YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THE LIBRARY OF THE DIVINITY SCHOOL HIPPOLYTUS AND CALLISTUS. PRINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBB FOR T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. LONDON, HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN, ... . ROBERTSON AND CO. NEW YORK, .... SCRIBNER, WELEORD, AND ARMSTRONO. HIPPOLYTUS AND CALLISTUS; THE CHURCH OF ROME IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE THIRD CENTURY. WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE WRITINGS OF BUNSEN, WORDSWORTH, BAUR, AND GIESELER. BY JOHN J. IGN. YON DOLLINGER. TRANSLATED, WITH INTRODUCTION, NOTES, AND APPENDICES, BY ALFRED PLUMMER, MASTER OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, DURHAM ; LATE FELLOW AND TUTOR OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD. EDINBURGH: T. AND T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 18 76. Yale Divinity Library *T)ew Haven, Conn. This Translation has been undertaken with the express sanc tion of the Author. The Translator is responsible for all that appears between square brackets, thus [ ], for the italics, and for many of the headings to subdivisions of the work. TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. Dean Milman's great work, the History of Latin Christianity, was published some years before Dr. Dollinger's Hippolytus und Kallistus. In it he adopts the then common view that Hippolytus was Bishop of Portus, and is disposed to believe all, or nearly all, that Hippolytus says or insinuates against his opponent Callistus. Whatever may be thought about the see of Hippolytus, few students of ecclesiastical history perhaps would agree that the narrative of Hippolytus, "though possibly somewhat darkened by polemic hostility, has an air of minute truthfulness." To the third edition (1867) the Dean adds a long note (pp. 44, 45), in which, after praising "the Chevalier Bunsen's very learned work," he adds : " I have also read Hippolytus und Kallistus, by J. Dollinger, the Church historian ; I must say with no conviction but of the author's learning and ingenuity. ... I cannot but regret that M. Dollinger's book, so able, and in some respects so instructive, should be written with such a resolute (no doubt conscientious) determination to make out a case. It might well be entitled, Apologia pro Callisto ; and I must presume to say, in my judgment, a most unfor tunate case for his own cause," etc. etc. Those who know Dr. Dollinger, whether personally or from his writings, will smile at the idea of his writing with a " resolute determination to make out a case," unless by "a case" is to be understood the truth. And viii translator's preface. surely the circumstance that Dr. Dollinger's interpre tation of his facts tells against his own cause is some guarantee that what he has at heart is not the adjust ment of facts to a theory, but the discovery of histori cal truth. Dean Milman is usually very generous in his sympathy with reputed heretics ; but for once he seems to be inclined to accept the worst statements of the "orthodox" Hippolytus in blackening the cha racter and teaching of Callistus. Canon Robertson, in his valuable History of the Christian Church (p. 120, 2d edition, 1874), admits that Dr. Dollinger maintains his view respecting Hippolytus " with great learning and ability," but apparently prefers the view taken in Dean Milman's note, to which he refers his readers. Many English students read the works of our two historians who have no opportunity of examining the other side of this question as set forth by Dr. Dollinger. To remedy such deficiency, this translation is now offered. Even those who do not agree with the main conclusions will gain from it a more perfect knowledge of the condition of the Church at the close of the second and opening of the third century, and will also have an example . of patient and thorough investiga tion, such as is too often wanting in a country where literary men seldom aim higher than a telling article or review. The Dublin Review, in a characteristic attack which it paid the present writer the compliment of making on the Introduction to his translation of Dr. Dollinger's Papstfabeln, charged him with disingenuousness in endorsing Mr. Maccabe's remarks respecting the occasion and value of the Hippolytus und Kallistus. The passage runs as follows : " The appearance of the Philosophumena, by Miller (1851), gave rise to a prolonged discussion, in which many Catholics sought to weaken the testimony of the author, whilst Protes- translator's preface. ix tant writers endeavoured to use his authority for the purpose of throwing discredit on the Church of Rome. In answer to both parties, especially to Gieseler, Baur, Bunsen, Wordsworth, and Le Normant, Dr. Dollinger published, in 1853, Hippolytus and Callistus, the Roman Church in the Third Century, perhaps of all his writings the one in which his ingenuity of combination, his skill as a logician, and his lofty tone in handling the interests of his Church [the Dublin Review misquotes ' the Church ' ], are most conspicuous." On this innocent passage the Review comments in these words : " Who would not suppose from this passage that Dr. Dollinger answered 'the Catholics who sought to weaken the testimony of the author,' by showing that his testimony was worthy of credit ? [Why so ? any more than that he answered the Pro testants 'who endeavoured to use his authority for the purpose of throwing discredit on the Church of Rome ? ' It is said that' he answered both parties, and of the names given the majority are those of anti- Romanists ! ] Who could for a moment guess that Dr. Dollinger himself not only weakens, but annihilates the witness of Hippolytus; and that his only difference from Le Normant is, that that writer declares for Origen, while he himself considers Hippolytus to be the author? . . . But perhaps Mr. Plummer, though suppressing the truth about the Munich divine,- is himself worthy of being considered an independent authority. . . . We hardly think so," etc. etc. The subject of all this invective knows no better way of answering the above accusation than by doing his utmost to let English readers know exactly what Dr. Dollinger does and does not say "in answer to both parties." He concludes by quoting with pleasure one more passage from the Dublin Review in reference to this work of Dr. Dollinger's : " We have always considered X TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. this book his chef-d'oeuvre. He puts Hippolytus into the witness-box, and analyses his evidence as the Attorney- General tore the Claimant to pieces. In doing so he has displayed an acuteness and a know ledge of Roman law, as well as of ecclesiastical history, which are admirable." It is refreshing to hear from such a quarter that a knowledge of ecclesiastical history is an admirable thing, and still more that Dr. Dollinger posseses it. It only remains to apologize for having allowed such a volume to remain untranslated so long. This is a fault which others must share with the present writer. As far as his wishes are concerned, this volume would have appeared some years ago ; but press of other work and occupations has prevented him from fulfilling them. A. P. Durham, September 1876. PREFACE. Immediately after the appearance of the Philoso- phumena, I determined on the publication of this treatise ; but I delayed going to press until the work of Herr Bunsen (which had been announced so long and so frequently beforehand) had appeared. My hopes of gaining any information and assistance from a work which treated of the same subject in such de tail were then entirely dispelled ; for the investigation of what was to me the main question, viz. the person ality of Hippolytus and the historical contents of his narrative, was conducted in the work of Herr Bunsen (as I soon saw) in such a way as to make it impossible for me to derive the slightest advantage from it. These historical questions are generally of secondary import ance with him, the main interest of the work for the author as well as for the public lying in those much more extensive portions in which he gives expression to his long-cherished dislike of the Christian Church, its doctrine and constitution, as well as of the remnants of the primitive Church still preserved in Protestantism; and in which he has found place and opportunity for the commendation of his Church of the Future, now ready on paper, and to be established in fact very shortly. I have, therefore, subjected only two sec tions of the first volume of Bunsen's work to a more thorough criticism, convinced that the readers who follow me so far will not desire a critical investigation Xll PREFACE. of the rest of the store supplied by him. In fact, the significance of the book may at once be seen by the experienced in the reception which it has found in England and Germany, and which has been totally different in the two countries. In England, where people are still wont-to deal seriously, at least, with some of the first principles of Christianity, the public voice has made itself heard almost exclusively in in dignant condemnation. Only the Westminster Review (April 1853) and a couple of kindred periodicals have bestowed a compliment upon the author, which in the eyes of religiously-minded Englishmen is equivalent to the severest condemnation. In Germany, on the other hand, in accordance with the well-known character of our daily press, all the leaves of the great market, as if moved by one and the same wind, have rustled in joyful applause, and only the specially theological ones have mingled with this exultation a few drops of objection to details. When this treatise was already kmore than half printed, I received the work of Dr. Wordsworth, and then also the discussions of H. H. Baur and Gieseler. Whereupon I found myself compelled to mention again and go into at greater length some portions of what had already been discussed in the two first sections of this treatise. The reader will, I trust, kindly excuse the disarrangement which has thereby resulted as regards the division of the subject-matter, and also one or two unavoidable repetitions. Munich, September 14, 1853. INTRODUCTION. The Elenchus Hceresium or Philosophumena, the subject- matter of which is critically examined in the Hippolytus and Callistus, was discovered entire, with the exception of Book L, in a ms. brought from Mount Athos by Minoides Mynas in 1842. This Greek gentleman was acting for M. Villemain, Louis Philippe's Minister of Public Instruction, and under his direction was search ing for ancient documents. It is generally allowed that the first editor, Miller, was mistaken in ascribing the work to Origen, although right in supposing that it was a continuation of the Philosophumena contained in the Benedictine edition of Origen's Works. Two arguments (by no means the only ones) are sufficient to show this : (1) The author of the Philosophumena was a Bishop ; in the Prooemium he says : " But we, as the successors of the Apostles and the participators in this grace of Highpriesthood and office of teaching, as well as being reputed guardians of the Church," etc. etc. (2) In the Philosophumena there is no reference to any of Origen's. numerous works, nor in any of his works is there any reference to the Philosophumena. The first of these arguments is also fatal to the theory that Caius is the author. It is surprising that any one should have ascribed a work written in Rome at that time to Tertullian ; the language alone is sufficient disproof of such an hypothesis. Most scholars are now agreed that Hippolytus is the XIV INTRODUCTION. author. The list of those who support this view con tains the names of Dollinger, Duncker, Schneidewin, Jacobi, Gieseler, Bunsen, Bernays, Milman, Robertson, and Wordsworth. We may, therefore, without rash ness, assume the point to be virtually settled. One voice worthy of attention is still, however, raised against this conclusion. Dr. Newman, in his Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical (p. 222), regards it as "simply incredible " that the author of that " malignant libel on his contemporary Popes " can be Hippolytus. He considers the attack on Zephyrinus and Callistus wholly incompatible with "the gravity of tone in what remains to us of his writings, and mainly indeed in the Elenchus itself," and also with the respect paid to his memory by " Popes of the fourth, fifth, and seventh centuries." 1 This objection, even if allowed to be con clusive, would affect, and perhaps is intended to affect, only Book IX., and not the whole of that. But it would be difficult to separate Book IX. or any portion of it from the rest ; all the more so, inasmuch as the charge of heresy against Callistus reappears in the summary contained in Book X., and in much the same position, viz. between the account of the Montanists and that of the Elchasaites. We assume, therefore, as all but certain, that the whole proceeds from one pen, and that the pen of the Anti-Pope Hippolytus. Anti-Pope may seem a strong term to use of this celebrated Ante-Nicene theologian. Dr. Newman is disposed to place him second to none in the West during that period, except his master, S. Irenseus. " At present," he says, " we have little more than frag ments of his writings; and it is a mystery how Origen's works have come down to us, who has been ever in the shade, and not Hippolytus', who has ever been in the brightest light of ecclesiastical approbation." 1 The whole passage will be found in Appendix B. INTRODUCTION. xv Possibly the intrinsic merit of the writings themselves may have had something to do with this, and also the comparative fame of the two men in the East. Be this as it may, and granting that the abilities and merits of Hippolytus were as great as many of his contemporaries and successors believed them to be, yet if the ninth book of the Elenchus be his, it is clear that he, and not Novatian, must be considered the first forerunner of that long line of Anti-Popes which begins with Felix n. and ends with Felix v. (see pp. 92, 93.) Callistus, the victim of his bitter invective, may, on the other hand, be regarded as the forerunner of those liberal-minded and reforming Popes who have ever met with opposition, and have generally been thwarted. There is no long line of them. It would be hard to point to one in a century, or perhaps even one in alternate centuries ; and, so far as the present prospect reveals the chances of the future to us, there is no probability of any such Pope in this century. He would be a bold prophet who ventured to point to a future reformer in the present College of Cardinals. It has lately been remarked, with regard to reform in the Latin Church, that when the members wished for it the head would not have it, and when the head wished for it the members would not have it. The history of the Papacy during the last eight hundred years is one long commentary on the mournful remark. The work which is the subject of this volume shows that a reforming Bishop of Rome, even in the earlier part of the third century, could not carry out generous changes which the development of Christian society had rendered desirable, or even imperative, without encountering the bitterest opposition. Hippolytus appears to have been one of those persons, very common at the present time, and perhaps at all times, in whose eyes all change is almost necessarily for XVI INTRODUCTION. the worse, — who are victims to the fallacy latent in the term "innovation," and with whom liberalism and heresy are convertible terms. In ecclesiastical matters, it requires a calmer and clearer judgment than he seems to have possessed to recognise the important truth that " a past discipline may be a present heresy." But, in following Dr. Dollinger as he tears to shreds the evidence of Hippolytus against Callistus, we may easily be led to adopt either or both of two conclusions, neither of which necessarily follows from the evidence, and to neither of which Dr. Dollinger himself leads us. 1. Unless the words are used in a very qualified sense, it seems hard on Hippolytus to call him the author of a "malignant libel." The charges against Zephyrinus and Callistus are made with a great deal of animus, no doubt, and, though true in the letter, are often quite false in the meaning conveyed. But still there is no need to tax the author with consciously writing what he knew to be utterly untrue statements about others. It is a question of pyschology. What are the limits of the influence of bias ? To what extent can a man's mind be warped by a strong prejudice? At what point are we justified in saying, "This cannot be blind partiality; it is conscious dishonesty"? Charity and experience alike tell us that it is wise to regard prejudice as practically unlimited, and that there is scarcely any unfairness, whether of reasoning or conduct, which is impossible to an otherwise honest and upright bigot.1 2. It does not follow, because Hippolytus is grossly unfair in his charges, and some of them refer to matters worthy of praise rather than blame, that the 1 " Without doubt Hippolytus had not the conscious intention of slander ing Callistus ; he did not invent the transactions and fate of this remark able man " (p. 108). INTRODUCTION. Xvii conduct of Callistus was quite irreproachable, that there was not the faintest reason for taxing him with anything that will not bear close inspection. It would have been almost a miracle had his method of carrying on the contest with his implacable opponents been always blameless. Callistus had been a slave ; and we know a great deal about the moral corruption which was the all but inevitable accompaniment of slavery in Rome. If there is one vice which slavery fosters more than another, it is deceit : falsehood and cunning are the slave's natural weapons. Few habits are more difficult to conquer than habits of untruthfulness ; few habits are more difficult to regain than those of perfect straightforwardness. We shall probably not be very wrong in supposing that the passionate abuse which Hippolytus pours upon the cunning and double-dealing of his opponent is not without some faint shadow of reason. It may well have been the case that Callistus, although chastened by suffering and sanctified by his high calling, still retained in his character some slight reminiscences of the " evil communications " of his earlier life, in a tendency to sharp practice, in a love of strategy, in a preference for concealment where openness would have been quite as effectual. Still, it is only fair to him to remember that we have merely his adversary's account of him, and that much of what Hippolytus tells us must have been obtained by him at second hand. But, whatever view we may take of his character, — whether with the Roman Church we account him a saint, or with Dean Milman a crafty adventurer, there can be no doubt that he was a very remarkable man. His rise from utter obscurity to the chair of S. Peter, his influence over his predecessor Zephyrinus, the success with which he carried through his reforms in spite of the unflinching opposition of the leading theologian in the West, all prove this. b XV1U INTRODUCTION. And the light which the history of this brief but serious schism in the Church of Rome throws upon the development of the Christian Church in the West in the earlier part of the third century is such as the student of ecclesiastical history can ill spare.1 1 Some weeks after the above had been written, I came upon the following passage in the late Bishop Haneberg's edition of the Canons of Hippolytus (Canones S. Hippolyti Arabice e codicibus Romanis cum versione Latino, annotationibus et prolegominis, edidit D. B. de Haneberg, Monachii. 1870, p. 25) : Accidit, quod quamquam morum severitate seque ac doctrina excel- leret, tamen post mortem Zephyrini papas ab ambitione non alienus mansisse videtur. Ex eo libro philosophumenorum, qui ante paucos annos detectus, ipsi Hippolyto a plurimis, Usque gravissimis scriptoribus tribuitur, effici posse videtur, Hippolytum fuisse semulum S. Callisti et primum Antipapam egisse. Cujus dissidii reus, quamquam martyrio maculam diluerit, quomodo apud Romanos minus sestimatus sit, quam apud Orientales, quilibet videre potest. The extreme rigorist spirit of these canons, surpassing that of the most severe among the Fathers, agrees very well with what we know of Hip polytus ; but certain evidence as to the authorship is wanting. Dr. Haneberg seems to think that the 7th canon, discouraging a celibate clergy, is inconsistent with Hippolytus' attack on Callistus for ordaining digamists. But surely one may, without absurdity, hold that it is best for a cleric to be "the husband of one wife," and yet object to the ordination of a man who has been the husband of two. (See North British Review, No. ciii. p. 225.) TABLE OE CONTENTS. CHAPTER I.' HIPPOLYTUS AND THE PHILOSOPHUMENA. The author of the Philosophumena not Caius, but Hippolytus, The Labyrinth and the treatise on the Universe also by him, The Syntagma in Photius not identical with the Philosophumena, Herr Bunsen's reasons for believing the two to be identical, Order and number of heresies in each, . Contents and sources of each, .... The quotations from the Syntagma, The Libellus appended to TertuUian's De Przescriptione Hseret. Relation of the Syntagma to the Philosophumena, On some lost writings of Hippolytus, . The statue of him found in Rome, PAGE 2 37 11 1518 202223 CHAPTER II. THE HISTORY OF HIPPOLYTUS. THE SAINTS OF THE SAME NAME. Hippolytus and Pontianus, Another Hippolytus in the legend of S. Lawrence, Development of this new legend, The S. Hippolytus of the East and of the West not the Churches dedicated to S. Hippolytus, . The development of the legend of S. Lawrence, Hippolytus frequently represented in pictures at Rome, Another Hippolytus from the Acts of S. Aurea, Confusion with a Bishop Nonnus, Point of connection with the Chronographer of 354, The various texts of the legend of S. Aurea, same, 28 29 81 3333363839 40 43 43 XX CONTENTS. PAGE 48 A third Hippolytus, . . . • • • • The supposed Presbyter Hippolytus at Antioch, • • .48 The Hippolytus of Prudentius, . . • • ¦ .51 The small value of the statements of Prudentius generally, . • 52 The mode of death which he assigns to his Hippolytus, • • 54 Probable source of his statement that Hippolytus had been a Nova- tianist, . . . • • • ". . ' The mode of death probably taken from a picture in the vicinity of the Church of S. Lawrence, . • • • -58 Other features in Prudentius' description, . • • .60 What is historical in his account, . . ¦ -62 Is the first part of the list of Popes in the Chronographer taken from the Chronicle of Hippolytus ? . . • • .63 The notice in the second part respecting the banishment of Pontianus and Hippolytus, . . • • ¦ ¦ -64 Probable cause of this exile, . . ¦ • • .65 The resignation of Pontianus, . . . . . .67 Was Hippolytus Bishop of Portus? . . . ¦ .68 Modern opinions on this point, . . . . .69 Portus neither a town nor an episcopal See before 313, . . 72 No Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus, known in the West till the Middle Ages, . . . . . . . .75 Eusebius, Theodoret, and Jerome are against it, . . . 77 Herr Bunsen's reasons for making Hippolytus Bishop of Portus, . 78 The testimony of Pope Gelasius, . . . . .82 The Oriental tradition that Hippolytus was Bishop of Rome, . . 84 Explanation of this, . . . . . . .87 The statement that he was Bishop of Portus comes from the spurious Acts of S. Aurea, . . . . . . .88 And is only to be found in Constantinople, . . . .89 The episcopate of Hippolytus in Rome made plain by the narrative in the Philosophumena, . . . . . .92 Herr Bunsen's hypothesis that Hippolytus was at once Presbyter in Rome and Bishop in Portus, . . . . .97 The position of the suburban Bishops in Rome, . . . 100 CHAPTER III. THE HISTORY OF CALLISTUS. THE CHARGES OF HIPPOLYTUS AGAINST HIM. Morretti's book, De S. Callisto Papa, etc., . . 107 The narrative of Hippolytus, .... 10g Callistus banished ; examination of his supposed guilt 111 His return ; his relation to Zephyrinus and the Roman clergy 112 He is made Bishop, ¦ • ¦ . . 115 The specific charges : 1. General forgiveness of sins, . HQ CONTENTS. XXI Discipline under Zephyrinus, . , Further relaxation allowed by Callistus, 2. Reception of excommunicated persons, 3. Protection of immoral Bishops, 4. Ordination of digamists, Agreement with a statement of Tertullian, History of this irregularity, Theodore of Mopsuestia attacks the custom prevalent in the East, 5. Allowing clergy to marry, The marriage of the lower clergy, Difference between allowing a cleric to continue in the service of the Church and to continue one of the clergy, The sectarian rigorism of Hippolytus, ..... 6. Allowing ladies to marry with the lower orders or with slaves, ....... The charge which Hippolytus appends to this last, Theory and practice with regard to marriage in Rome, No state official needed in contracting a marriage, Marriages forbidden on account of inequality of rank, . Position of the Church with regard to the Roman marriage-laws, Morality in Rome at this time, ..... Groundlessness of the complaint of Hippolytus, Marriage with slaves, ....... Attitude of the Church towards slavery, . . . • The condition of slaves improved by the Church, Roman Law on the marriage of free women with slaves, The action of Callistus in this matter, ..... Impossibility of finding Christian husbands of rank or position, Hippolytus' remarks on the consequences of the marriages allowed by Callistus, .... The case of the Empress Marcia, 7. Countenancing second baptism, The synod under Agrippinus, . The synod at Synnada, . Drey's arguments in favour of Cyprian's theory of baptism Parallel between the charges against Callistus and those against Paul of Antioch, ...•••• PAGE 117120122 124 129 132133 136139 140144 146147148152 153154 156 158 160 163164166168 169 171 172 173175176 177 178 180 CHAPTER IV. CONTROVERSY BETWEEN HIPPOLYTUS AND CALLISTUS RESPECTING THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. The heresy of Noetus, . Sabellius, .... His doctrine identical with that of Noetus, . 183 . 184 . 187 XXII CONTENTS. The school of the Patripassians in Rome, The doctrine of Hippolytus, The development of the Logos according to him, His doctrine respecting the Holy Spirit, The stumbling-block in his doctrine, His connection with Philo, The production of the Logos by an act of the Divine Will, The relation of Marcellus of Ancyra to the doctrine of Hippolyti Hippolytus accused of Valentinianism, The progress of the controversy in Rome, Relation between Callistus and Zephyrinus, The position of Callistus between Hippolytus and the Noetians. He accuses the party of Hippolytus of Ditheism, The formal separation, . The majority of Churches for Callistus, Sabellius turns against Callistus, The doctrine of Callistus as misrepresented by Hippolytus, The true doctrine of Callistus, ... A sixth-century account of the feud of Hippolytus with Callistus, Who was Victorinus ? . Probable conclusion of the schism under Pope Pontianus, Festival of Pontianus and of Hippolytus on the same day, The memory of Callistus in the Roman Church, The Callistians, ..... The relation of Origen to Hippolytus and the Roman Church, Origen's doctrine respecting the Trinity, Synod at Rome against him, .... Not only Demetrius, but even Heraclas, opposed him, . Fragment in Photius on the question, . PAGE . 188 . 191 . 191 . 193 . 194 196 . 197 . 201 . 202 . 204 . 205 . 206 . 210 . 212 . 213 . 214 . 215 . 219 . 227 . 229 . 231 . 232 . 234 . 234 . 235 . 238 . 240 . 241 . 244 CHAPTER V. THE LATEST INVESTIGATIONS RESPECTING THE BOOK AND ITS CONTENTS. M. le Normant for the authorship of Origen, .... 249 Herr Baur for Caius, ....... 250 The Labyrinth : Was Caius its author ? .... 251 Herr Baur's hypothesis that Theodoret quoted the Philosophumena as a work of Origen, . ..... 253 Herr Gieseler on Hippolytus : Was he ever a Novatianist ? and is he identical with the Hippolytus of Prudentius? . . .256 Was Hippolytus a disciple of S. Irenseus ? 259 The fable of his journey to the East, ..... 260 Herr Gieseler's view of the Trinitarian controversies in Rome, . 263 That Sabellianism was formerly universally prevalent, . . 265 That the Catholics opposed the notion of a Divine Generation 266 CHAPTER VI. EXAMINATION OF CERTAIN POINTS IN HIPPOLYTUS' FORM OF DOCTRINE. 313 XXIV CONTENTS. PAGE Appendix A. — Dr. Salmon on the chronology of Hippolytus, . . 333 Appendix B. — Dr. Newman on the author of the Philosophumena, . 340 Appendix C. — The poem of Prudentius on the martyrdom of Hip polytus, ...... 344 Appendix D. — One more theory about the Bishopric of Hippolytus, . 352 Appendix E. — One more theory about the authorship of the Philoso phumena, ...... 354 Appendix F. — Dr. Caspari's contributions to the subject, . . 355 HIPPOLYTUS AND CALLISTUS. CHAPTER I. HIPPOLYTUS AND THE PHILOSOPHUMENA. That the celebrated Father of the Church, Hippolytus, is the author of the newly-discovered work on heresies, has been the simultaneous and independent opinion expressed by the majority of those who have investi gated the question. Origen did not write it. This is so clear, and has been so convincingly proved, that we need not detain ourselves long with the question. The single circum stance, that the author attributes to himself the ecclesiastical dignity of the apxiepdreia, is at once decisive against the Alexandrines. Four facts are evident from the book itself: — 1. That it is the work of a man of rare culture, and of very varied and com prehensive information ; 2. That he composed other treatises ; 3. That he lived in the first part of the third century ; 4. That he lived in Rome. That he was eminent among the small number of Christian writers of that time, is manifest ; that he should have remained unmentioned, and above all, should have escaped the observation of Eusebius, of Jerome, and of the other writers on heresy, is inconceivable. The work is too full of material, and was too important and serviceable to the Church of that age, to have remained entirely concealed, and yet to have been able to survive to our 2 HIPPOLYTUS AND CALLISTUS. time. Accordingly, the circle of names in which we have to look for the author becomes very small at the first glance. Clement of Alexandria is, in style and mode of thought, altogether different ; Julius Africanus was a mere chronographer ; of Alexander of Jerusalem we possess only a few letters ; Apollonius wrote only against the Montanists ; and the Presbyter of Antioch, Geminus or G-eminianus, whom no one mentions but Jerome, has left nothing of importance. It results, then, that there are only three names between which we have to decide, — Rhodon, Caius, and Hippolytus. On behalf of Rhodon it may be said, that he lived in Rome ; but of his writings -only those directed against Marcion and Apelles are mentioned ; and as he was a pupil of Tatian and a contemporary of Apelles, he belongs to an earlier period. He must have lived at the end of the second century, under Commodus and Severus, whereas the author of the Philosophumena reached the reign of the Emperor Alexander, and (most probably) outlived it. The reasons which forbid us to attribute the work to Caius,1 otherwise known to us as the author of a disputation with the Montanist Proclus, have been already well put forth by Herr Jacobi. What we know of the views of Caius respecting Montanism, Chiliasm, the Apocalypse, and Cerinthus, is utterly inconsistent with the expressions and mode of thought which appear in the Philosophumena; only in the opinion that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not by S. Paul do the two appear to agree. On the whole, however, the notices of Caius current up to this date require correc tion, and this will at the same time throw some light on the author of the Philosophumena. At the outset, it is astonishing that the more ancient 1 [Canon Robertson seems disposed to doubt the very existence of Caius. History of the Christian Church, vol. i. p. 120, 2d ed.] HIPPOLYTUS AND THE PHILOSOPHUMENA. 3 Fathers who mention Caius, and had his writings before them, say nothing about his having been a Presbyter in Rome. Eusebius, Jerome, Theodoret, especially the two first, appear not to have known to what Church he belonged, nor whether he was a cleric or a layman ; Eusebius designates him merely as iKKkijai- ao-Tiicbs avrjp. The dialogue with the Montanist Proclus, which Eusebius had before him, was held in Rome ; but it by no means follows from that, that the author was one of the Roman clergy, or even that he always belonged to that Church only. In Rome itself no trace of him has come down to us ; not one of the Latin Fathers mentions him ; Jerome himself took his notice of him merely from Eusebius, and at any rate knows no other writing of Caius, except the dialogue with Proclus. Photius, however, knew that Caius composed yet another treatise, — a refutation of Ar- temon. He distinguishes this expressly from the so- called Labyrinth, which was likewise directed against Artemon (and Theodotus), from which Eusebius and Theodoret have given some quotations. Eusebius, who cites this treatise merely as directed against the heresy of Artemon, remarks that it was anonymous, as also does Theodoret, who first gives its title, The Little Labyrinth, and mentions the circumstance that it was attributed by some to Origen, although his style is altogether different. It is from Photius that we first learn that Caius also was believed to be the author, — an opinion in which Photius himself concurs. He found, that is to say, in the treatise On the Nature of the Universe, a gloss or .marginal note by some one unknown, accord ing to which a Presbyter living in Rome of the name of Caius composed it. At the end of the Labyrinth, however, was a note stating that the author of this treatise was also the writer of the one on the Universe. He concluded, therefore, that both belonged to Caius, HIPPOLYTUS AND CALLISTUS. yet in such a way that, though he deliberately attri butes the authorship of the Labyrinth to him, yet with regard to the treatise on the Universe he expresses himself again very doubtfully. Photius then mentions the further theory, probably contained in the very note (ivn-apaypatpai'i) cited by himself, that the author of this treatise was a Presbyter in Rome, and Bishop-of-the- heathen or the-nations. Such a bishop, without either a definite see or diocese, would, however, at that time have been something otherwise unheard of, a awa^ \ey6p,evov. In the first three centuries we meet with no instance of a man being ordained with an indefinite mission, without a bishopric : the case of Pantasnus has been appealed to, but it is nowhere asserted of him that he was ordained bishop. Accordingly, Fabricius x proposed long ago to read 'Adrjvoov instead of effvcov in Photius ; but, besides the arbitrariness of the emendation, it would then be difficult to explain how this bishop of one of the most famous Churches could have remained unknown to Eusebius and the rest of the Greek Fathers after him. But all these difficulties fall away so soon as we suppose that the author of the Labyrinth was either designated Presbyter and Bishop-of-the-heathen in Rome by a pupil or follower, or else assumed this title himself. As the ' subject under discussion was a heresy which arose and spread in Rome, and the author also (as we see from the fragments preserved in Eusebius) cited remarkable facts bearing upon the new sect there, an opportunity was brought very close for mentioning his own position in Rome ; and in the case of his really having one, his being silent about the circumstance would be much more to be wondered at. But that the designation, Presbyter and Bishop (of Rome), contains noncontra diction, will be admitted without hesitation by any one 1 Biblioth. Griec. v. p. 267. HIPPOLYTUS AND THE PHILOSOPHUMENA. 5 who notices that the author of the Philosophumena cites Irenaeus as 6 p,a>cdpio<; Trpeo-fivTepoi, whereby he certainly did not bring the episcopal dignity of that Father into doubt. The treatise On the Nature of the Universe is a work of Hippolytus ; of this fact the inscription on the statue at Rome leaves no doubt. As, then, the author of the Labyrinth, as well as the author of the Philoso phumena, . confesses to the treatise on the Universe, the easiest and simplest conclusion is, that these three books are by the hand of one and the same writer, viz. Hippolytus. Routh1 has already recognised this as regards the Labyrinth. But when Herr Jacobi2 thinks that the identity of the work cited by Photius, under the title of the Labyrinth, with the Philosophumena, is clear beyond a doubt, because in the latter also the author cites his book on the Universe, and that Photius was led to the delusion that the Labyrinth in Theodoret was the same work on heresies which he had before him, merely by the expression " labyrinth of heresies " used there once quite casually, — we have nothing but an entirely groundless suppo sition, and Herr Jacobi credits Photius with a want of critical power and a degree of carelessness which would almost border on utter blindness. For, first : What is more natural than that a man should cite a treatise written by himself in two different works published later ? Secondly: Photius must have seen as well as we do that the Labyrinth was directed against a single erroneous doctrine only; whereas in the Philosophu mena (if he knew the work) thirty heresies are handled. Further: must not Photius have been aware that the history of Natalis, which Theodoret 1 Reliquise Sacrx, ii. p. 19. 2 Deutsche Zeitschrift fiir Christliche Wissenschaft,- 1851, p. 205. 6 HIPPOLYTUS AND CALLISTUS. quotes from the Labyrinth, is not to be found in the Philosophumena ? Professor Hergenrother * thinks, on the other hand, that the Labyrinth can scarcely be attributed to the author of the Philosophumena, if the a-7rovBao-p,a against Artemon (cited by Eusebius) is identical with it. He mentions as reasons, first, the difference of style. But the scanty fragments of the Labyrinth or of the airovSaafia preserved in Eusebius manifestly exhibit no dissimi larity, — none at least great enough to compel us to suppose a separate author for each of the two treatises. When he further says, "The views about penance deducible from the history of the Confessor Natalis cannot easily be brought into harmony with what, according to the ninth book of the Philosophumena, was the conviction of the author," we may remark, on the other hand, that the narrator expresses no view of his own respecting penance, but merely relates a fact which does not concern him further. Just as little can one allow special weight to his third reason : " The author of our work could scarcely have allowed himself to contradict the theory, that since the times of Zephyri- nus the truth had been falsified in the Church, seeing that he himself makes Zephyrinus speak heretically, although, according to him, an unresisting tool in the hands of the crafty Callistus." But, in the first place, the question under discussion was one on which Zephyrinus and the author of the Philosophumena were agreed, viz. the Divinity of Christ; and, secondly, it is not Zephyrinus, but his predecessor Victor, whom the writer of the Labyrinth defends against the sus picions of the Theodotians. We may then, I believe, assume as a certain result that the three treatises, the Philosophumena, the Labyrinth, and the discussion On the Nature of the Universe have 1 Tubing. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1852, p. 423. HIPPOLYTUS AND THE PHILOSOPHUMENA. 7 one and the same author, and that that author is Hippolytus. But Photius has already briefly described to us a treatise of Hippolytus on heresies ; and hence the thought at Once arises, that this ainrrarfpa Kara alpecreav in Photius is none other than our work. This is also the opinion of Professor Hergenrother. Herr Jacobi, on the other hand, has endeavoured with weighty reasons to show that this is not the case. Herr Bunsen, however, has not allowed Jacobi's reasons, which were already before him, to withhold him from undertaking to prove that our newly-discovered work is nevertheless no other than the one in Photius, and we will follow his reasons step by step. We have, one may say, a double interest in this : first, to arrive at the truth ; secondly, to see in this very first question what in fact is the nature of Herr Bunsen's historical criticism, respecting the sure and irrefragably certain progress of which, and its exceedingly correct results, he himself has repeatedly aroused the highest expec tations. The question then is, Can the features of the treatise of Hippolytus noticed by Photius be recognised in the Philosophumena ? In the first place, Photius designates the treatise read by him as a pamphlet of small dimensions (/3t/3?u- Bdpiov), whereas the work which we now possess is of very considerable dimensions, and certainly does not merit that diminutive designation. Herr Bunsen main tains (p. 20) that " Photius uses the same word for a manuscript that at least contained the two letters of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians and the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, which together would make up a book fully equal to this second part of the work of Hippolytus." An incomprehensible statement. One has only to count the number of words on each 8 HIPPOLYTUS AND CALLISTUS. side to arrive at the result that the contents of the second part of the Philosophumena (from the fourth book onwards) are nearly four times as great as those of the letters of Clement and Polycarp. Herr Bunsen then maintains further (p. 22) : " The remaining portion of the notice given by Photius is sufficiently definite and exact to prove that we have the work before us ;" and as the three leading points of his proof, he urges that — (1.) The author of the Philosophumena follows the order indicated by Photius ; he begins with the Dosi- theans and ends with the Noetians. (2.) The work, like that read by Photius, contains the enumeration and refutation of exactly two-and- thirty heresies. (3.) According to Photius' account, the author describes his work as being based upon that of Irenaeus, and in fact whole articles are copied from Irenaeus. Every one of these three statements is incorrect. (la) The book does not begin with the Dositheans, but with the Naassens, Peratics, and Sethians ; the Dositheans are not mentioned at all. This manifest discrepancy with Photius' account would have seemed to any one else insoluble, but Herr Bunsen knows how to help himself. "Photius," he says (p. 22), "expresses himself but inexactly; instead of calling them (the original sect of the Judaising Christians) Ophites, as he might have done, or Naassens, which is the same thing, or Justinians, he designates them as Dositheans, a sect which in our book is not mentioned at all; nevertheless, that name designates just this earliest Jewish school." I really wish that the German language was as rich in softer periphrases and syno nyms for the blunt expressions, untruth, distortions, inventions, as the Arabic is in synonyms for "camel-" for almost at every step I am compelled to contradict HIPPOLYTUS AND THE PHILOSOPHUMENA. 9 Herr Bunsen, and that in things which lie open on the surface, or can be very easily ascertained. The Dosi theans were a Samaritan sect, and therefore, in the first place, not a Judaic-cabalistic sect, but rather the con trary, for they rejected the Jewish prophets and denied the existence of good and bad angels ; secondly, the Dositheans had nothing in common with the Gnostic Naassens and Ophites, respecting the latter of whom Herr Bunsen himself maintains later on (p. 30) that the place of their origin was unmistakably Phrygia. It is therefore not at all easy to see how Photius was to arrive at putting the Dositheans in place of the Naassens. No doubt there is a small treatise in which the Dositheans head the list of sects enumerated ; it is the one which is printed as an appendix to TertuUian's De Prosscriptione Hoeret Herr Bunsen knew of this. He says (p. 22) : " The author Of the appendix begins the list of heretics with Dositheus, which is incorrect, for Dositheus was not a Christian at all, but lived before Christ, and founded a mystic sect among the Samaritans." And (p. 89) : " There is also an allusion to them (the Dositheans) as representatives of the oldest class of heretics, in the discussion appended to the treatise of Tertullian." Now, the author of the appendix distinguishes expressly between the ho3retici judaismi, the praechristian sects, among whom he reckons Dositheus, the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Herodians, and the hceretici ex evangelio, of whom Simon Magus was the first ; moreover, there is not a syllable to be found in it from which one can draw the con clusion that the Dositheans must have been accounted by the author as representatives of the oldest class of heretics, viz. the Jewish Gnostics. All that has been put into him by Herr Bunsen, and the most favourable supposition with regard to the latter, is that he had 10 HIPPOLYTUS AND CALLISTUS. never looked at the appendix to Tertullian, but had only a quotation before him when he wrote this. (1/3) It is not true that, as Herr Bunsen states, in the Philosophumena the Noetian s are cited as the last heresy. The book ends with the Essenes, Pharisees, and Sadducees, or, if only Christian sects are to be reckoned, with the Elchasaites. Herr Bunsen (p. 88) himself counts the Elchasaites as the thirty-second and last heresy. Yet, in order somehow or other to save his statement that Photius' account is here confirmed, he says (p. 90) : " Our author unmistakably treats the Elchasaite heresy, which, according to our method of counting the articles in the work, is the thirty-second, as a short appendage to the Noetian school. In fact, Alcibiades of Apamea, who taught that heresy in the episcopate, and (so to speak) under the protection of Callistus, was closely connected with the Noetian school." Here, again, there is not one word of truth. The doctrine of Noetus and that of Alcibiades, the founder of the Elchasaite sect, have nothing in com mon with one another. The latter proclaimed a new revelation and a second baptism ; and the connection into which Hippolytus 1 brings Alcibiades, not with Noetus but with Callistus, consists merely in this, that the lax discipline introduced by Callistus, and the praise with which it was received, seem to have in spired Alcibiades with the notion of coming forward in Rome also with his new baptism as an easy forgiver of sins. Of any protection by Callistus, under which Alci biades taught at Rome, there is not a word anywhere. (2.) It is equally incorrect to say that the author of the Philosophumena enumerates thirty-two heresies, as according to Photius' account was the case in the Syntagma; there are only thirty, and Herr Bunsen, in order to make up the number, is obliged quite arbi- 1 Philosophumena, p. 293. HIPPOLYTUS AND THE PHILOSOPHUMENA. 11 trarily to insert Colarbasus, who does not occur in the book.1 He who finds it quite natural that Photius should call the Philosophumena a small pamphlet, goes on, nevertheless, to assume that there are omissions and abbreviations in the text as we have it ; so that Photius must have had a still more complete text than the one which we possess, and ours can be only an abstract from it. That a description of the strange doctrine of Colarbasus existed in the work, but is now missing, is deliberately maintained by Herr Bunsen. "Not only," he says (p. 54), "does the table of contents prefixed to our sixth chapter, as to all others, mention Colarbasus next to Marcus as a subject of the fifth chapter, but our author also himself concludes the book with these words: 'I believe that I have now adequately stated their miserable doctrines, and clearly pointed them out whose disciples they actually were, Marcus as well as Colarbasus, the adherents to the Valentinian doctrine.'2 Now, according to our text, Hippolytus does not say a word about Colarbasus. And we can not suppose that he meant to say that these two had 1 Even with Colarbasus there are only thirty-one. Herr B. gets the still missing one by translating the words (Philos. p. 198): "AAAo? oi ti; imtpduns lioi.ax.a.'hoc aurav, " Epiphanes, another teacher of theirs." Hippolytus has here borrowed from Irenseus (i. 5, sec. 2), whose ancient translator, as well as Tertullian, took the word !*r/