis per quae inter- meritate misceri qui Christum iiciunt eos qui per similitudinem Patrem dicit ?" Pro Svvdpevov verborum dissimile affectionis eo- recte MUlerus Svvdpevos. rum in se attrahunt vcnenum." 248 Philosophumena. Tr]S dXyOeias' os els dirovoiav ¦)(^wpwv Sia ro Trdvras avrov ry -vTroKpiaei avvrpe^eiv, r]fids Se ov, drreKaXei rjiids SiOeovs, e^epwv rrapa j3iav rbv evSopv)(ovvTa avrip lov. Tovtov tov jSiov 25 SoKeT i]p7v ayaTTi]Tov CKOeaOai, errei Kara rov avrov xpovov rjpTv eyeyovei, ottws Sia rov (pavrj- vai rov ToiovTov Tr]v avaarpo^yv, evcTTiyvwaros KOI Taj(^ela toTs vovv e^ovaiv evOr]S yevyrai y Sia TOVTOV eTTiKe^eipypevy aipeais. Ovros epaprv- 30 pyaev eirt f^ovaKiavov eTrap^ov ovros Pwp)]S. 'O ^e rpoTTOs TTJs avrov paprvpias roioaSe r]v. P. 286 OlKerys ervy^ave KapTro(j)6pov nvos avSpos TTiarov OVTOS eK rrjs Ys.aiaapos olKias. Tovnp o KapTro(j)6pos, are Srj ws manp, XPVpa ovk bXiyov KareTTiarevaev, errayyeiXdpevos KepSos Trpoaoi- 5 aeiv eK Trpaypareias rpaTre'CiriKrjs' os Xafiwv TpaTreZav eTre^^ipyaev ev ry Xeyopevy TriaKivy TrovTrXiKy, (p ovk oXiyai rrapaOrJKai Tip ^po^V eTTiarevOyaav vtto XVP*^>^ ^at aSeX(f)wv Trpoax^- 23. Cod. irapa^iav. 24. Cod. evSopoixovpra. 29. Cod. eV(Ke;^etp7/pei'at. 29. OTTcos eieiriypauTos Kai ra- 279, 7. diras Kara^poprfQafiip : et Xe'ia Tois povp e^ova-tp *EYBH S aipeueis KarayeXdarovs, inf. 334, yevrjTai. Ita MS. MiUerus eidis, 35. Mihi igitur in mentem venit et aliud adjectivuni in ra^ela la- xai TA'XAtoIs voOvep^ouo-iv EY'H- tere arbitrator. Hasreticorum ©H'2 yevrjrai, i.e. ut facilis cog- commenta ab Hippolyto nostro nitu sit, et fortasse fatua pruden- exagitantur non tantum ut odio tioribus, i. e. eorum sententia. et execratione digna, sed ut ridi- 4. eirayyeiXdpevos KepSos rrpoa- culae et aniles fabulae ideoque ola-eiv. Legendum potius vide- ludibrio habendae. Vide sup. tur eirayyeiXapepa. Cf. supra, Callistus. 249 Then being driven to infatuation, because all others went along with him in his hypocrisy but I did not, 25 he used to call me a ditheist, disgorging violently the venom which was harboured within him. This man's life it seems to me fit to narrate, since he was contemporary with me ; in order, that, by the manifestation of his conversation, the Heresy which 30 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, when Fuscianus was Prefect of Rome. And the manner of his martyrdom was as 35 follows ; He was servant of a certain Carpophorus, a P. 286 Christian of Caesar's household. Carpophorus en trusted him, as a Christian, with a considerable sum of money, professing that he would bring him gain from the occupation of a banker. He set up a bank 5 in the piscina publica, and in course of time many deposits were entrusted to him by Avidows and brethren, through the influence of the name of Car- Philosoph. 261. 19. opdv eiray- foenoris scilicet redundantiam, quae yeXXovrai Tv(pXaTTOpTes profiten- est usura." Hinc, temporis pro- tur se videre, etsi caecutiant. cessu, primum in Clericos foene- 6. Nondum, ut videtur, leges ratores, deinde etiam in laicos, illae ab Ecclesia fuerant latae, quae poenas irrogavit Ecclesia ; Can. rem foenerariam Christianis in- Nicaen. 17. Arelat. i. c. 12. Are- terdicebant, et pecuniam ex usu- lat. ii. c. 14. Eliberit. c. 20. Tu- ris conquisitam abominari jube- ron. i. c. 13. Vide quae de hac bant. TertuUianus quidem lib. iv. re fuse et exquisite disseruit, sae- c. Marcionem. " Percurre ait culi nostri genio non admodum sequentia Ezekielis de virojusto. placitura, Prasul eruditissimus L. Pecuniam suam fcenori non dedit, Andrewes. Lond. 1629. et quod abundaverit non sumet, 250 Philosophumena. fian Tov KapTro(p6pov. 'O ^e e^a(f)aviaas ra 10 Trdvra r]Tr6pei. Ov ravra rrpd^avros, ovk eXiTtev OS aTrayyeiXy rip KapTro^opip' b Se e^y dirai- relv Xoyovs Trap avrov. Tavra avviSwv o KaXXtoTO? Kai rov rrapa rov SeaTrorov kivSvvov v^opwpevos, aTreSpa ryv ^vyjjv Kara OdXaaaav 15 TTOiovpevos' S? evpwv ttXoTov ev np Ilopnp 'eroi- pov Trpos avaywyrjv, 'orrov ervy^ave TrXewv, dve^y TrXevaopevos. AXX' ovSe ovtws XaOelv SeSvvyrai' ov yap eXnrev os aTrayyeiXy Tip K.apTro(l>6p(p Tb yeyevypevov. 'O Se emards 20 Kara tov Xipeva, erreipdro ctti to ttXoTov bppdv Kara pepyvvpeva. Tovro Se rjv earos ev fieaip Tip Xipevi, TOV Se rcopOpews ^paSvvovros, iSwv TTOppwOev b KaXXtoTos rov SeaTrorrjv, wv ev np TrXoiip Kai yvovs eavrov avvyXeT(j)Oai, y(j)eiSyae 25 TOV Z,yv Kai eaxara ravra Xoyiaapevos eppixpev eavrbv els ryv OdXaaaav. Ot ^e vavrai Kara- TrySyaavres els rd aKaC^y aKOvra avrbv dvei- XovTO. Ttoi' ^e aTro r% yijs peydXa fiowvTwv, Kai ovros np Searrory TrapaSoOeis eTravy^Oy els 9. Cod. e'|a0ai/^o-ar. 10. Cod. eXeiTrei', sed eXtTrcy bis infra lin. 18, et 21, p. 287. 21. " In peprfwpeva, syllabas fiiji/ exesae tenuis vestigia supersunt." Miller. 23. Cod. irdppodev. II. 6 Sc €^)j oTraiTeii' Xdyous mula, ter repetita, salsa quaedam post aTraireiv excidisse videtur av. ironia videtur inesse, qua innuatur 17. oTTou ervyxave irXeav. Ita Callistum malo quodam genio fu- Cod. Lege ttXc'ov. isse exagitatum, qui ejus vestigiis 18. oiK yap eXnre — In hac for- insisteret et eum, tanquam umbra. Callistus. 251 pophorus. But Callistus embezzled them all, and became bankrupt. And when he was in this plight, lo 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 toward the sea ; and having found a sliip at 15 Portus ready to sail, he embarked with a purpose to sail withersoever 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 20 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 lingering, Callistus, being in the ship, saw his master from a distance, and perceiving himself to be caught, 25 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 drew him out, against his will. And while those who were on the shore raised a great shout, he was delivered to his 30 semper persequeretur. Caete- 19. Locum sic interpunge : rum ex hac et similibus loquendi e'lreiparo eirl to irXolop oppdv Kara formulisquaeinhacnarrationepas- rd peprfwpeva, tovto Se ffv iaros sim obviae sunt recth statuitur, ev pea-a tw Xipepi' rov Se iropd- Auctoris nostri sty lum etsi Graecia peas fipaSvpovros k. t. X. vel Asia oriundi Latinum dicendi 25. Pro vitiosa lectione Co- colorem imbibisse, eumque ipsum dicis 6ai restituendum lingu^, ut par est credere, aliquan- avpeiX^ipdai, confusio orta ex syl- tulum ^e^ap^apaaOai, \p6viov labarum o^oijbcBi'ia, uberrimo fonte OPT ep fiap^dpois. mendarum, quibus libri scatent 252 Philosophumena. 30 Tr]v 'Vwpyv' ov b Seairorys et? Triarpivov Kar- eOero. Xpovov Se SieXOovros, ws avpjiaivei yiyveaOai, TrpoaeXOovres dSeXipoi TrapeKaXovv TOV J^apTToCpopov OTrws e^ayayy rrjs KoXaaews TOV Sparreryv, ^daKovres avrbv bpoXoyeTv ex^tv P,287 TTopa nai XPW^ drcoKe'ipevov. O ^e Kap7ro(|)o- pos ws evXa^ys, rov pev ISiov eXeyev a^eiSeTv, TWV Se TrapaOyKwv (ppovri^eiv' TroXXoi yap avnp arreKXaiovro Xeyovres, on np avrov Trpoaxypan 5 eTriarevaav np KaXXior^, a TremarevKeiaav' Kai TreiaOeis eKeXevaev e^ayayeTv avrov, O Se pySev exwv drroSiSovai, Kai rrdXiv aTroSiSpdaKeiv py Svvapevos Sia ro (ppovpelaOai, rexvyv Oava- Tov ijrevoyae' koI aa^^dnp aKr]ipdpevos amevai lows eiri xp^^^^as, wppyaev em Tr]v avvaywyyv TWV lovSaiwv avvyypevwv, Kat ards Kareara- aiaZ,ev avrwv. Ol Se KaraaraaiaaOevres vk avrov, evv^plaavres avrbv koi TrXjjya? ep^opy- aavres, eavpov em rbv ^ovaKiavbv errapxov 15 oVra rys rroXews. ArreKpivavro Se rdSe' 'Pw- paToi avvexwpyaav •qplv rovs Trarpipovs vb- povs Sr]poaiq, avayivwaKeiv' ovros Se erreiaeX- Owv eKwXve Karaaraaid^wv rjpwv, (pdaKwv elvai 4. Cod. ra aira. 8. Cod. dviae, leg. e'^i/- (jidpia-e. 1. De CaUisto, Zephyrini Epis copi Romani successore, haec le guntur in libro Damasi, p. 608, Labbe, " CaUistus natione Ro manus ex patre Domitio de re- gione urbis Ravennatum sedit annos v, mens, ii, dies x. Fuit temporibus Macrini et Helioga- bali a consulatu Antonini et Alex- andri. Hie martyrio coronatur. . . . Fecit ccemeterium Via Appia ubi multi sacerdotes et martyres requiescunt, quod appellatur us que in hodiernum diem ccemete rium Callisti." 2. direaa-ep non e^eacrep, qua voce utitur Hippol. c. Noet. § 1. Tore tovtop eXey^apres oi irpea- ^vrepoi e^eaa-ap rrjs eKKXrfaias, quo quidem ex loco satis patet, ut id obiter notemus, jus excommuni- cationis, Hippolyti astate penes fuisse Presbyterorum Collegium, — Episcopo, (dubitari nequit,) praesidente et omnia moderante. Noetum enim a Papa Victore damnatum ait auctor libelli Syn- odici a Pappo editi c. 20. a Tranquillo Episcopo Chalcedo- nensi, scribit Auctor Praedestinati, c. 36. Theodotum majorem tov a-Kvrea ab Episcopo Victore dcpa- piadai narrat Hippolytus. Routh. ii. 9—23. 260 Narrative SeSoiKws epe Kai vopiZ,wv ovrw SvvaaOai aTro- rpiipaaOai ryv Trpos ras eKKXyaias Karrjyopiav, ws pr] aXXorpiws (ppovdiv. ^Hr ovv yoys Kai 5 Travovpyos Kai errt xpovip avvyprcaae ttoXXovs. Rx^^^ Se Kai rbv ibv eyKeipevov ev ry KapSiif, Kai evOews pySev (ppovwv, apa Se Kai aiSovpevos ra aXyOy Xeyeti^, ^ta to Sypoai^ ypTv oveiSi- Z^ovra enrelv SiOeoi eare, aXXa Kai Sia to vTro 10 rov ^a^eXXiov avx^ws Karr]yopeTaOai ws rrapa- pdvros T-qv rrpwryv Trianv, eipevpev a'lpeaiv roi- avSe, Xeywf rbv Xoyov avrov elvai vlov, avrov Kai Trarepa, ovopan pev KaXovpevov, ev Se bv, TO Trvevpa aSiaiperov' ovk aXXo elvai Trarepa, 15 aAAo oe viov, ev oe kui to avro vrrapx^tv, Kai ra Travra yepeiv rov Oeiov Trvevparos rd re avw Kai Karw, Kai eivai to ev ry TrapOevip aapKwOev Trvevpa ovx '^'''^pov rrapa rbv Trarepa, dXXd ev Kai TO avro. Kat rovro elvai to eipypevov " Ov 20 mareveis on eyw ev np rrarpi, Kai b rraryp ev epoi ; Lo pev yap pAeTropevov, OTrep eanv 14. Cod. oix aXo. 16. Cod. yepeip. 19. Joann. xiv. 11. 9. Vir doctus Robertus Scott 16. oKTa: sic Bunsenius recte in Censura Arnoldiana, ii. p. 538, pro Codicis lectione ov t6. legit prfSep eideos. 25. Vide has Noetianorum ex- 13. irapa^dpTos Codex : mal- ceptiones recitantem Hippolytum lem irapafidpra. c. Noetum, § 7, locum huic nostro 16. opopari pep KoXoupevov plane gemellum, ov mareveis Cod. Ante KaXovpevov excidisse Sn e'yo) ep tm Ilarpl k.t.X. Kai videtur oXXo. SeXova-i Xeyeiv (oi NoijTiavoi) Sia concerning the Church of Rome. 261 reproach to which he was exposed in the eyes of the Churches, as if he were not of unsound belief. 5 In good truth he was a deceiver and impostor, and in course of time drew many along 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 lo 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 1 5 called by different names, but being one indivisible Spirit ; and that the Father is not one and the Son another (person), but that they both are one and the same, and that all things are full of a Divine Spirit, both things above and things beneath, and 20 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 words, " Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?" (John xiv. 10,) For that 25 ToOro KparvpeaOai to Soypa airap. dpxjf rjp 6 Aoyos Kai 6 Aoyos rjv Vide etiam quae his regerit ipse Trpos top Seov, Kai Oeos rjp 6 A6- Hippolytus c. Noet. c. xiv. ed. yos- Et Se ovp 6 Ad-yos Trpos tov Fabr. ii. 15, ubi tov Adyop Deum Oeov Qeos top, ri ovp (prfaeiep dv ^Teedic&t, duos autem Deos se ag- tis Suo Xeyeiv &eovs; Suo pev noscere diserte negat. ravrrfv rtfv oiKepa&eovs,dXX'rfeva,irpoa-- olKopopiav irapaSiSaaiv ffpiv Kai 6 ana Se Suo, olKovopiav Se rpirrfv, paKapios 'ladpprfs ep Eua-yycXioi Trjv x^P'-^ ^^'^ Aytov Tlvevparos. paprvpav, Kai tovtop top AO'rON Tlarrfp pev ydp eis, npoaana Se Svo GEO'N dpoXo-yei ouTms XeyaV 'Ev on Kai 6 vlos, to Se rpirov rd 262 Narrative avOpwTros, rovro elvai rbv vlbv, rb Se ev np vl(p XwpyOev Hvevpa rovro elvai rbv Trarepa' ov yap, (Pyaiv, epw Svo Oeovs, Trarepa koi vlbv, aXX 25 eva. 'O yap ev avrip yevopevos Trarrjp, Trpoa- Xa^opevos ttjv adpKa eOeorroiyaev evwaas eavrip, Kai erroiyaev ev, w? KaXeiaOai Trarepa Kai vlbv, eva Oeov, Kai rovro ev ov TrpoawKOV py SvvaaOai elvai Svo, Kai ovrws rov Trarepa avpireTTovOevai 30 Tip vl(p' ov yap OeXei Xeyeiv rbv Trarepa rreTrov- Oevai Kai ev elvai TrpoawTrov eKlpvyelv rijv els P. 290 rov Trarepa ^Xaa^qpiav b avoyros Kai ttoikiXos, 0 avw Karw ax^Sid^wv jSXaa^ypias, 'iva povov Kara rrjs aXyOeias Xeyeiv SoKy, rrore pev els TO 2a|3eXXiou Soypa epTTirrrwv, rrore Se els rb 5 OeoSorov ovk alSeTrai. Toiavra b yoys roXpy- 29. Cod. av-pnenov6epai. "Ayiovnveupa. Undesatisrefellitur Kai Tlvevparos ' Ay iov, Kai tovtovs Bunsenii suspicio, ne dicam cavU- ovras eipai Tpia, et alio in loco latio, ex his Noetianorum argu- c. Noet. 1 4. 6 yap xeXeuwv IlaT^p, tiis coUigentis vel Meiero colli- d Se vnaKovap Yids, rh Se o-vveTi- genti adstipulantis, duorum Deo- fov "Ayiop Uptvpa. 'O tov Harffp rum dogma respuentium, de tertid eVi ttovtcdv, d Se Yids Sid ndvrav, sacrosanctae Trinitatis Persona to Se "Aytov IlveCpa e'v ttSo-iv. "AX- nihil adhuc innotuisse, ideoque Xas eva Oeov popia-ai oi Svpdpeda Hippolyti aetate de Sancti Spiri- e'dv prj Spras Harpl Kai Yiw koi tus Deitate nihil fuisse definitum. 'Ayia Upevpannia-reva-apep. Ad- Reclamat hie ipse Hippolytus, de locum c. Noet. § 9. et doxo- reclamat, inquam, in sermone c. logiam in fine, p. 20, ed. Fabr. Noetum, § 8. dvdyKrf opoXoyelv Caeterum cum his conferas quae Xlarepa Oeov naproKpdropa Kai scripsit Tertullian. c. Prax. 13. Xpio-rdv 'irfaovv vlop Beov, Beov " Duos tamen Deos et duos Do- avdpanov yepopepov, a ndvra minos nunquam ex ore nostro naTi;p vnera^e napeKTOs eavrov proferimus," ubi illorum insa- concerning the Chwch of Rome. 263 whicli 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 acknow ledge two Gods, the Father and the Son, but One God. For the Father born in Him, having taken 30 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 35 suffered and was One Person, because he shrinks from blasphemy against the Father, he (forsooth) who is so infatuated and versatile, and extempo- P-290 rizes blasphemy 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. 5 This deceiver having ventured to do such things, niae quos " vanissimos Monarchi- De re ipsa vide Tertullian. c. anos (c. 13)" appellat, respondet. Prax. 29. " Directam blasphe- Idem argumentum tangit Novati- miam in Patrem veriti diminui anus, de Trin. c. 28. Vide et c. eam hoc modo sperant si Filius 29, qui quidem loci his Hippolyti quidem patitur. Pater vero com- nostri sententus lucem affundunt. patitur. . . Times Patrem dicere 35. Haec sunt referentis ipsa passibilem quem dicis (Filio) Callisti verba vocesque in vulgus compassibilem." sparsas, ad se suamque ipsius hae- 5. De Theodoto Byzantio, qui resim tuendam. >/ciXdv apdpanop p^pto-Tdv dixit, 36. c'K0uyeiv. Sic Cod. "Ante supra 257, infra 328. 1 — 13. Con- e'xc^uyeiv quaedam omissa esse ap- fer item quae de Theodoto scrip- paret " ait Miller. . . . Legendum sit noster, c. Noet. § S, et quae fortasse EK TOY EKiYFEIN. scripturus est infra, lib. x. p. 330. 264 Narrative aas, avvearyaaro SiSaaKaXeTov KaTa rys EkkX?j- aias ovrws SiSd^as, Kai rrpwros ra Trpos ras rjSovas Tols avOpwTTOis avyxwpelv eTrevoyae, Xe- ywv TTaaiv vtt avrov atpieaOai apaprias. O 10 yap Trap erepip nvi avvayopevos Kai Xeyopevos Xpianavbs et rt av dpdpry, (paaiv, ov Xoyi^erai avnp 7] apapria, el TrpoaSpapoi Ty rov KaXXt- arov axoXy' ov np bpip apeaKopevoi ttoXXoi avveiSyaiv TreTrXijyore?, dpa re Kai vtto ttoXXiov 15 aipeaewv aTrofiXr]OevTes, rives Se Kai em Kara- yvwaei eKJiXyroi rrjs eKKXyaias v(p ripwv yevo- pevoi, TTpoaxwprjaavTes avroTs, eTrXyOvvav to SiSaaKoXelov avrov. Ovros eSoypdriaev 'ottws et emaKOTTos apdproi n, et Kat Trpo? Odvarov, 20 pr] Selv KarariOeaOai. ETTt tovtov r]p^avT0 erri- aKOTToi Kai Trpea^vrepoi Kai SiaKOVOi Siyapoi Kai rpiyapoi KaOiaraaOai els KXypovs. Et Se Kai 8. Cod. o-uyxapeiv. II. " Leg. o Tt av." Miller. 16. Cod. fKxXlJTOt. 58. de Callisto, qui dicitur TroTe pev opere peccatores, peccatorum suo- ra NotfTov Sdypan nepipprfyvvpe- rum reatu scilicet sunt soluti, si voff, TTOTe Se Ta QeoSorov, prjSev modo fiunt Callistiani! da-(l)aXes Kparap. 22. 'Etti rovrov, i. e. illo Epis- II. Vide locum TertuUiani in- copatum obtinente. Vide p. 279. fra citandum, et quae adnotavit 39. ro-urwv Kara SiaSoxffv de Ze- doctissimus et desideratissimus phyrino ejusque successore Cal- Antistes, Joannes Kaye, in Ter- listo ; et 279. 30. Ze(f>vpivov St- tuUian. p. 239. 237. eVetv vopi^ovros rffp 'Eic/cXijo-tav et 13. Videtur esse quaedam an- 284. 78. KdXXio-Tos Srfpapevos rhv tithesis inter Xpio-Tos et KdXXi- rrfs enia-Konrjs Spovop, et 288. 96. CTTOs et inter Xpio-Ttavds et KaXXt- perd rrfv rov Zeea-iv dcjiea-ip dpapnap. 2, Cod. evoprffrev. 4. Sic codex ; sed post TToXXous distinguendum videtur. ib. Cod. e'XXe'y^avTes. Callistus. 273 These artifices he ventured to contrive, having taken occasion from the dogma aforesaid, which Cal listus 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 5 was the working of a spurious spirit, and the imagi- 5. enmoXv irXavrfB^pai. Sic nAATYNOHNAI, i.HN. Ita MS. Mallem OPO*HN, la- quear, " the azure vault," usu loquendi Hippolyteo, qui poeticas notiones et poeticas locutiones sectari solet, ut Irenaei discipulum facile agnoscas. Sic coelum dixit oupdvtov Sia-Kop Hippolytus in Theophan. p. 261, et TheophUus Antiochenus (cujus ad Autolycum libros legisse videtur Hippolytus), Trfv noirfaiv rov oi pavov rponov enexopra OPO$H2. Sed hanc con- jecturam jam occupavit vir erudi tissimus R. Scott in Censura Ar noldiana, p. 341, cujus lucubra tiones post haec exarata vidi. 278 Address dXX' 7]v et? povos eavr^, bs OeXyaas erroiyae ra ovra OVK ovra Trporepov, rrXyv ore rjOeXyae rroielv ws eprreipos wv rwv eaopevwv. Yiapean yap avrip Kai rrpoyvwais, Sia^opovs re rols eaopevois 10 dpxds Trporepov eSypiovpyei, Trvp Kai Trvevpa, vSwp Kai yrjv, e^ (hv Sialpopwv ryv eavrov Knaiv erroiei, Kai rd pev, povoovaia, ra Se, eK Svo, ra Se, eK rpiwv, rd Se, eK reaadpwv avveSeapei. Kat rd pev eE, evbs, dOdvara r)v' Xvais yap ov 15 TrapaKoXovOel. To yap ev ov XvOyaerai Trwrrore, rd Se eK Svo, ^ rpiwv, 7] reaaapwv, Xvra, Sio Kai Ovyrd bvopd^erai. Qdvaros yap rovro KeKXyrai, 7] rwv SeSepevwv Xvais. iKavov ovv vvv rols ev (ppovovaiv drroKeKpiaOai, o\ el (piXopaOyaovai 20 Kai rds TOVTWV ovaias kui ras ainas rrjs Kara Trdvra Sr]piovpyias eTriZ,r]Ti]aovaiv, eiaovrai evrv- xbvres rjpwv jHfiXip Trepiexovay Trept rrjs rod TravTos ovaias' to Se vvv 'iKavov elvai eKOeaOai rds alrias, as ov yvovres ' EXXrji'e? Kopi\j(p np 25 Xoy^ ra pepy rrjs Kriaews eSo^aaav rov Knaavra ayvorjaavres' (^v a^oppas axbvres ol alpeaiapxai 14. Cod. ubique Xuo-ts. 24. Cod. yvmvres. 9. Act. XV. 18. qualemcunque interpretatione et 10. MUlerus post eVope'veovplene notis expUcare, quam in textum interpungit : quod incuria factum intrudere. videtur. Sed rationum, quas mihi 21. ixavdv ovp vvv tois ev (ppo- praescripsi, memor, nihU mutavi, vouo-tv dnoKeKpiaSai. Ita MS. Vix satius ducens sententiam meam recte. Vel post dnoKeKpia-dai ad- to the Heathen. 279 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 Ele- lo ments for the things that were to be, namely, Fire and Air, Water and Earth, from which divers prin ciples He formed His own Creation ; and some things He made of one element, some He compounded of two, some of three, some of four. And those 15 things which are of one element are immortal : for they are not soluble, because 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 Death, namely, the solu- 20 tion 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 Creation, may learn them by re- 25 ferring to my Work, containing 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 artificial disquisitions, glorified the parts of Creation, being ignorant of the 30 Creator. From whom the Heresiarclis derived occa- jiciendum So/tei: vel pro dnoKeKpi- tea, I, p. 220, et dn-oo-pdTiov qnod o-flat legendum videtur dnoKeKpi- Fabricio nondum comperlum ad aSa. finem hujus libri adjicietur. 27. De quo vide quae dedimus 28. Supplendum Soxei vel vo- supra, p. 154, et Fabricii Hippoly- piftu. 280 Address bpoiois Xoyois rd vtt eKeivwv rrpoeipypeva pera- axvpariaavres, aipeaeis KarayeXdarovs avveary- aavro. 30 Ovtos ovv povos Kai Kara Trdvrwv Oeos, Xoyov TrpwTOv evvo7]0eis aTroyevv^ ov Xoyov w? (pwvrjv, aXX evSiaOerov rov Travros Xoyiapov. Tovrov P. 335 povov e^ ovrwv eyevva' to yap ov, avros o Trarrjp yv, eS, ov ro yevvyOrjvai ainov rols yivopevois. Aoyos yv ev avrip (pepwv ro OeXeiv rov yeyej^- vyKoros, OVK arreipos rrjs rov rrarpos evvoias' 5 'dpa ydp Tip eK rod yevvyaavros rrpoeXOelv rrpw- roTOKOs rovrov yevopevos, ^wvr]v £%ei ev eavnp ras ev np TrarpiKip evvor]Oeiaas iSeas, oOev KeXev- 27. Cod. Td vneKeipa, 6. Cod. exeip ep. S. Cod. yeyevrfKOTOS. 5. Cod. TO CK. 32. Eadem locutione utitur nos ter supra, p. 94. 27, unde forsan hie legendum d(f>' 2>v. Deinde pro Spoiois mallem dpopoiois. 37. Theophil. Antioch. p. 129. Trpo TOU Tt yiypeaSai Harrfp Aoyov eixe avp^ovXop eavrov Nouv opra, dndre Se rfQeXrfae d ©eds TTOi^o-at oo-a e(3ovXev(TaTO rovrop top Adyop eyepPTfcre npo(^opiKov nparoroKOP nda-rfs Kriaeas. Novatian. de Trin. 31. " Est Deus Pater omnium Institutor et Creator, solus ori- ginem nesciens, onus Deus. Ex quo quando Ipse voluit, Sermo Filius natus est, qui non in sono percussi aeris aut tono co- acfae de visceribus vocis acci- pitur, sed in substantia prolatae a Deo virtutis agnoscitur. Hie cum sit genitus a Patre semper est in Patre." I. TouTov povov e^ dvrap eyev- va. Quae quidem verba vertit Bunsenius, " Him alone of all things He begat," adeoque evi- dentissimum nostri de Filii dpo- ova-ia testimonium obscuravit. Quod autem dicit Hippolytus hoc est : Pater ex nihilo ccetera fecit, Vehbcm autem ex substantia jam existente generavit, — hoc est ex Seipso ; velut in alio loco c. Noet. $11. ndvra Sid Adyou, au- Tos Se povos eK Tlarpos, unde cla- rum lucramur testimonium contra Arianos creaturam ex nihilo fac- tam Dei Filium somniantes. Mi- to the Heathen. 281 sions for their Heresies, and having travestied their systems in similar words, have formed Heresies which are ridiculous. This One and Supreme God generates the Word 35 first in His own mind ; He generates the Word, not as a Voice, but as the IndweUing Ratiocination of the Universe. Him alone He generates of what p. 335 exists. 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 5 Word, and not unconscious of His Father's cogita tion. For simultaneously with His procession from Him Who begat Him, being His First-born, He had as a voice in Himself the ideas conceived in His ror doleoque Bunsenium, cujus 7. Hippol. c. Noet. § 10. ingenii dotes suspicio, non sine rap yipopepap dpxrfyop Kai o-up/3ou- amarulenta quadam irrisione dix- Xov Kai epydrrfv eyepva Aoyov, ov isse se miniine dubitare, quin Adyov exap ep eavra, aoparov re oritur! sint nonnulli, qui Sanctum ovra, ra Kn^opeva Koa-pa dparop Hippolytum de Verbo Dei uni- Trotei, ubi Adyov appellat tou Oeou genito dpQoSo^as sensisse conten- tov iStov voCv, aira pova Trporepov dant, quorum quidem conatum opardv vndpxovra. temerarium atque adeo frustra- 9. (j)aprfp EXEIN e'v eauroj tos neum fore non obscure innuerit. ev toj narpiKa epvorfBeiaas ISeas, Sed pace viri egregii, ipse sane- odep KeXevovros Harpos yipeadai tum Antistitem perverse intelli- Koa-pop to Kard ep Aoyos AHETE- gendo, ipse Sanctum Hippolytum AEITO APE2KQN Gem. Sic Co- aliquotiesperperaminterpretando, dex, manifesta corruptela. Legit paene fecit haereticum. Sed salva Bunsenius (l>aprf pro (fiaprfp et res est. Non eget Hippolytus sic interpretatur, " For when He defensoribus qui ejus dpBoSo^iap (the Word) came forth from Him> propugnent. Absint tantum pra- being His First-begotten Speech, vae interpretationes : ipse pro se He had in Himself the ideas con- loquatur : ipse se tuebitur. ceived by the Father." Sed jam 282 Address ovros Trarpos yiveaOai Koapov ro Kara ev Aoyos arrereXelro apeaKWv Qeip. Kat ra pev eirt 10 yeveaei rrXijOvvovra, apaeva Kai OrjXea elpydl^ero' oaa Se Trpbs VTrrjpeaiav Kai Xeirovpyiav, tj dpaeva 7] OriXeiHv p7j TrpoaSeopeva, 7] ovre apaeva, ovre OrjXea. Kat yap ai tovtwv Trpwrai ovaiai eE, 12. " Medium rf delendum videtur." Miller. ipse negaverat Hippolytus AO TON esse (j>apffv. Liquet, opi nor, (papffp sanum esse, deinde pro EXEIN legendum duabus literulis transpositis eixev, et pro AHETEAEITO 'APESKQN Bea reponendum 'AnETEAEI TO 'APE2K0N Bea. Non enim in his dicebant Patres aTroTeXeio-^at sed oTTOTeXeiv. Testis ipse Hip polytus in simUlimo loco, indicio catholicae doctrinEE evidentissimo, C. Noet. § \i. Harrfp pev eis, npoa- ana Se Suo, OTt Kai 6 uids" to Se rpiTov rd dytov npevpa. Tlarrfp ePTeXXerai, Aoyos 'AnOTEAEI. Hinc S. Irenaei vetus interpres, ii. 47, " hie mundus factus est apo- telestos a Deo." Fortasse hie dixerit quis, Hip polytum nostrum Verbi genera- tionem facerc, quod aiunt, xp°- viKrfv sive tcmporariam, non autem sempiternam. Quare adolescentes nionitos velim, quorum praecipue causa haec commentatus sum, duas Patrum Ante-nicaenorum fuisse quasi familias, de hoc fidei capite specie diversa loquentes, re tamen idem sentientes ; quo rum alii quidem Generationem Filii manifesto praedicabant ceter- nam; alii vero ut Justinus, Athena- goras, Theophilus, Tatianus, Ter tuUianus, inter quos etiam emine- bat noster Hippolytus, quum Dei tatem TOV Adyov declarassent, eumque ab cEterno extitisse in Mente Patris, evSidderov Tlarpos Aoyov docuisscnt, tum vero per- gebant dicere Eum in tempore factum fuisse npo(f>opiKov, et ex- inde Kar evepyeiap et per 0"uyKa- rd^aa-ip nponrfSrfcrai sive prnces- sisse ad Patrem Seseque mani- festandum, et ad creanda universa. Hanc Ejus npoeXeva-iv sive pro- cessionem ad opus Creationis exequendum, aliquoties appella- bant Generationem, memores illius Yids Mou et 2u, Srfpepop TEPEN- NHKA 2e' (Heb. i, 3 ; Ps. ii. 7). Haec Ejus Generatio indubie fuit temporaria. Qui vero, ut Hippo lytus noster, tov Adyov ab aeterno extitisse statuerant, Eum ab aeterno fuisse genitum agnoverant, ideo que temporariam ejus genera tionem ad creanda universa de- clarantes, Generationem Ejus to the Heathen. 283 Father's essence, whence, when the Father bade that lo the world should be created in its single species, the Word executed what was pleasing to the Father. And some things which were to multiply by suc cessive generation He made male and female ; but whatsoever were for ministry and service. He created 15 either male, or not needing any female, or neither male nor female. For their first elements being iEternam minime abnuebant, im- mo vero validissime adstruebant. Qui enim ex Patre yevvr^Tos et Patri o-uvai8ios, det avpnapap ai ra Kai a-vp^ovXos, Eum ab aeter no genitum fuisse satis constabat. Rem optime expressit nostri fere aequalis Novatianus de Trin. 31. " Hie (Aoyos) 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 ; sub stantia scilicet ilia Divina cujus Nomen est Veebdm per quod facta sunt omnia. Omnia post Ipsum sunt, quia per Ipsum sunt, et merito Ipse est ante omnia quando per Ilium facta sunt om nia, qui processit ex Eo Cujus voluntate facta sunt omnia." 10. KeXevovros Tlarpos. Subor- dinatur enim Filius Patri tanquam sui Auctori et omnium Principio. Ut Fabricii verbis utar (Hippol. ii. p. 15) " mandandi et prtecipiendi vocabulo de Patre, et obediendi de Fitio sine ullaoffensione usos esse constat non modo ante Concilium Nicaenum S. Irenaeum, Hippoly tum nostrum, Origenem, et alios ; sed et post illud Concilium adver saries et hostes Arianae haereseos acerrimos, Athanasium, Basilium. Vide Petav. de Trin. ii. vii. J 7. Georgii Bull, defensionem Fidei Nicaenae," p. 133. 163. 170 ; iv. 2, et in Epilogo Operis, vol. v. pt. ii. p. 291. Waterland. iii. p. 319, 320. Meminerit lector hac item uti protcstatione Nostrum de Filio omnia Patris jussu formante contra haereticorum illorum som- nia, qui ab Angelis vel jEonibus omnia facta fuisse impie comminis- cerentur, de quibus Irenaeus, ii. 63 ; iv. 37. 14. inl yeveaei. Mallem una voce eVtyeveVei, i. e. conlinud scrie procreationis. 16. j. e. mascula tantum sjneyo?- mina ; quod propter Millerum monuerim delentem rf, et propter Bunsenium ejicientem ff dpaeva. 284 Address OVK ovrwv yevopevai, rrvp Kai Trvevpa, vSwp Kai 15 yr], ovre dpaeva ovre OrjXea virapxeiv eKaary TOVTWV Svvrai TrpoeXOelv dpaeva Kai OfjXea, rrXyv el ^ovXoiro b KeXevwv Geo? iVa Aoyo? vrrovpyy. ' Ek rrvpbs elvai ayyeXovs opoXoyoi, Kai ov tov tois rrapelvai OyXeias Xeyw. ' IXXiov Se Kai 20 aeXyvyv Kai aarepas opoiws ck Trvpos Kai Trvev paros, Kai ovre dpaevas ovre OyXeias vevopiKa, eE, vSaros Se tra,p. 335') ndpra exop Td epapria. Sic Codex. omnes contrarietates in se com- to the Heathen. 289 with free will, but not dominant ; having reason, but not able to govern every thing with reason, authorit)', and power, but subordinate, and having all contra- 20 rieties 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 cogita tion of evil, evil receives its name, and does not exist from the beginning, but was subsequently generated. 25 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 30 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 times nearer to our own, a Law full of sanctity and justice was given by the instrumentality 35 plexus est. Quare, ut brevi rem Bpanov koX to avp^ovXevriKop tov praecidam, pro ouk dpxov OY vovv Seov, dnorpenovros pev tou dneiBelv exov levissima mutatione corri- air^ dXXd pff jSiafope'vou. gendum arbitror ouk dpxop ON, 26. ou MS. el ex conjectura vovv exov, — Milleri reponendum videtur nisi 22, TO KaKov eniyevvq, ck avp^e- malis ou, ubi. ^rfKOTos. Ita Miller, et Bunsenius, 27. BeXeiv n, Kai vopos api^ero. sed jungenda videntur iniyevva eK Sic Miller. Bunsen. deXeiv, ri (cdv a-vp^e^rf KOTOS. Malum enim non vopos dpi^oiro ; Sed manifestum directe vel ex necessitate oriri videtur legi debere 6eXeip, ri Kai dicit, sed mediate et quasi per vdpos upifeTo; et jam video virum accidens. Quare sic reddidi doctissimum R. Scott, idem sta- 26. Praeclare S. Irenaeus, iv. tuisse. 72, TouTa Trdvra (j. e. dispositiones 30. Vide Ps. xxxii. 9. Dei per Legem et Prophetas) 31. npoanpop vide ad Clem. TO avTe^oia-iop cViSeiKvucrt tou dv- Roman, c. 41. U 290 Address Tjpiiv Sid rov Trpoeipypevov Mwvaews, avSpos 30 evXa^ovs Ka\ Oeo^iXovs, vopos wpi^ero TrX?/p?j? aepvorrjTos Kol SiKciioavvrjs. Ta ^e rravra SioiKel b Aoyos b Oeov, b rrpwroyovos Trarpos rrals, V P,337 Trpo ewa^opov (/)w(70opo? (pwvif eKcira SiKaioi dvSpes yeyevyvrai (piXoi Oeov' ovtoi rrpolprjrai KeKXyvrai cid rb rrpolpaiveiv rd peXXovra. Ol? ovx ^^'^^ Kaipov Xoyos eyevero, aXXa Sia ,5 TraaoHv yeveiov al nSv rrpoXeyopevwv (pwvai evarroSeiKTOi mipiaravro' ovk eKel povov TjviKa rols Trapovaiv drreKpivavro, aXXa Kai Sia Traadv yevediv rd eaopeva rrpoe^yvavro, 'on pev ra Trap(pxypeva Xeyovres, vrrepipvijaKOV ryv dvOpw- 10 Troryra' rd Se eveariHra SeiKvvvres, pi] pc^Ovpelv erreiOov' rd Se peXXovra rrpoXeyovres, rov Kara 'eva rjpiov bpQvras rrpo ttoXXov rrpoeipypeva ep(p6(5ovs KaOiarwv, rrpoaSoKuivTas Kai ra peX Xovra. Toiavry r) KaO' r'jpds rciaris, w Trai^re? 15 dvOpwrroi, ov Kevols pijpaai rreiOopevwv, ovSe ax^Sidapaai KapSias avvapTrat,opevwv, ovSe tti- 29. Cod. MmuWos. 13. Cod. Kadicrrap. 37. Quemadmodumdixitnoster, o-iv e'v toutois roipvp noXirevope- C. Noet. §§ 11, 12, ovtos (d Adyos) vos d Aoyos e8aXpol ffpav e'ye'vovro, ou Prophetas Veteres cum Oraculis povov TO napaxrfKOTa elnov- Ethnicorum comparat, quae non Tfs, dXXd Kai Ta epearara Kai peX- edebant vaticinia sua sponte, sed XovTa Xeyovres, Iva pff pdvop npda- responsa tantum sciscitantibus da- Kaipos eipai d npoipffrrfs SeixBff, bant, drt Codex. Legerim eVi, dXXd Kat Trdo-aij yeveais npoXe- u2 292 Address Oavoryri everreias Xoywv OeXyopevwv, aXXa Svvdpei Oei(f, Xoyois XeXaXypevois ovk arreiOovv- Twv. Kat ravra Geo? eKeXeve Aoyip. O Se 20 Aoyo? e^Oeyyero Xeywv, Si avrcHv emarpe^wv rov avOpwTrov eK rrapaKorjs, ov j3i(^ avdyKijS SovXaywyiav, aXX err eXevOepii^ eKOvaiip, rrpo- aipeaei KaXiiv. Tovrov rov Aoyov ev varepois arreareXXev o rraryp ovKeri Sia rrpo^yrovXaXelv, 25 ov aKoreivws Krjpvaaopevov vrrovoelaOai OeXwv, aXX avroipei ^avepwOrjvai rovrov Xeywi/, 'iva Koapos opdv SvawTrrjOy ovk evreXXopevov Sid TrpoawTrov rrpolprjrwv, ovSe Si ayyeXov (pojBovvTa \pvxvv, aXX' avrbv rrapovra rbv XeXaXyKora. 30 Tovtov eyvwpev eK rrapOevov awpa dveiXylpora Kai rov rraXaibv avOpwrrov Sid Kaivrjs rrXdaews TrelpopijKora, ev jSiip Sid rrdays ^XtKta? eXrjXvOora, 'iva Trday yXiKiq, avros vopos yevyOy Kai aKorrbv rov \Siov dvOpwrrov rrdaiv avOpwrrois emSei^r/ 25. eKovaia MS. en eXevBepiav papa. I Cor. v. 7 ; Gal. vi. 15 ; eKovaia npoaipeaei Scott. Sed 2 Cor. v. 17. Vide etiam S. Iren. legendum fortasse e'Kouo-t'tos. v. 14 — 16. Neque leges loquendi 35. TOV naXaidv dvdpamop Sid dicere sinunt (jiopelp Std TrXdo-ems. Kaiv^s TrXdo-ems nE*OPHKOTA. Quid multa? Legere mallem mi- Sic Codex et Bunsen. qui sic ver- nima mutatione nE*YPAKOTA. tit, " to have put on the old man Vide etiam quae de hac re dixit through a new formation." Sed Hippolytus noster, c. Noet. § 17, mendam subesse suspicor. Neque Kad' dv Tpdn-ov eKrfpvx6rf, Kard tov- enim veterem Adamum sumpsit et top Kai napav e'^ave'pmo-ev e'auTov gessit Christus sine peccato con- eK napdevov koI dyiov Tlvevparos, ceptus, sed veterem ref nxit et re- Kaivds avdpanos yevopevos, rd novavit, ut nos protinus essemus pev nipdviov exav to TraTpmov >v ayyeXwv KoXaarbHv oppa aei pevov ev arreiXy, 29. Cod. eKev^ea6ai 31. Cod. ^a(j)ep6p. 32. Cod. Kara- Xapipev. I. Cod. yepvTfrpos sine accentu. 2. Cod. pevav. Quare sic interpretatus sum. Ju- rhabonem camis accepit, et vexit dicet lector. Commentarii vicem in coelum pignus totius summae expleat TertuUianus de Resurr. illucquandoque redigendae." Vide Camis, c. 51. " Quum sedeat Je- et Apostoli cohortationes, PhU. sus ad dextram Patris, homo etsi iii. 21. Ep. Tit. ii. 13. Deus, Adam Novissimus etsi Ser- 21. Hanc Sancti Antistitis mo primarius, idem tamen et Trapat'veo-tv non ad fideles esse tra- substantiaet forma quaascenditta- ditam, sed ad Christianis mys- lis etiam descensurus, . . . Quem- teriis nondum initiates, jam supra admodum enim nobis arrhabonem monuimus. Quare ne expectet Spiritus reliquit, ita et a nobis ar- lector quae cum dpuijTois com- to the Heathen. 297 Such is the true doctrine concerning the Deity, O ye Greeks and Barbarians, Chaldseans 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, 25 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 workman ship, not giving heed to the sophistry of artificial speeches, or the vain professions of plagiarist heretics, 30 but to the venerable simplicity of modest Truth, by a knowledge of which ye will escape the coming male diction 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 overflowing 35 lake, generating fire, and the eye of tartarean aveng- P. 339 ing Angels ever fixed in malediction, and the worm municari non licebat. Ne, in- delusive heretics," Bunsen. Sed quam, requirat disertam et spe- vide sup. p. 3. 3, et p. 92, 92, cialem Christianae veritatis arti- ubi eandem vocem (xXei/'iXoyos) culorum enarrationem. Verum usurpat Noster, qua haereticos enimvero recordetur, plura in plagii reos agat, utpote placita animo habere Hippolytum, quam sua a Fhilosophis Ethnicis sufiu- quae palam ore proferat. Has rates. igitur Praesulis venerandi senten- 34. raprdpov. Hanc Ethnicis tias interpretari non aliter possit familiarem vocem quasi conse- quis, quam oculo intente fixo in craverat Apostolus, 2 Pet. ii. 4, arcana Christianae fidei mysteria. aeipais (d(j)ov raprapaa-as. Prae- Quod ideo monendum duxi, quia iverant LXX Interpretes, modo quam hie labi proclive sit, mon- sana sit lectio, Hiob. xl. 13 ; xii. stravit in his Anglice reddendis 24. (i. 183 — 192) vir eruditus de quo 33. dewdou. Lege devdov. jam verba fecimus. 2. del pevov Miller. Codex 30. KXefj/iXdyav alperiKav, " of pevav. 298 Address Kai OKwXyKa awparos drrovaiav emarpeipopevov em rb eK^pdaav adipa ws emarpelpwv. Kai 5 ravra pev eKlpev^y, Oeov tov ovra SiSaxOeis, e'Cet? Se aOdvarov ro awpa Kai cKpOaprov apa ^vxy ^af^tXeiav ovpavHv arroXij^y, b ev yy ^lovs Kol errovpdviov ^aaiXea emyvovs, eay Se bpi- Xyrrjs Oeov Kai avyKXypovopos Xpiarov, ovk 10 emOvpiais y rrdOeai Kai voaois SovXovpevos. Feyo^a? yap Oebs' baa yap vrrepeivas rraOq dvOpwrros wv, ravra SiSov on dvOpwrros els' baa Se rrapuKoXovOel Oeip, ravra rrapex^i-v erryyyeXrai 4. Lectionem Codicis, quam dedi, Bunsenius ita refingit a-Ka- XrfKa dnavaras eniarpefpopevov e'TTi rb eK^pda-av aapa ms e'lri rpo- ffv, quae 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 Universo, i. -221. 24. ed. Fabr. o-KtiXijI dnavara dSvprf eK aaparos eKJSpda-- a-av. Qui haec scripsit, (ait Bun senius,) " non potuit non aliter scribere '' quam quemadmodum ipse Bunsenius scribenda pro im- perio edixit. Verum haec et si- miUa ingenii nimiiim sibi fidentis festinantius ne dicam arrogantius effutita, aliquando, ut arbitror, ipse recogniturus est vir ingeniosis- simus. Sed haec hactenus. Quid autem de hoc loco statuendum nunc videamus. Hippolytus ver- mem ilium dreXeuri^Tov humani corporis peccato obnoxii et vitiis inquinati naturalem quondam fce- tum, emanationem, ebulUtionem, et quasi despumationem a cor- rupto fonte scaturientem et gur- gitantem cogitare videtur. Quare sanissima est lectio vulgata ottou- CTi'av. 'Anovaia enim, vox me dicis non ignota, rem quamvis denotat ab ipsa substantia (dTrd T^s oiirias) profluentem, dnoppo- ffp, dnoa-nepfiana-pbv, quo sensu utitur voce anovaia S. Petr. Alex.ap. Routh. Rel. Sac. iv. 343. Hinc in vetusto Glossario apud Labbeum 'ATrouo-ia Detrimentum. Caetera proclivia sunt. Pro e*Tri- a-Tpe(f>ap mallem enirpe^op. Si- niili fere sensu oiaiap dixit Noster, — fd)K)v eKJBpaa-o-opevrf ouo-ia,p. 22-2 ed. Fabr. Minucius Felix, § 35, de igne gehennae disserens : " 11- lic sapiens ignis membra urit et reficit, carpit et nutrit, sicut ignes to the Heathen. 299 the scum of the body, turning to the Body that foamed it forth, as to that which nourisheth it. These things you will escape, if you learn to know 5 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 10 with Christ, not being enslaved by lust, or passion, or disease. For you have been divinized. What soever sufferings you have endured these are from yourself, because you are a man, but whatsoever is pertinent to God, this God has promised to bestow 15 fulminum corpora tangunt, nee absumunt— poenale illud incendi- um inexesa corporum laceratione nutritur.'' Comparari possunt quae in re diversa scripsit S. Clemens Romanus, i. 25. a-rfnopevrfs aapKos a-KaXrf^ Tis yeppdrai (tanquam aTTOUo-ta) OS €k rffs iKpdSos tou TeTeXeuTTjKOTOs fojou dparpetpo- pevos nrepo(pvei. 6. Vide Hippol. de Resurrec- tione et Incorruptione, ap. Anast. Siuait in Hodog. p. 356. Hippol. ed. Fabr. i. p. 244, et oratoria vi et pulchritudine insignem et lectu sane dignissimam Homi- liam de Baptismo in Theophania, p. 264. d 6ebs dpayeppffo-as {fffMs) npbs d(f>6apaiav -\\rvxrfs re Kai a-aparos (lavacro baptismi) e'v- eipvarfo-ev ffpiv nvevpa ^arjs. II. 2 Pet. i. 4. 1-2. Dixerant jam Apostoli, ho mines, Christi corpore insitos> Oei'as iXex6ffa-rfre MS, quod Graecum esse negat Bunsenius, qui iXex6prfarfTe legi jubet, sed e;)(^os to the Heathen. 301 on you, because you have been divinized, having be come immortal. This is the precept. Know thyself by knowing God Who made thee. For the knowledge of himself to have been known by God, accrues to him M-ho is 20 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 non minus legitur quam exdpa : et iXexdffS non minus quam (j>iXex- 6pos, quare nihil mutaverim. 23. prfSe ndXipSpopelp Sia-rdarfTe. Vertit Bunsenius "Doubt not that you will exist again." Mira sane interpretatio. Quod quidem viri clarissimi napopapa inter alia qui bus fere innumeris Bunsenii pa- ginae scatent, minime commemo- rassem, nisi eum fundamenta fidei, ut mihi quidem videtur, labefac- tantem, et doctissimorum viro rum, et nominatim venerandorum Antistitum Cestriensis et Mene- vensis bonam famam dedita opera laedentem non sine magno dolore vidissem. Sed hoc piis eorum animabus, hoc causae veritatis, hoc juventuti praesertim nostrae Aca- demicae debebatur officium, ut quanti sit facienda Bunsenn ip sius auctoritas, probe perspiciant, et ne ejus effatis commoti maxi- morum Angliae theologorum no mina venerari dediscant. Sed de Nostri sensu videam us. Hippoly tus, ut Portus Romani, civitatis maritimae et commercio deditae. Episcopus, locutiones a re nau- tic4 desumptas sectari videtur ; id quod in hoc loco factum vides. HaXivSpopeiv 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, "O quid agisf fortiter oc- cupa Portum ;'' ipse sibi suc- cinit, et " nunc iterare cursus Cogor relictos" hoc est naXivBpo- peiv,sive ut se ipsum interpretatur noster, Philos. p. 81. dippoa-vvrfv Toiv neiBopevav Karrfyopffo-apres neiaopep naXipSpopelp enl rbv rrjs dXrfdelas euStov Xipeva. Vide etiam p. 224, 29. exprjvrovs dKpoa- Tas napanXeiv eni^rfrovvras top eilSiop Xipepa, ubi obiter pro nPASEQN Brfpap lege HAPASE- TSIQN drfpap. Cf. p. 81, 6. Cae terum ndXivSpope'ip simili sensu habet Theodoret., iv. 1222. TraXiv- Spopffaai npbs ffOTJxiav. 24. Hoc quoque S. Hippolyti testimonium de Christo Deo cor- rupit Bunsenius, legendum edi- cens, Xpiirrbs ydp e'o-Tiv o) 6 Kara 302 A ddress 20 Kara Trdvrwv Geo?, o? rijv dpapriav e'f dvOpwrrwv arrorrXvveiv rrpoaera^e, veov rov rraXaiov dv- TrdvTOJv Beds rffP dpapriav e^ dv- Bpanap dnonXvpeiP npoaera^e, Tieqtte enim dixisse potuisse Hippo lytum, ait Bunsenius, " Christus jussit homines abluere peccata." Quare hanc esse sententiam Hip polyti statuit Bunsenius : " Christ is he whom the God of all has ordered to wash away the sins of mankind, renewing the old man," NoUem factum. Primum enim quidni dixerit Hippolytus Xpia- Tov e'vat KOTO Trdvrwv Bebv, quiim in plui-imis aliis locis Christum Deum praedicaverit, et ciim id ipsum praedicantem Sanctum Pau lum legerat (Rom. ix. 23)? Lege- rat item Hippolytus quae de hac re scripserat Irenaeus, iii. 17. " In principio Verbum existens apud Deum, per Quem omnia facta sunt. Qui et semper aderat generi humano et Hunc in novissimis temporibus passibilem ; sic iii. 18. Ipse Deus et Dominus et Uni- genitus Rex ^Eternus et Verbum incarnatum, praedicatur a prophe- tis omnibus et Apostolis." Quin ct ipse dixerat Hippolytus apud Theodoret. Dialog, ii. p. 88. C. Td ndaxa ffpav vnep ffpav ervOrf Xpia rbs 6 Beds. Deinde quidni affir- maverit Hippolytus Christum jus- sisse homines abluere peccata, quum Christus Baptismum insti- tuerit, ut esset Xourpdv TraXiyye- veo-t'as (Ep. Tit. iii. 3) et quiim Idem Apostolos ad baptizandas omnes nationes legates Suos per orbem terrarum miserit, et om nes baptizari jusscrit? quapropter his ipsis verbis, quae sine dubio respexit Hippolytus, usi sunt pri- niores Evangelii Praedicatores, quum ad baptismum recipiendum Christi nomine invitarent, (Acta Apost. xxii. 16,) dpaa-rds fidnri- aai Kai dndXovaai rds apap rias a-ov, eniKaXea-dpepos rb ovo- fia Kvpiov. Quare ipse Hippoly tus alio loco sic scripsit, de Anti christo, f 3, eis d ©eou Trais St* o5 Kai ffpels rvxopres rffp Std tou dyiov nvevparos apayepprfaiv. Quod au tem a Bunsenio (i. p. 340) video allegatum, Hippolytum in otto- anaaparia quodam a Cardinali Mai (Collect. Vat. i. P. ii. p. 205) nuperedito, Patrem vocare Christi Sea-nortfv id ab hS.c 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 An gel us Mai, minime autem de Ver bo Patris opoovaia. Quare hue iUa Hippolyti verba non erantvio- lenter trahenda. De Hippolyti doctrina in hoc fidei articulo satis jamdudum dixerat vir eruditissi mus Daniel Waterland, Vol. iii. pp. 41. 105, ed. Van MUdert, (A Second Defence of some Que ries, Qu. ii.), cujus verba candi- do lectori attentiiis consideranda to the Heathen. 303 commanded us to wash away sin from man, re- 25 generating the old man, having called man His liceat commendare. Sarta igitur et tecta manet Codicis Parisini lectio, Bunsenii rationibus incon- cussa ; et nohilissimum affert ca tholicae veritatis contra haereticos neotericos, sive Socini asseclae sint, sive Baptismi efBcaciam in dubium vocantes, testimonium. Rem fortasse non injucundam lectori fecero, si alium Hippolyti locum hue apprime facientem, mantissae loco, subjecero. Quod quidem facio lubentius, quia emen- datricem manum adhuc expectare videtur. Fervidioris animi ingenio frasna dans, et Asiatico more exul- tans, Ecclesiam Navi comparat Hippolytus, mundi, tanquam Oce- aiii, fluctus sulcanti. Ipsum au- diamus ; (De Antichristo, § 39,) BdXaaad eanv 6 Koa-pos, ep a fj 'EKKAH2IA, is NaiJs e'v HeXdyet, Xeipd^erai pep, dXX' ouk OTroXXuTat. e^et pev ydp pe6' eavrrjs rbv epnei- pov Kv^epvfjTrfp XPI2TON (nihil adhuc de Petro Ecclesiae clavum tenente), (f>epei Se ev pea-a Kai rb rponaiov Kara roi Bavdrov, Q2 TON aravpop tou Kvpiov liaard- fouo-a. Ubi pro Q2 TON legendum conjecerim 'I2T0N, i. c fercns Crucem Domini quasi navis ma lum ; 'Eo-Ti ydp airrfs npapa pep ff dparoXff, npvppa Se ff Svais, rb Se KoTXov (ita Gudius recte pro kuk- Xov) pea-rfp^pia. Mallem 'H pea-rfp- j3pia. OiaKes Se at Suo Aiafl^Kat- axoipia Se nepirerapeva ff dydnrf rov Xpiarov cri-Yyova-a rffV 'Ek- KXrfo-iap. n.iOION Se o (jiepei peff eavrrfs rb Xovrpbv rrfs na- Xiyyeveaias dvapeova-rjs Tois niarevopras' ubi pro HAOION Se legendum Uteris transpositis AOl- nON Se, i. e. cceterum vero, quod portat secum inest lavacrum rege- nerationis, d6ep Sff (legerem Se) ravra Xapnpd, ndpearip, as TTveu- pa, TO an ovpavap, (sc. Aytov Tipevpa) Si ov o-ippayi^ovrat ol nio-revovTes ra Geo). Ubi repo nendum videtur d5ev AE raiira TA Xapnpd, et unde hcec gloriosa effunduntur munera, adest, sicuti venius, Spiritus ille coelestis. napenoprai Se air^ Kai dyKvpai a-iSrfpai, airal tou Xpto-Tou dyi'at evToXai SuvoTat ws aiSrfpos' exei Se Kai vavTas Se^iois Kai evavvpovs as dyt'ous dyyeXous napeSpovs. Legerem potiiis, vocula transpo- sita, e;^et Se, i22 vauras, Se^iovs Kai eiapvpovs dyiovs dyyeXovs nap eSpovs, St av del Kparelrai Kai (jlpovpeirai ff 'EKKXrfaia. KXi'pa^ e'v auT^ ets ijyjros dvdyovaa enl rb Kepas eiKuJv arfpeiov ndOovs Xpia rov, eXKOvaa rovs niOTOVs eis dva- ^aaiv oipavaV ^'H'f APOI Se e'n-i TO Kepas e(j)' v-yjrrfXov Al'NOYME- NOl To^ts npo(j)rfra)P paprvpap re Kat dnoaroXap, els ^aaiXeiav Xpia- Tou uvaTrauopevtflv. De his vero quid statuendum ? In loco vexa- tissimo detur venia hariolanti ; Lege 'I'HitAPA Se e'TTi To Kepas e'cf)' vyjrtfXov AI'aPOYMENA Td|ts Trpo- (^ijtSv. Sed quid, inquies, sunt yjrrf- 304 Addi-ess OpwTTOv aTroreXiov, elKova rovrov KoXeaas arr apxys Sia rvrrov ryv et? ae emSeiKVvpevos aropyyv, ov rrpoaraypaaiv vrraKOvaas aepvols, 25 Kai dyaOov dyaObs yevopevos pipyrys, eay dpoios vtt' avrov nprjOeis. 2o{! yap rrrwx^vei Geo? Kat ere Oebv rroiyaas els SS^av avrov. 24. Cod. ou npoardypaaiv. . to the Heathen. 305 image from the beginning, and thus showing in a figure His love to thee, and if thou hearkenest to His holy Commandment, and becomest an imitator in goodness of Him Who is good, thou wilt be like Him, being honoured by Him. For God has a 30 longing for thee, having divinized thee also for His Glory. X APPENDIX A. The following is from the Work of St, Hippolytus " On THE Universe," and is an addition to the Fragment already printed by Fabricius from that Work. See above, pp. 1-53 — 1 58. 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 Pro vost Langbaine. See also Routh, Rel. Sacr. ii. p. 32, ed. 1814. The present editor is indebted for a revised colla tion of it to Mr. Barrow and Mr. Southey, Fellows of Queen's College, Oxford. The MS. contains also the Frag ment in Fabricius beginning -with 'O aBi]^ -rorroii ia-rlv, p, 220. Fragmentum S. Hippolyti " De Universo'' ex MS. Baroce. 26. 6 yucrd SiKaiuv dpi6p.0i Siapi- vei dveKXetTTTOs dp,a SiKatots d-yycXots Kai irvevp.aa-L ®eov Ka\ TOV rovrov Aoyov d)s twv SiKaiwv ^opds dvSptilv re Kai yvvaiKwv dyrjpoy; Koi dcj>ddprm'S Siapevei vp£iv rov em ravra irpoa.y6p,evov EN Bin Oeov Std T^s TOV evraKTOv vop,o- Idem Fragmentum conjecturali emendatione uteunque restitu- tum. — Voces asterisco * dis- tinctas jam sujfecerat Lang- beenius. o p.eya's SiKaiiav dpiOp.o'; Sia- p,evei dveKkenrT0v tov enl ravra irpoayopievov ®edv Sid rrji rov [EN BIO] evraKTOv vop.oOea-ia's. Appendix. 307 uea-iaq cruvots Kat Trao-a -f/ kticti^ doidX-rjirrov vpivov dvotcrei' tiTrd Trji (jidopd's ets d(j>6apa-iav Sia-vyrj Kai KaOapui irvevp.aros SeSo^a- a-p,€Vr] OVK vnavayKT/js Secr/xos crvvxpO-i^a-eTai dXX.d ekevOepia t,u)(Ta Ikovctiov tov vp.vov dp,a TO us i\ev9epo)Selcnv Trao-i/s Sou- Xtas d-yyeXots re Kai irve-up,aiTiv Kai dvOpmirois aivecrr] rov ire- iroL-rjKora rovrov; idv nuxOevre^ EAAtves Karakeix^erai rrjv p.a- Taiorrjra rrji eiriyevovs koi xPV pLarwv a-iropov o-oi eiSev ovre ous i^KOva-ev ovre eirl KapSiav dvOpiunov dve^-rj oa-a -rjToifi.acTev 6 Oeos Tois dya- ¦jrdlo-ti' auTOV e<^' ots dvevpa up.as em TouTots Kpivoi irapeKaara PoaTO Te\os aTrayrcov uis T£ Kai Tto ra ev irenoi-rjKori tov /3iov A^- ^avroi Se rov reXos e^oK-rjXav^ rrj wpds KaKiav dvorfroi ot npocrOe irovoi im rrj Karaa-rpocftrj rov ^ avoia-7] sed cori;. in apoicret. ' Pro et yap, ut videtur. (pavepS- (Tei Southeio debetur. ' i^6Kei\ap' corr. in i^oKifXap. %vv Ots Kai Tracra 17 Kricris dStei- XetTTTOv vp.vov dvoia-ei, and rrjs Oopds ets dcjiOapuiav Siauy^ Kai KaOapov nvevp-aros SeSofa- 0-p.evrf oix^im avdyKr^sSecr/tois o-vvex^O-fjorerai, dXXd eXevOe- pid^ova-a eKovariov rbv vfj-vov dp.a rots eXevOeptiiOelcnv ndcrrj'; SouXetas dyyeXots re Kai irvev- p-aa-iv Kai dvOpiiinoi? atveeret* TOV JlenoirjKora. Tovro is eav ireicrOevTes EXXiyi'cs KaraXet- ij/rjTe rrjV p.aTai6TrfTa rrjs eni- yeiov* Kai prfp-arocTiropov croc^ids, Kai p.-rf, nepl Xefeis prfpid- Ttvv daxoXovpievoi, tov vovv eis nXdv-rja-iv dvrjre, dXXd rots ©eoTTveucTTOts IIpoc^^Tais Kai ®eov Kai Aoyov ei-rfyryra'i'; ey- ^eipicrai'Tes Tas aKods, ©ea! Tricr- reva-Tjre, ecrea-Oe Kai tovtwv Koivwvol, Kai tZv pieXXovrwv rev- $eo-Oe dyaOav, dpierpov re ovpa vov dvdjSacTiv Koi rrfV eKel ySacrt- Xeiav oij/ea-Oe' avepui(jei ydp Oebs d vvv crecnuiirrp-ai, " a ovre dc^fcXptds eiSev oure ous ^Koucref, oure cTri KapSiav dv- Opwnov dve/Sr], oa-a ¦fjroip.acrev 6 ©eds TOts dyaTTcocrii' aurov- " TSt^' Ots av eupco u/xas, eirt rov- TOts KpivH'," napeKacrra fioa TO Te'Xos aTTClVTCOV- CUCTTe Kai T(l> rb ev nenoiTjKori, tov yStou Se X^favTos TO TeXos e^oKeiXavri ' 1 Cor. ii. 9. 2 Vide Grabe, Spicileg, i. p. 14 et p. 327. Ezek. xviii. 24 ; xxxiii. 20. x2 308 Appendid'. Spafx.aro's e^aOXio yevd/xevo) totc Xeipov KOI e7ricrecrup.evci)S jStoo- cravTt nporepov ea-riv varepov pieTavorja-avTi noXXov xpovov no- Xtrei'av novr/pdv eKViKyjcrai tcj> /xerd T^v yueravotav p(poviji aKpt- /Seias, Se Seirai ttoXX^s UTrep T^s piaKpav aao)* nenoirjKoa-i MEN amp-ao-i Siairiys XP"" *"*' npocr- op^Tjs TrXeiovos eoTiv Suvarov ydp lerojs d^pdas anoKoij/ai naO-rji Tpocji . . dXXd pierd Oeov Sv- vdp.e(DS Kai dv0pa)° Kai- crias Kai dSeXcpiov jiorfOeia's koX eiXiKpivovs p-eravoias koi cruvcp^Tys jixeXeTrys KaropOovrai KaXbv p,ev TO p.ff dpiaprdveiv dyaOdv Se Kat TO dp.aprdvovra'; p.eravoelv, SiT^v, dXXd p.erd ©eou Suvct/xecos, Kai dvOpw- TTcuv iKecrids *, Kai dSeXcfiZv /Sorj- Oeias Kai eiXtKpivous /xeravoias Kai cruvep^ous p-eXerrfi KaropOov rai- KoXbv jxev rb p,rj dpLaprdveiv, dyaOov Se Kai rd dpiaprdvovra p.eravoelv, wanep dpiarov rb vyi aiveiv del, KaXbv Se Kai to dva- a rp-rjOyj- vai Swapievr]. 'H Se nptorrj ropLr] Kai npoaexearepa Kar auTOus, ecTTtv ^ Tpids, Kat KaXetrai dya Oov TeXetov, p.eyeOos narpiKov. Td Se SeuTepov /xepos T^s rpidSos otovet Svvdp.eoiV dneipoiv rt nXrj- Oos' rpirov, ISiKov Kai ean ro /xev npurrov dyewrfrov, oOev Siap- p-qSrjv Xeyovai Tpets Oeovs, Tpets Xdyous, rpeis vous, Tpeis dvOpiii- TTous. 'EKacrrtj) ydp /xepet toS Koapiov T^s Staipecreios SiaKCKpi- Theodoret, Haeret. Fab. i. 17. 'ASc/X7/s Se o KapuoTios, Kai d IlepaTiKOS Eu(^pdT7/s, d<^' ov Ile paTai npoarfyopevOrjaav ol Tov- rmv op,opoves, eva koct/xov eivai <^ao-i rpv^rf Siyprfpievov Kai to /xev ev /tepos, otdv rtva injyffv elvai pieydXrjv, eis dneipa Siaipe- O^vai ra Xdyto Suvd/xevov t^v Se irp(!)T-r]v T0p.rfv TptdSa irpoaayo- pevovai, Kai KaXovaiv avrrjv dya Odv TeXeiov, p,eyeBos narpiKov. Td Se Seirrepov Suvct/xetov djrei- piov to ttX^^os. Td Se rpirov KoXovaiv iSiKov. Kai to /xev npSrrov dyewryrov Xeyovai, Kai 6vop.d^ovai rpeis Oeovs, Tpets Xd yous, Tpets voijs, Tpeis dvOpumovs. "AvtiiOev Se OTrd t^s dyewijcrtas, Kai T^s npwrrjs rov Koap-ov Siai- peaeios, nap avrrjV rrjv tou ko- ap.ov awriXeiav, ev Tois 'Hpoii- ' Hunc parallelismum indieavit Bernays apud Bunsen. iv. p. xlv. * Supra 'AKep^rfs 6 Kapvffrios. Cod. Kapoicrrios. ^ Cod. ''Ztppdrris neparmis. * Debebat 5e rijs rpixv Siaip. Miller. ' Fort, oiove! fila. Miller, 310 Appendix. /x€V7/s, StSdao-t Kat ^eous Kai Xd yous Kai dv^pdJTTOus Kai rd XotTrd. Avojvev Se aTrd t^s dyevvT^crias Kat T^s TOV Koap-ov npwrrjs ro- p-rjs, enl avvreXeia Xomov rov Koap,ov KaOearrfKoros, KareXrfXv- Oevai enl roZs 'HpojSou i^dvois rpi^vrj ' Ttva avOpmnov Kai rpi- aiajxarov Kai rptSuva/xov, KaXou- pievov Xpiarov, dno rtuv rpiwv e^ovra rov Koafiov p.epwv ev aurto Travra ra rov Koapiov avyKpi- p-ara koX rds Suvd/xeis. Kai TOUTO etvat OeXovai rd eipr]p.evov, " "Ev ip KaroiKeZ ndv rd irX-qpwpia rrjS OeorrjTos amp-ari^." Kar- a'ep^^Tjvat Se aTrd tuiv vnepKeip.e- vtDV Kotr/xiov Suo, TOU re dyevvT^- Tov Kai TOV avroyewrp-ov, ets rovrov rov Koap.ov, ev to eap,ev T^/xeis, TravTOta Suvd/xecov anep- piara. K.aTeXr]XvOevai Se tov Xpiarov dviiiOev and dyewrfaias, iva Sid t^s Kara/Sdaews aurou, Travra aw&fj' rd rpi^ij Sirfprj- p,eva. A /xev yap, (jtrjalv, eanv dvioOev KaTev7/vey/xeva, dveXeucre- rai St' avrov, rd Se eiri/SovXeu- cravra rots Karevyjveypievois dc^tei eiK^, Kai KoXacr^evTa dnonepine- rai. Avo Se eivai p.ep-rj rd ctm- 40/xeva Xeyet, Ta vnepKeifxeva, dnaXXayevra rrjs ejiOopds- rd Se rpirov dnoXXwaOai ', ov Koapiov iSiov KaXei. Tai)Ta Kai oi Ilepa- Sou ;:^dvots KaTeX7;Xu^e»'ai Tpi- i^u^ Tivd dvOpwnov, koi rpiaoy- p.ov, Kai rptSuva/xov, KaXou/xevov XpicTTOv Kai SieX^etv tov re dyevvrjTOV Koap-ov, Kai tov auTO- yev^, Kai eX^etv ets TovSe tov Koap-ov ev m eap,ev. K.areXOwv Se 6 Xpiaros, rd p.ev dvmOev Korevrfveypieva enaveXOeiv ctvco napaaKevdaei, rd Se rovrois em- (iovXevaavra irapaSuiaei KoXdaei. Kai rov fxev dyewrfrov Koap-ov, Kai TOP avToyevrj, awOyaeaOai Xeyovai- rovrov Se rov Koapiov dnoXXvaOai, ov iSiKov 6vop,d- i,ovai. ^ Cod. rpiipv-tjv. * Cod. an6\va-0ai. Coloss. II. 9 ubi a-afiarmus. ' Cod, os 2t/xcov ourtos Xeyei" aTrepavTOV eivat Suva/xtv, Tau-njv pitfiip,a rUtv oXcov eivai. "Etrrt Se, (jtyfalv, -ff dnepavros Su- ra/xts rd irvp Kaff avrd ', ouSev aTrXoiJV KaOdnep ol TroXXoi dirXa Xeyovres eivai rd (Se) ^ reaaapa CTTOtT^eia, Kai to Trip aTrXouv ei vat vevo/xiKacriv, dXX etvat tou nvpds Ttjv tj>vaiv SiTrX-ijv, Kai t^s StTrX-^s TauTTjs KaXet ro /xev Tt ' Kpvirrov, TO Se ef>avepov, KeKp-u- Oai Se rd Kpvnrd ev tois cj>ave- pots TO Triip ', KOI Ta (f>avepd rov irvpos vnd tSv Kpvnriliv yeyove vai- ndvTa Sc, (j>rjal, vevop-iarai rd p-epyf tou Trvpos dpard koI dopara dvr]. Ovtos toutov p,vOov eyewrfaev. Aneipov Ttvd vneOero Svvap.iv' TavTTfv Se pitfofLa rav dXcov ckci- Xccrev Etvat Se avrrjv nvp erjae, SmX-rjv evepyeiav e^ov, TTfV /xev (j>aivop.evrjV, rrjV Se Ke- Kpvp.p.evrjv- rov Se Koap-ov yev- vrfrdv etvat, yeyevrjaOai Se ck TTJS <^aivo/xev7/s toD Trvpos evcp- yctas- IIpSTOV Se cf auT^s Trpo- PXrfOrjvai Tpets OTJ^i/ytas, as Kai pt^as eKoXeae- koI tijv /xev Trpii- T7;v npoarfyopevae vovv Kai eni- voiav, rrfV Si Sevrepav, ejiavrfv Kai ewoiav, ttjv Sc rpirrfv Xoyi- er/tdv Kai evOvp-rjaiv. Philos. p. 326. Theodoret i. 24. MapKiW Sc 6 IIovTiKos Kat MapKtW Sc, Kai KcpStov o KcpSojv o TOVTOu StSdcTKaXos, Kai tovtov SiScto-KaXos, Kai auTOt auTot dpi^ovaiv cTvat Tpets rds /xev ck t^s St/xwvos iiandrrjs 1 Cod. Kofl' avr6v. ' Dele Se', ortum ex S'. Miller. ' Cod. peV Tot. * Toii nvp6s. Scott. ° An leg. evvoiav ? 312 Appendix. TOV navTos ' dp-^s, dyaOov, Si- Kaiov, vXrjv Ttves Se r ovrwv /xa- OrjTal npoanOeaai, Xeyovres dya Obv, SiKaiov, novrjpov, vXrfv. Oi Se ndvra , top /xev dya^dv ovSev aXXios nenoitfKevai, rov Se Si Kaiov, oi /xev rov novifpdv, ot Se p,6vov SiKaiov dvo/xd^ovcrt, nenoirj- Kc'vat Se rd ndvra ^dcTKOvcriv CK T^s vnoKeip.evrfs vXrfS' nenovq- Kevai ydp ov KaXws, dXX dXoyoJS, AvdyKTf ydp rd yevd/xeva o/xota eivat TU nenoirjKori- Std Kai rais rrapa/ioXa'is rais cua-yyeXtKats ou- Ttos ^wvrai Xeyovres- " Ou Sv- varat Se'vSpov KaXdv Kapnovs no- vrfpovs TTOtetv '," Kai rd ef^s, eis TOVTO cj>daKwv eip-rjaOai rd in av rov KaKias vop.it,6p.eva. Tov Se Xpiarov VIOV eivai tov dyaOov Kai vn avrov nenep,Oai enl awrrj- pia tOiv if/v^^wv, ov eaw dvOpwrrov KaXci, is dvOpwrrov (fiavevra Xe' ytov OUK ovra dvOpwnov, Kai tos evaapKov ovk evaapKov, SoK-r/aei nerjv6Ta, ovre yeveaiv vnop,ei- vavra ovre ndOos, dXXd t<3 So- KCiv. SctpKa Sc ou OeXei dviara- adai- rd/xov Se cj>Oopdv eivat XcytDV KvviKwrepw /3iw npoadywv^ TOVS p.aOrjrds, ev rovrois vop,it,wv XvTTCtv TOV Srjpiiovpydv, ei TuJv VTT avrov yeyovorwv rj wpiap.e- vwv dni^oiro. eXa^ov T^s /3Xaar]p.ias rds d0op/xds, dXX' erepav CKOtvoTO- pirfaav dcrc/3etas oSdv. 'O Se MapKiW o ITovrtKos, Taura napd Ke'pStovos TraiScv^cis, OUK earep^e rrfv napaSoOeiaav SiSaaKaXiav, dXX -rfv^rfae rrfv dae/3eiav. Terrapas ydp dyev- v^Tovs oucrtas rw Xdyto SieTrXacrc. Kai rbv /xev cKaXecrev dya^dv re Kai ayvwarov, ov Kai narepa npoarjyopevae rov Kvptou- rbv Se Stfpiiovpyov re Kai SiKaiov, bv Kai novrfpbv wvop.a^e. Kat xpds TOUTOts rrjv vXrfv, KaK^v re ovtrav, Kat V7r aXXto KaKw TeXoT;crav. Tdv Se Srjpiiovpybv Treptyevd/xevov TOV KOKOV, TTJV vX-TjV XttySciV Te, Kai CK ravrrjs Sr]p.iovpyrjaai rd avprnavra. * Cod. Toij iravr6s. ' Leg, videtur ot Se ndvres. Miller, » S. Matth. vii. 18. ' Corrig. npoaayei. Miller. Appendix. 313 Philos. p. 327. K7/ptv6os Sc 6 ev T^ At-yi;TrTiXoa6- (jiovs naiSevOels eniar-qp-as, vare pov CIS rrfv 'Aaiav dt^iKCTO, Kai tovs oiKCiovs piaOrfrds ck r^s oi- Kcids npoarjyopias wv6p.aaev. EStSafe Se ovros, eva /xev etvat TOV Ttov oXojv ©eov, OVK avrov Se cTvat rov Koap-ov Srfpnovpybv, dXXd Suvd/xcts Ttvds Kc^copitr/xe- vas, Kat TravreXtiis aurov d-yvoov- aas. Tdv 'It/ctouv Se, tois 'EjSpat- ois napanXrjaiws e<^rfae Kara vaiv ef dvSpds ycyevv^erfct Kai •yuvaiKos, tou Iwarjcj) Kai t^s Mapids, awpoavvrj Se koi St- KaioavvTj Kai rols dXXots dya- Ools Sianpeij/ai. Tdv Se Xpiarov ev eiSet nepiarepds dvwOev ets auTOV KareX^eiv, Kai rrfviKavra TOV d-yvoou/xevov K-qpv^ai ©cdv, Kat rds dvaypdirrous CTrtTcXeerat Oavp-arovpyias. Kara Sc tov TOV ndOovs Kaipbv, dnoarrjvai'^ /xev TOV Xpiarbv, to Se Trd^os VTro/xeivat tov 'Irjaovv. Philos. p. 328. 'Ercpot Se Kat cf avrtiiv Travra TOts npoeiprjp,€vois Xeyovertv ', ev p,6vov evStaXXafavTCs cv T<3 tov MeXp^tcrcScK ws Suva/xiv Tiva urr- €iXrj£vai, t^do-KovTcs aurdv vTrcp Theodoret ii. 6. Tovs Se MeXT^tercScKiavovs, Tp.-rjp.a /xev cTvat tovtwv ej>aal, Kaff ev Se p,6vov Sia Cod. yeyev^irBai. ' 'IrjiroB. Scott. Vide not. Phil. 247, 43—9. • Cod. Keyovai. * An oiroirT^vai ? 314 Appendix. naaav Svvap.iv urrdp^etv, ov* Kar' vetv, Kar eiKova Se avrov tov eiKova Se eivai rbv Xpiarbv Oe- Xpiarbv yeyev-tjaOai. '^Hpfc Sc Xovcriv. -r^S aipcerccos rauTT/s dXXos ®eo- SoTos, dpyvpa/xotjSds T^v re^vrfv. Philos. p. 329. "Erepoi Se avriov' ttj Ttuv No7j- TiavSv aipeaei npoaKeipievoi, rd /xev TTcpi rd yvvaia Kai ' Movra- vov d/xoius SoKoucrt, rd Sc Trcpi tSv dXojv IlaTcpa Svacj>r]p,ovaiv, avrov etvat viov Kat Trarepa Xe'- yovTcs, bparbv Kai aoparov, yev- vrfrbv Kai dyewrfrov, Ovrjrbv Kai adavarov. Ovroi rds d^op/xds dnb N077TOV Ttvds XajSdvres. Philos. p. 329. 'O/xot'tos Se Kat NoT/Tos rw p.ev ycvei u)V S/xvpvaios, dv^p aKpiro- fxvOos Kai ttoikiXos ', elarfyrfaaro TotdvSe aipeaiv cf 'ETrtydvou Tt vds ets KXeo/xcvTjv -^wp-qaaaav, Kai OVTtJtJS CtOS vvv CTTl TOVS SlttSo- ^ous Sia/xetvatrav, Xeycov eva tov Ilarepa Kat ©eov Ttov oXiov' tov tov Trdvra nenoirfKora, d(jiav>j /xev TOIS ovo-t yeyove'vat ore -ff/Sov- Theodoret ii. 2. Tives Se avrtiiv rds rpcis vtto- ardaeis rrjs Oeorifros SajScXXttp napanXrjaiws rfpvrjaavro, rbv av rbv eivat Xeyovres Kai IlaTcpa, Kai Ytdv, Kai dyiov Ilveu/xa, napanXrjaiws t<3 Aertavu! Not/tio. Kara Toiirtov avveypaij/ev Atto- Xtvdpios, 6 T17S Kara ^pvyt'av icpas TToXecos CTttrKOTTOs yeyovws, dvrjp dftcTratvos, Kat Trpds rfj ¦yvwaei rZv Oeiwv Kai rrjv e^wOev naiSeiav npoaeiXrjt^ws. Oerau- Ttos Sc Kai ^iXridSrjs, koX 'AnoX- Xwvios, Kai erepoi trvyypat^cts. Kara Sc ItpoKXev T17S avr^s ai pecrctos TrpocTTaTcvcravTOS crvv- eypatj/e Tdios, ov Kai npoaOev ep,vrjaOrjp.ev. Theodoret ii. 2. 'O Se NoTjTos, S/xvpvaios /xev rjv TO yevos, dvevetocraTO Se t^v a'pecriv, 7^v ETriyovos /xev ns ovrw KoXov/xevos dTrcKVTjcre TrpS- Tos, KXco/xevT/s Se napaXafiwv e/3e/3aiwae. Tavra Se etrrt n^s alpeaews rd Ke(j>dXaia. "Eva aalv ctvai ©eov Kai Etarepa, Ttov oXmv Srjpiiovpyov- daiv6p.evov Se -fjviKa * od. Scott. ^ Cod. noiKiKos. ° Montanistarum sc. * Pro Kai fort, kbtii. Miller. Appe7idix. 315 Xeto" (j>av^vai Se tcjtc ore -rjOeXyj- ae- Kat rovrov etvat aoparov ore p.rj oparaf bparbv Se, orav opd rai- dyewrjrov Se, orav p.rj yev- vdrai- yewrjrbv Se, orav yewd- Tat €K napOevov, dnaO-q Kai dOd varov, drav p,rj nda)(rj /x^re Ov-q- aK-rj- indv Se nddrj npoaeXOrj, nda^eiv Kai OvfjaKeiv rovrov rbv narepa- avrbv vtdv vop.i^ovai Kara Kaipovs KaXovfxevov npbs rd crv/xy8aivovTa. Tovrtov rrjv aipeaiv eKparvve KciXXtcrros, ov rbv /3iov eKTeOeijxeOa dacf>aXws ', OS Kai avros aipecrtv dTreyevvTjcrev" ef tuv d<^op/xds Xa/3d)V Kai avros o/xoXoytov eva etvat tov narepa KOI Oebv TOVTOV Srjpiiovpybv rov navTOs, TOVTOV Se etvai vlbv 6v6- pian /xev Xeyd/xevov Kai 6vop.at,6- p,evov, ovaia Se [cv°] etvat, Trvev- /xa yap, ^rjaiv, 6 Oebs ov^ erepov etrrt napa rov Xoyov rj 6 Xoyos napd rbv Oeov- ev ovv rovro npoawrrov dvo/xart /xev jxepitppie- vov, ovaia Se ov. Tovrov tov Xoyov eva etvat Oebv dvo/xd^ei Kai aeaapKwaOai Xcyci. Kat rbv /xev Kard adpKa opto/xcvov Kat Kparovpievov vlbv etvat OeXei^, rbv Se evoiKovvra narepa, nore /tev Ttp No7/Toij ' Sdy/xari nepipprjyvv- /xcvos', nore Se tw ©eoSorov, p.rj- Sev dcr^aXes Kparwv. Taura roi vvv KdXXterros. av /So-vX-rjrai- Kai rbv avrbv aopa rov etvat Kat dptu/xevov, Kai ycv- V7/Tdv Kat dyewrjrov dyewrjrov p.ev cf dpx^s, yewrjrbv Se ore ck irapOevov yewrjBrjvai rjOeXrjae- dnaOrj Kai d^dvarov, Kat TrdXtv av naOrjrbv Kai Ovrfrov. 'ATra- Orfs ydp wv, (firjal, to tov arav- pov ndOos eOeXi^aas virepieive. TotJTOv Kai Ytdv ovo/xd^ovcrt Kai IlaTcpo, Trpds rds xpeias rovro KaKcivo KaXou/xevov. NoTjrtavoi npoarjyopevOrjaav ol tt/vSc ttjv aipeaiv arep^avres. Tavrrjs /xcrd rbv NoT/TOV vnep-fjaniae KdXXt- erros, eniO-fjKas Ttvds Kai ovros CTTtvo^cras tt^ Svaaefieia tov Sdy- /xaros. ' Fort. 4Kre9elfie9a 6pwv aipeaewv pivOovs epaviad jxevoi, TYJV oiKCiav avvreOeiKaai nXdvrjv. Kai irepi /xev t^v tSv oXtov dpxrjv avp.wvovaiv rjp.'iv. "Eva ydp dyewrjrov Xeyovai, Kai rovrov Ttov aTrdvTODV KaXovtrt Srq- /xiovpydv. Xpitrrdv Sc ovx ^'"'' Xeyovertv, dXXd rov /xev avw, rbv Se Karw. Kai tovtov TrdXat TroX- Xois evwKrjKevai, varepov Se Kar- eXrjXvOevai- rbv Se 'Irjaovv, nori /xev eK TOV ©eov etvat e^irjal, nore Sc TTveu/xa KaXet, Trore Sc Trap Oevov ea-xrjKevai pirjTepa. 'Ev dX- Xois Se avyypdixjxaaiv ovSe rovro. Kai ToiJTOv Sc TrdXtv /xcTCvcrto/xa- TovaOai, Kai eis dXXa ievai trto- /xara Xeyei, Kai KaO' eKaarov Kai pbv Siaa- aav nenrwKevai. Tavrrjs rbv aKij- Koora de^eaiv djxapTiSsv Xap./3d- vetv Trap' rjv b Xpiards eSwp-^- aaro. " Literse iurrp plane evanidse. Post payiKoTj excidit fortasse inrSriPTai. Miller. APPENDIX C. The mention of St. Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, and Bishop of Smyrna and Martyr, whose name occurs not unfre quently in the foregoing pages, suggests an occasion for sub mitting a question 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, sup posed 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 Martyrio in Petr. Apostol. Coteler. ii. p. 204, Amstel. 1724, or Jacobson ii. p. 595, ed. 1838.) 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, Treptis ovv iStjvres oi avo/xoi ov Svvci/xevov avrov to awp.a vnb rov nvpbs SanavrjOrjvai, cKc'Xevo-av npoaekOovra airrw Kop.eKTOpa napa/3vaai ftt^tStov. The Letter then proceeds to say, — according to the received reading of the passage, — Kat rovro Trot^travros, e^XOe HEPISTEPA KAI nX^Oos at/xaros, <5o-tc Karaafieaai rb nvp 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 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. Appendix. 319 Eusebius had it not in his copy. He has transcribed the Letter, nearly verbatim into his History, and writes thus (Euseb. iv. 1 5), eKcXcvcrav Kop.eKTopa napaftvaai fios, Kai tovto nov^aavros efi/XOc TrX^^os at/xaros. Nor had Nicephorus any mention of the Dove in his MS. of the Letter. His words are (iii. 35) cKcXevdv rtva vi;fat fit^ci TOV dyiov e^wOev' ov Srj yevo/xcvov nXrjOos ai/xaros i^eppvrj, t!)S iKavtos exeiv Kara/xapaivctv ttjv aKpirjv rov irvpos. [f the D ove had been mentioned in the Letter, as read by Eusebius and Nicephorus, it is not likely that they would have omitted to notice it. In short, the words IIEPISTEPA' KAI' appear to be corrupt, and ought, probably, to be amended to IIEPr STVPAKA, 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 arvpa^ signifies fuXov rov dKovriov (Ammon. Valckenaer, p. 133), and the handle of a smaller weapon, — as here. THE END. Gilbert & Rivinoton, Printers, St. John's Square, London. Works ly the same Author. I. LECTURES on the APOCALYPSE. Third Edition. 10s. 6d. II. TWO LECTURES on the DOCTRINE of a MILLENNIUM. Third Edition. ' 3s. Gd. III. On ST. PAUL'S PROPHECY concerning the MAN of SIN. \s. IV. HARMONY of the APOCALYPSE ; a revised English Trans lation, in parallel columns, with Notes. Second Edition. 4s, dd. V. GREEK TEXT of the APOCALYPSE, with MSS. Collations. lOs. 6^. VI. On the CANON of SCRIPTURE, and INSPIRATION, and on the APOCRYPHA. Second Edition. Qs. VII. OCCASIONAL SERMONS preached in Westminster Abbey :— First Series: ou BAPTISM, CALVINISM, and the LITURGY. Fourth Edition. 7s. Second Series : on the CHURCH of ROJIE, Fourth Edition, 7s. Third Series: on EDUCATION. Fourth Edition. 75. Fourth Series: HISTORY of the IRISH CHURCH. 8j. VIII. LETTERS to M. GONDON on the CHURCH of ROME. Third Edition, 7s, Gd. SEQUEL to ditto. Second Edition, 6s. &d. IX. THEOPHILUS ANGLICANUS. Sixth Edition. Is. Qd. X. DIARY in FRANCE. Second Edition. 5s. (jd. XI. THEOCRITUS. 12s. XII. ATHENS and ATTICA. Second Edition. V2s.